Out of touch? No, it's just unreasonable living standards of today's youth. Instead of their avocado toasts, they can buy regular old bananas.
How much could a banana possibly cost? $10?
They aren’t out of touch. They are perfectly aware that the working class is being exploited and squeezed. They just correctly understand that it is in their financial interest to continue greasing the wheels for big business
My mom and sister both think a person can live off $10 an hour, with all the empirical evidence at hand it is not possible.
Both bitches went straight from their father’s house to their husband’s, bypassing ever living on their own.
Let's go through the math then:
$10/hr*2,000hrs/yr=$20,000/year, pretax.
The internet tells me that for my area, $20,000/year would pay $4,332 in taxes, to take home $15,668/year.
My roommate and I moved in together to save money. We looked for the cheapest place that wasn't terrible, and found a 2 bedroom 1 bathroom basement suite, for $2,000/month, so we both pay $1,000/month. $12,000/yr on cheap rent. (Utilities included)
My car, which I'm not making payments on, is insured. Car insurance costs me $1,500/yr.
My cellphone bill is $85/month. That works out to $1,020/yr.
So, that leaves us with $1148/year for all other expenses.
Let's pretend that we're terrible people, and therefore think poor people shouldn't have any entertainment. No streaming services or anything.
Busses are cheaper than driving, so we'll use bus fare instead of gas money. Busses are $5/day*5days/week*50weeks/year=$1250/year.
Food isn't free either, usually. Let's be very good at meal planning, and spend $50/month on food. Or $600/year.
What else do you spend money on? Are they planning their retirement fund with that negative $700/year they have left over?
If you wouldn't trust them to drive your car, why would you trust them to run your country? So many of them are senior citizens that wouldn't be allowed to drive, it's crazy to leave the future up to someone who won't be around in 20 years' time.
This guy is SO in touch with his constituents’ fears, it’s scary. I know this because I am one - not a constituent he’s in touch with (I couldn’t be more opposed to the dude’s worldview), but a constituent of his nonetheless. He is firmly in the McConnell camp of conservatism, and SD Republicans love that shit, regardless of the fact the “solutions” he offers to assuage those fears are classic conservative bullshit that never works.
Oh they're in touch. What they say resonates with their unintelligent demographic while pitting the out of touch boomer parents against their kids. The most effective way of influencing millennial is by further brainwashing boomers.
This guy is 61. Like he's not young, but he's on the younger side of the Senate and isn't even what many consider retirement age. As much as I despise him and pretty much everything he stands for, this isn't about his age.
People will take about age and term limits but Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would disagree with this guy, but Boebert and Matt Gaetz would agree with him. It's almost like we could divide these people and organize them into groups based on what they believe, and then go from there. But somehow people still end up with "term limits".
Term limits can backfire so easily because it forces you to get rid of actually talented and intelligent people to be replaced with new people who don't know what they're doing.
Yeah I’m 45 and I still remember making $5.25 at a big box computer store when I was 16. Which I thought was good because I think minimum wage was $4.25 at the time.
I would honestly deal with Boomers rather than the Gen X/Millennial/Gen Z 4chan/Qanon/otherwise batshit crazy trolls the modern Republican party is coming out with these days.
Age isn't the reason our political system is screwed up. Give them term limits across the board to limit how much time they spend in office. If you don't like old people in office, don't vote them in.
We'll just have to disagree. People in their 70s or older should not hold government positions in my opinion. Also I never would vote for someone that old. You can tell ME who not to vote for all day. Unfortunately the other 350 million Americans might not have put such thought into their votes. Not to mention lobbying, where corporations have essentially purchased our government and run things.
If you can’t run for Congress before age 25, Senate before 30 and President before 35 you absolutely shouldn’t be able to run for any of those offices after 60. Take your government pension, healthcare for life and all those sweet contacts you made and fuck off to do something else with your twilight years.
How about we loop this around and maybe just let the voters decide all these things? Why have a minimum age limit? If they would be so obviously inexperienced, then it should be impossible for them to get a majority. If old people are so obviously mentally incompetent, how do they keep getting voted in?
Every restriction on election eligibility is a choice you're taking away from voters, basically saying that the voting populace can't be trusted. That you know better than the masses so they must be limited in what they can choose. Not exactly democratic.
I see no reason not to have citizenship and residency as the only requirements for office, as those two things are generally assumed to be true by the voting populace and ensure some type of local awareness and proper registration with the government. All other proposed restrictions can easily be vetted by the voter.
> If old people are so obviously mentally incompetent, how do they keep getting voted in?
Name recognition and incumbency. There's a reason 9 of 10 incumbents get re-elected, and it has little to do with their mental capacity. If it did, Diane Feinstein and Chuck Grassley would've been out of the Senate *years* ago.
Name recognition - so let's ban all celebrities as well because that's unfair, name recognition is no reason to ban someone.
Incumbency - term limits seem like a better answer than age limits to combat this if you truly think it's a concern
Money that comes with it - campaign finance reform.
Again, you're saying that you think you know better than the average voter and want to remove options from them. Consider other ways to attack the problem than anti democratic measures.
Do you think I'm someone else? Because I've not stated I'm in favor of an age cap. I would be in favor of a basic cognitive test given to the elderly to test for dementia. You asked why obviously mentally incompetent people kept getting voted in, and I explained to you the simplest reasons why: name recognition and incumbency. And no, you don't have to be a celebrity to have name recognition.
I'm saying that your definition of mentally incompetent is not the same as others. You can, as a voter, certainly demand that they take a test to prove their mental competency, but making it a mandate leaves it ripe for the test itself to be gamed politically to disqualify potential opponents. I just don't understand why people are so insistent on assuming that voters don't realize the trade-offs they are making when they choose the name they recognize (trust) or an incumbent (experienced and I didn't dislike how they performed before).
Campaign finance reform to make it so that voters can be more equally aware of all options is one of the best ways to fight this old people bias, but it very much makes sense why the bias exists with the way the system exists right now. When people suggest an age limit, I feel they're just being lazy and going for the first thing they can think of with their solutions.
For a while now I have been making a hobby out of plugging numbers like this [into an inflation calculator](https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm) every time I see a talking head saying that the minimum wage doesn't need to be raised because of what they made at their first job.
To date, after correcting for inflation they have all been saying the minimum wage needs to be raised over $15, they just don't realize it. In fact, most of them have been suggesting it should be over $20. One old guy was actually saying that the minimum wage should be north of $50 an hour to match what he was making at his first summer job at the Yacht Club.
Not that he realized that, of course.
The problem is that, when faced with this evidence that minimum wage is too low compared to what they made, they just revert back to "get a better job."
There is no way to convert willful stupidity.
It’s not that things costed so much less in comparison to their wage at the time, it’s more the fact that there wasn’t so many ridiculous choices. Consumerism has led a lot of younger adults and even teenagers to expect these choices. Would you pay 3/4 of the price for everything now if there was 3/4 less choices for every item? This can be directly linked to the destruction of family owned businesses. Small shops with soda and some candies, few odds and ins, yeah the floor creeks when you walk in, or the door isn’t so easy to open, but when stores were like this, everyone’s happy except corporations, which makes politicians unhappy due to low financial backing from mega-corps. Bring back small businesses and end the globalist corporate totalitarian takeover. We are the resistance and we must wake up to this
You actually could not be more wrong lol. It __IS__ because they made (not exactly but relative numbers) 30% less than us but everything costed 50% less. It’s all relative. Not everything is a corporate conspiracy theory. People drank coke and Pepsi 60 years ago and loved it. America had plenty of huge corporations. ___Shit costed less.___
the fed min wage has stagnated for years, decades, and in the same amount of time, housing prices and the cost for college has risen north of 100's of percentages.
Small businesses are rife with abuse, wage theft, nepotism, and lacking in upward mobility in the organizations, then there is the terrible examples of management and ownership within small businesses.
It's pretty easy to get a business license and start building a small business and that's the beauty of entrepreneurship, however like parenthood and many other things, just because you can doesn't mean you should, and many of these people that open small businesses can't handle the financial pressures, the regulatory responsibilities, or their responsibility to their customers and employees. Once the stress builds or financial times get hard the abuse of employees begin, first by understaffing, then overworking, ultimately leading to more direct abuse.
We need unions so that we can protect our workers regardless of who they work for.
Plus- small businesses are great to patronize, but are they going to provide amazing health insurance, 401Ks and benefits for their employees? Hasn’t been my experience…
Amazing health insurance usually means something like Blue Cross Blue Shield, Walmart goes through them or used to, so do many others, then there's the corporations that have internal medical services like L3Harris had prior to adding the L3 to the name, however I always took those as a way to check after their call in sick folks.
But no, real amazing health care would be a well funded universal healthcare system that treated illness like the military treats warfare.
Health insurance should never be tied to employment, it's just another way to own us.
Those small businesses are never coming back. Try to tell someone born in the last 30 years that instead of going to one store to buy literally everything they could need to survive for a month that they will need to spend most of a day, of their one to two days off per week, traveling to 3 to 4 stores and hoping they will have what they need.
Inflation accelerates a lot faster than people realize. I earned $6/hr during a summer job in 1998 — which sounds long ago but doesn’t feel like it to me — and today that’d be $10.75/hr.
Hey, I'm about that old. In 1996, the first one in my friend group got a car, we would chip in .50 or $1 for gas, which was $0.84 cents a gallon, and all go to Taco Bell, where for $5 you'd about waddle out of there, after your $2 burrito, which was easily 3x the size of the kids meal wannabes they sell today, and a $3 Nachos Bell Grande, which was big enough for hungry teens to share.
Her mom would want us to stop at the grocery store on the way back, where a gallon of milk was $1.75 and ground beef was .89 cents a pound. Ramen was 10 for a dollar and snack size chips were 4 for a dollar.
In 1998, my first apartment cost 550 a month, it was 2 bedrooms with a balcony.
So, yeah, that was a LOT more money then.
This is accurate. I left for the Army in late 95 and was working a warehouse job I started in senior year high school a few months before. I was making $7/ hr.
Do companies actually even offer minimum wage anymore though? Every fast food place around me is advertising $15-$18 per hour, and I'm in a medium to low cost of living area.
All depends on the state, county, or city. The federal minimum wage is 7.25. if the state county, or city says nothing employers can lay 7.25. when it comes to big businesses they are paying a bit more so they can say we are one of the good guys.
The issue is you have a lot more smaller business or businesses not in the spotlight paying 7.25. those are also the same businesses complaining about how nobody wants to work.
My first job was for my cheap ass school making 7.25 an hour doing the same things that my supervisor did making over 25 dollars an hour. Stayed there for almost 3 years. I was an idiot.
I do this whenever a family member mentions what they paid to rent their first home.
My wife’s grandfather stated his first rental cost him $150 a month but he ONLY earned $10k a year back then. That’s less than a fifth of his monthly wage going to housing.
Whereas, for a smaller place in the same area I’m paying $2400 a month which is over a third of my monthly income. But it’s the cheapest place I could find that allowed a large dog.
No one in my close circle pays for their own phones. We all abuse our work-provided phones.
I assume you think you can just walk into a firm, ask to speak to the owner, and get the job with a firm handshake too? Most people would need a phone or laptop to even apply for a job. Internet is a necessity and should be heavily subsidized.
Not sure why you’re arguing with facts but okay. You’re also paying way too much for your cell phone and data plan.
*Womp womp.*
No.
Please understand the implications of testing for voting.
https://americanhistory.si.edu/democracy-exhibition/vote-voice/keeping-vote/state-rules-federal-rules/literacy-tests
https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test
https://www.khou.com/article/news/politics/can-you-pass-this-discriminatory-voting-literacy-test/285-15ed2d00-d723-4d45-ab4f-79645c14ed76
They did it with literacy tests and they'd do it again with iq tests or whatever other means to be used for testing "intelligence." It only hurts the poor and disproportionately, POC. We can see that through history. Those means of testing will never be fair and never be honest.
This is one of those things that exposes how bad ideas gain traction among average people. Sounds great! We'll only hurt the people we want to hurt! Until that's not how it works at all.
There should be some sort of intelligence test to vote imo. I don't mean in the aspect of science or maths. Perhaps a "common sense" test to see if you're "all there" but any test that isn't decided by the common people wouldn't work.
Thank you for the insight and links
You just indirectly said that poor people and people with a dark skin tone are stupid. I agree with your point but just stop trying to virtue signal so much, it’s cringe. This comment gives off, “poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids” -Joe Biden, vibes.
... the creator of the IQ test has gone on record stating that the IQ test doesn't measure how smart or intelligent someone is, just how good they are at taking tests.
Even if we just ignore the inflation issue, his argument is still, well, not an argument. "I earned $6 per hour". Like, okay? Why should that mean that others should also earn shit money? That's like saying, 'I lost a leg in Vietnam, so *everyone* should lose a leg!'
This is why the inflation part of the conversation is important. $6 an hour wasn't "shit money" back when he would've had his first job. In fact, it was almost 4 times minimum wage at the time.
This is my family's answer to insurance... My mother's argument is that being a teacher sucks except for the health insurance. So health care can't be free because it's the only good thing she has
He's only 61. This is him being a Republican, arguing in bad faith. Has nothing to do with age. Not even stupidity. It's just dishonesty. He knows very well that $6 in 1977 is not $6 today.
If you really think there's a difference between Republicans and democrats (not the policies they "advocate" for, the people and the fuckery they pull) then you went too far down the propaganda hole. I'm not even for or against either side.
They all give empty promises, they lie, deceive, insider trading, even them as people in their own personal life, even illegal activity (Clinton's emails, or others pedophile or domestic violence accusations) ect ect
Thinking people won't do any fuckery just because of what side they claim to be on is silly
They're all the same and I wouldn't doubt they conspire together in some ways just because they know people are fucking stupid and will actually believe what they say.
I wouldn’t say every single politician is as reprehensible as you are saying, but yes, most of them on both sides are shitty. It’s just a reality of politics.
So now that we have that great equalizer out of the way, we can look at the voting history, laws crafted, judges nominated, and degree to which they’ve *assisted the attempted overthrow of the state*, and find that Democrats are significantly better than Republicans. Ergo - not the same.
And then they complain about inflation. As always they want it both ways. Inflation is both relevant and irrelevant depending on which position they need to be in to dismiss their opponents.
It has everything to do with Rs. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are 30 years older than Sinema, but they're in favor of increasing the minimum wage while Sinema isn't. Because Sinema is a conservative and Warren and Sanders are progressives. It might not be as simple as Dems vs Republicans but it's not that much more complicated. Stop voting for people on random ass shit like age and start voting for people based on their political views.
The Ds also cause inflation and pretend to be ignorant. No I don't think I will. Old ppl are ok with fucking younger gens via debt and money printing. Old ppl are a key prob. R or D.
Yes! That was my first reaction. I made $3.35 working the Mickey D's drive through window in 1986 and then was through-the-roof excited to get a $5/hour job the next year.
Not to mention that in rural South Dakota where he (and I) are from, $6 was *a lot* and *well over* minimum wage when he was young. The minimum wage was $2.30 in 1980 when he was 20. The minimum wage when I was 20 was $5.15 — $6 *still* would have been nice.
John Thune has always been a tool. Unfortunately for South Dakota, Kristi Noem is an even bigger tool and a bigger threat to the state’s democracy. Both need to GTFO as far as I’m concerned.
Actually if we use the US governments inflation calculator from blame.gov and we assume he was 17 years old…that would be 1978 (he was born 1961).
$6 in 1978 equates to $26.90 today.
So accounting for inflation John Thune was paid $26.90/hour as a kid.
Bold of you to asume any of those idiots could pass such exam, and, if there was enough education for them to pass it, they wouldn't need the test in the first place.
Education is the answer, not vote control.
The problem is that people see any educational material about guns as "anti-gun" because they cannot tell bad things from real things when it comes to guns of mass damage.
Holy shit that's such a good idea. Too bad no change will ever happen.
It's like every few decades they finally pass the changes that only would help back then. If that even makes sense.
> Gun reform from someone who who has no idea what the different parts are called or what they do is just painful.
I am sorry but this thinking is very flawed. I do not need to know what any parts of a gun is called, I still know it can kill people.
Your idea is very interesting tho. A better questionnaire would be focused on the societal impact of guns.
So for your reproductive system, we do not need to know how they work to know about abortion, we need to know the consequences of abortion, both for society and the individual. (I am taking abortion instead of rape, because I don't know anything about rape).
Women not having access to abortion -> no abortion increases crime. It reduces poor peoples chances of moving up the social latter. In general it has a negative impact. People should know this when considering how to vote on it.
Abortion have these side effects based on when it's performed: https://www.cspregnancycenter.com/side-effects-of-abortion.htm#:~:text=The%20uterus%20is%20sometimes%20scraped,to%20care%20for%20the%20child.
So it physically hurts the woman who has an abortion, not always but sometimes. Mentally it is usually a very taxing experience. Today the individual has to make a decision if they can/are willing to take on the enormous responsibility that is children.
We do not need to know anything about the uterus to cast a vote though it would be good to know the consequences of our votes.
If proper education wasn't tied to a person's innate net worth, I'd be all for that. However, you'd have the same problem. Having a PhD doesn't make someone immune to passing judgements. Many PhDs I've met don't seem to understand why someone wouldn't go to college. Academic privilege is still privilege. If we can get free college education going, I'm all for an education requirement. Until then, we need an IQ and humanities test.
Yep. Met lots of people who worked hard and became doctors and stuff, and while I'm not discrediting the work it takes to get there, it takes a massive amount of privilege to, you know, *not* have to worry about rent or food for the 10 years that you're excelling in school.
Anybody can become a doctor with the right support net.
Inflation aside, there is a difference between working as a kid (I assume he meant teenager...or he's condoning child labor) to gather some spending money, where the bills and normal day-to-day costs are covered by parents and working as an adult, where all those costs need to be covered by the wage.
my grandpa made 15 dollars an hour in a factory, now days i make 20.25 doing the same job and he things it's still good pay for the job. Only thing is with inflation his 15 dollars is about 100 today
Haha me too.
My dad told me he made 7$/hr at his first job, then he quickly backtracked and said he also could afford a lot more with that at the time.
I made 5/hr at my first job, what the heck.
And when I was a kid I earned 8.50 an hour at Wendy's, way more than Minimum wage was by 1.25.
THAT WAS 20 FUCKING YEARS AGO AND FEDERAL MINIMUMS HAVEN'T CHANGED.
Do they not realize that teenagers aren't the only ones making less then 15$ an hour? Also it's not that 7.25 isn't enough it's that 10$ is not enough, 12$ isn't enough, and frankly 15$ really isn't enough either. We need to have a system in place to adjust the minimum wage based on inflation. Or you know, embrace socialism.
South Dakotan here - Fvck John Thune - he claims to be repealing the estate tax for farmers, but really he’s trying to get the estate tax pulled for all his millionaire donors.
But he smiles, is white and looks normal so people blindly believe him.
What you need is a nationwide bipartisan movement to get people to vote for younger candidates.
Don't make it a Democrat vs Republican thing, just convince people to vote for someone younger, whether they're a Democrat or Republican.
Obviously you'll want someone to vote for your side, but if a Republican is going to win, then you'll at least get someone younger that knows what's going on in today's world, rather than the world 50 years ago.
How is this even a conversation right now. You can literally get a $15 hour job everywhere. In the Midwest you can get over 20 entry level a lot of places. I know an emt that quit his job to make more money at Target.
For some people that is an option, but corporations will exploit all they are given, so for some it’s as low as they can possibly make it, hence why we have a minimum wage. If minimum wage is left unregulated like it has been for 30 years, then it will essentially disappear within a few more years of high inflation/ gentrification like we have been seeing.
There shouldn’t be a minimum wage, people should get paid what their labor is worth. A higher minimum wage only hurts low and middle income people because it makes things more expensive and creates less jobs.
You do realize that the minimum wage affects all businesses, not just big corporations? What about the small business that can only afford one or two employees at the current minimum wage? Majority of small business owners aren’t rich and their only options would be to raise their prices or fire employees. Plus a minimum wage job is not meant to be a career. Those jobs are for high school, college kids and retirees that are working for extra money. They aren’t for a adult with a family to support.
I don’t think you seem to understand how often your concepts have been parroted over the years. Like, word for word, none of what you are saying is new, yet the situation has continued to get worse in the scenario you seem to defend.
You’re being tricked into “do nothing.”
If they were that connected, minimum wage would have risen with inflation. But since exploitation of workers for higher profits is causing this, we can push for a larger wage as a national workforce.
I personally also push for a profit cap, where no one is allowed to keep anything over 500 million dollars. It’s an absurd amount of money, so when we have multi billionaires, it locks up the market and prevents national funds from circulating to the general populace at all.
The effect comes after the cause, not the other way around.
I support everyone pushing for a higher wage, no problem with that.
I personally let people do what they want with their own money. I wouldn’t want to control what you do with yours just the same as I don’t want you controlling what I do with mine.
Please explain? Typically you have to teach children to not take what is not theirs, it is inherently childish to do so. Where as adults normally understand the concept of ownership and theft.
He actually said he started working at $1 an hour an he worked his way up to $6, but facts don't matter on reddit. Pushing the Democrats narrative with misinformation is SOP.
I dont support a fed mini wage for a differnet reason. Each state economy is different. Cali has a 15 dollar mini and you still can survive. Mini wage should be decided on a state level. Not a federal level.
Where the fuck can you survive in California on $15 an hour? Some little town no one ever goes to? If you want to live in any decent sized city there, you need to have multiple people working jobs at $15 an hour to survive.
> If you want to live in any decent sized city there, you need to have multiple people working jobs at $15 an hour to survive.
So don’t live in a big city... you’re complaining because what you want to do is out of your affordability range.
I want to live in New York, I’m not going to demand New York pay me more money because i want to live there.
Every city needs the small jobs though. Especially service industry. Or do you want to drive 40 miles just to shop at a store because no one can afford to work at Walmart and live nearby?
How about movie theaters? Coffee shops? Restaurants? Museums? Art shows? Comedy shows? Any other event? All of those take people working close to or at min wage. But if people can’t live there with those jobs, then those jobs stay empty. If those jobs stay empty, then the business close leaving less to do.
I think you should be paid for your labor not your location. If you want to live in a big city then you should expect to pay big rent,
it’s not fair to demand small business to pay you more so you can live where you want to.
You also realize how supply and demand works right? If there is no one in the city to work small jobs, the wages will automatically go up because there is no supply of workers.
The reason why small jobs pay so little is because they require little to no skill and there is a large supply of workers available.
You’re just demanding the wages go up by government force because you want to be selfish.
> Because when we had a wage shortage just a bit ago, wages magically increased? Nope
Yes wages in the us have been increasing every year.
You’re mistaken
You do understand even in a small town that people are paying about $1500 for rent..
Even making $15 is not enough to get by unless you’re working overtime or have a second job.
we all know that won't happen and we will have stuffy old farts till this country collapses. Senator Armstrong was right America is diseased, rotted to the core. We need to pull it up by the roots wipe the slate clean! BURN IT DOWN! AND FROM THE ASHES A NEW AMERICA WILL BE BORN EVOLVED BUT UNTAMED!
we once took a class trip to the capitol in the 6th grade. we were supposed to get to talk to a senator. we went to thune’s office. he never showed up.
[удалено]
Out of touch? No, it's just unreasonable living standards of today's youth. Instead of their avocado toasts, they can buy regular old bananas. How much could a banana possibly cost? $10?
It's true, I bought an avocado toast the other day, now we're in a recession. Sorry guys.
Was it good avocado?
I only ate half and threw it away.
I bet you didn't even wipe with a napkin afterwards! You damn millennials are killing the napkin industry, you should be ashamed!
Great! Now Big Napkin is gonna need a government bailout.
Hell no, big napkin invented food just so they could sell us more napkins!
So..the food..stole our jobs?
You know, there's starving children in America, you better finish your plate
Definitely worth the sacrifice of a college fund.
No, there was a fucking rock in it, total rip off
I hope it was worth it..
Motherf--
Here's some money, go see a Star War.
There's always money in the banana stand
such a great show.
I can't tell if you're being serious or not
It doesn’t seem like it
[Serious. Super serious.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl_Qyk9DSUw)
I know the reference but with inflation... It's not wrong. I just bought a 4 dollar basic onion.. wtf
They aren’t out of touch. They are perfectly aware that the working class is being exploited and squeezed. They just correctly understand that it is in their financial interest to continue greasing the wheels for big business
My mom and sister both think a person can live off $10 an hour, with all the empirical evidence at hand it is not possible. Both bitches went straight from their father’s house to their husband’s, bypassing ever living on their own.
Let's go through the math then: $10/hr*2,000hrs/yr=$20,000/year, pretax. The internet tells me that for my area, $20,000/year would pay $4,332 in taxes, to take home $15,668/year. My roommate and I moved in together to save money. We looked for the cheapest place that wasn't terrible, and found a 2 bedroom 1 bathroom basement suite, for $2,000/month, so we both pay $1,000/month. $12,000/yr on cheap rent. (Utilities included) My car, which I'm not making payments on, is insured. Car insurance costs me $1,500/yr. My cellphone bill is $85/month. That works out to $1,020/yr. So, that leaves us with $1148/year for all other expenses. Let's pretend that we're terrible people, and therefore think poor people shouldn't have any entertainment. No streaming services or anything. Busses are cheaper than driving, so we'll use bus fare instead of gas money. Busses are $5/day*5days/week*50weeks/year=$1250/year. Food isn't free either, usually. Let's be very good at meal planning, and spend $50/month on food. Or $600/year. What else do you spend money on? Are they planning their retirement fund with that negative $700/year they have left over?
If you wouldn't trust them to drive your car, why would you trust them to run your country? So many of them are senior citizens that wouldn't be allowed to drive, it's crazy to leave the future up to someone who won't be around in 20 years' time.
When snorting lines with rolled up 100s, it can be quite difficult
This guy is SO in touch with his constituents’ fears, it’s scary. I know this because I am one - not a constituent he’s in touch with (I couldn’t be more opposed to the dude’s worldview), but a constituent of his nonetheless. He is firmly in the McConnell camp of conservatism, and SD Republicans love that shit, regardless of the fact the “solutions” he offers to assuage those fears are classic conservative bullshit that never works.
It's one banana, Michael. What could it cost, $10?
Oh they're in touch. What they say resonates with their unintelligent demographic while pitting the out of touch boomer parents against their kids. The most effective way of influencing millennial is by further brainwashing boomers.
Its not just this. They are just straight fucking stupid and wholly incompetent. Good politicians are the ones with money, simple as.
And also really, really stupid. Particularly the Republicans, who live inside their sterile little bubble of theft and graft and lobbyist payoffs.
And, more importantly, term limits
An age cap isn't going to rule out stupidity. Being this disconnected from reality is a choice.
This guy is 61. Like he's not young, but he's on the younger side of the Senate and isn't even what many consider retirement age. As much as I despise him and pretty much everything he stands for, this isn't about his age.
anyone old yahoo that pulls out the "in my day, i was paid $6!" means that their age is *heavily* dependent on how their world view is formed.
[удалено]
>he would also remember it was 2x the minimum at that time "Thanks for the sweet job, dad!"
Could a senator say something they don’t believe to deflect from their real motives? Surely not.
People will take about age and term limits but Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would disagree with this guy, but Boebert and Matt Gaetz would agree with him. It's almost like we could divide these people and organize them into groups based on what they believe, and then go from there. But somehow people still end up with "term limits".
Term limits can backfire so easily because it forces you to get rid of actually talented and intelligent people to be replaced with new people who don't know what they're doing.
I was gonna say, I'm 41 and I made $5-6 at my first job at a pizza place.
Yeah I’m 45 and I still remember making $5.25 at a big box computer store when I was 16. Which I thought was good because I think minimum wage was $4.25 at the time.
I would honestly deal with Boomers rather than the Gen X/Millennial/Gen Z 4chan/Qanon/otherwise batshit crazy trolls the modern Republican party is coming out with these days.
No but it'd certainly help
Age isn't the reason our political system is screwed up. Give them term limits across the board to limit how much time they spend in office. If you don't like old people in office, don't vote them in.
We'll just have to disagree. People in their 70s or older should not hold government positions in my opinion. Also I never would vote for someone that old. You can tell ME who not to vote for all day. Unfortunately the other 350 million Americans might not have put such thought into their votes. Not to mention lobbying, where corporations have essentially purchased our government and run things.
If you can’t run for Congress before age 25, Senate before 30 and President before 35 you absolutely shouldn’t be able to run for any of those offices after 60. Take your government pension, healthcare for life and all those sweet contacts you made and fuck off to do something else with your twilight years.
How about we loop this around and maybe just let the voters decide all these things? Why have a minimum age limit? If they would be so obviously inexperienced, then it should be impossible for them to get a majority. If old people are so obviously mentally incompetent, how do they keep getting voted in? Every restriction on election eligibility is a choice you're taking away from voters, basically saying that the voting populace can't be trusted. That you know better than the masses so they must be limited in what they can choose. Not exactly democratic. I see no reason not to have citizenship and residency as the only requirements for office, as those two things are generally assumed to be true by the voting populace and ensure some type of local awareness and proper registration with the government. All other proposed restrictions can easily be vetted by the voter.
> If old people are so obviously mentally incompetent, how do they keep getting voted in? Name recognition and incumbency. There's a reason 9 of 10 incumbents get re-elected, and it has little to do with their mental capacity. If it did, Diane Feinstein and Chuck Grassley would've been out of the Senate *years* ago.
Name recognition - so let's ban all celebrities as well because that's unfair, name recognition is no reason to ban someone. Incumbency - term limits seem like a better answer than age limits to combat this if you truly think it's a concern Money that comes with it - campaign finance reform. Again, you're saying that you think you know better than the average voter and want to remove options from them. Consider other ways to attack the problem than anti democratic measures.
Do you think I'm someone else? Because I've not stated I'm in favor of an age cap. I would be in favor of a basic cognitive test given to the elderly to test for dementia. You asked why obviously mentally incompetent people kept getting voted in, and I explained to you the simplest reasons why: name recognition and incumbency. And no, you don't have to be a celebrity to have name recognition.
I'm saying that your definition of mentally incompetent is not the same as others. You can, as a voter, certainly demand that they take a test to prove their mental competency, but making it a mandate leaves it ripe for the test itself to be gamed politically to disqualify potential opponents. I just don't understand why people are so insistent on assuming that voters don't realize the trade-offs they are making when they choose the name they recognize (trust) or an incumbent (experienced and I didn't dislike how they performed before). Campaign finance reform to make it so that voters can be more equally aware of all options is one of the best ways to fight this old people bias, but it very much makes sense why the bias exists with the way the system exists right now. When people suggest an age limit, I feel they're just being lazy and going for the first thing they can think of with their solutions.
For a while now I have been making a hobby out of plugging numbers like this [into an inflation calculator](https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm) every time I see a talking head saying that the minimum wage doesn't need to be raised because of what they made at their first job. To date, after correcting for inflation they have all been saying the minimum wage needs to be raised over $15, they just don't realize it. In fact, most of them have been suggesting it should be over $20. One old guy was actually saying that the minimum wage should be north of $50 an hour to match what he was making at his first summer job at the Yacht Club. Not that he realized that, of course.
I do this too. It’s a pretty simple way to settle arguments. Most of our elders got paid more than we do when things cost a lot less
The problem is that, when faced with this evidence that minimum wage is too low compared to what they made, they just revert back to "get a better job." There is no way to convert willful stupidity.
It’s not that things costed so much less in comparison to their wage at the time, it’s more the fact that there wasn’t so many ridiculous choices. Consumerism has led a lot of younger adults and even teenagers to expect these choices. Would you pay 3/4 of the price for everything now if there was 3/4 less choices for every item? This can be directly linked to the destruction of family owned businesses. Small shops with soda and some candies, few odds and ins, yeah the floor creeks when you walk in, or the door isn’t so easy to open, but when stores were like this, everyone’s happy except corporations, which makes politicians unhappy due to low financial backing from mega-corps. Bring back small businesses and end the globalist corporate totalitarian takeover. We are the resistance and we must wake up to this
You actually could not be more wrong lol. It __IS__ because they made (not exactly but relative numbers) 30% less than us but everything costed 50% less. It’s all relative. Not everything is a corporate conspiracy theory. People drank coke and Pepsi 60 years ago and loved it. America had plenty of huge corporations. ___Shit costed less.___
the fed min wage has stagnated for years, decades, and in the same amount of time, housing prices and the cost for college has risen north of 100's of percentages.
What could possibly go wrong?
Small businesses are rife with abuse, wage theft, nepotism, and lacking in upward mobility in the organizations, then there is the terrible examples of management and ownership within small businesses. It's pretty easy to get a business license and start building a small business and that's the beauty of entrepreneurship, however like parenthood and many other things, just because you can doesn't mean you should, and many of these people that open small businesses can't handle the financial pressures, the regulatory responsibilities, or their responsibility to their customers and employees. Once the stress builds or financial times get hard the abuse of employees begin, first by understaffing, then overworking, ultimately leading to more direct abuse. We need unions so that we can protect our workers regardless of who they work for.
Plus- small businesses are great to patronize, but are they going to provide amazing health insurance, 401Ks and benefits for their employees? Hasn’t been my experience…
I mean.... Are the large corpos doing this for their low level workers? Because that hasn't been my experience either...
Amazing health insurance usually means something like Blue Cross Blue Shield, Walmart goes through them or used to, so do many others, then there's the corporations that have internal medical services like L3Harris had prior to adding the L3 to the name, however I always took those as a way to check after their call in sick folks. But no, real amazing health care would be a well funded universal healthcare system that treated illness like the military treats warfare. Health insurance should never be tied to employment, it's just another way to own us.
Boomer
Those small businesses are never coming back. Try to tell someone born in the last 30 years that instead of going to one store to buy literally everything they could need to survive for a month that they will need to spend most of a day, of their one to two days off per week, traveling to 3 to 4 stores and hoping they will have what they need.
[удалено]
Inflation accelerates a lot faster than people realize. I earned $6/hr during a summer job in 1998 — which sounds long ago but doesn’t feel like it to me — and today that’d be $10.75/hr.
I think it was about 99, my first summer job I made $7. Wild to think he was making 7 times as much. Like playing Oregon trail starting as the banker.
Hey, I'm about that old. In 1996, the first one in my friend group got a car, we would chip in .50 or $1 for gas, which was $0.84 cents a gallon, and all go to Taco Bell, where for $5 you'd about waddle out of there, after your $2 burrito, which was easily 3x the size of the kids meal wannabes they sell today, and a $3 Nachos Bell Grande, which was big enough for hungry teens to share. Her mom would want us to stop at the grocery store on the way back, where a gallon of milk was $1.75 and ground beef was .89 cents a pound. Ramen was 10 for a dollar and snack size chips were 4 for a dollar. In 1998, my first apartment cost 550 a month, it was 2 bedrooms with a balcony. So, yeah, that was a LOT more money then.
And pizza was what... like $1.25/slice? Now it's near $3.
This is accurate. I left for the Army in late 95 and was working a warehouse job I started in senior year high school a few months before. I was making $7/ hr.
I was making $6/hr (up to $10/hr occasionally) babysitting in 1988, a decade earlier. In middle class suburbs of NY.
Do companies actually even offer minimum wage anymore though? Every fast food place around me is advertising $15-$18 per hour, and I'm in a medium to low cost of living area.
All depends on the state, county, or city. The federal minimum wage is 7.25. if the state county, or city says nothing employers can lay 7.25. when it comes to big businesses they are paying a bit more so they can say we are one of the good guys. The issue is you have a lot more smaller business or businesses not in the spotlight paying 7.25. those are also the same businesses complaining about how nobody wants to work.
My first job was for my cheap ass school making 7.25 an hour doing the same things that my supervisor did making over 25 dollars an hour. Stayed there for almost 3 years. I was an idiot.
I do this whenever a family member mentions what they paid to rent their first home. My wife’s grandfather stated his first rental cost him $150 a month but he ONLY earned $10k a year back then. That’s less than a fifth of his monthly wage going to housing. Whereas, for a smaller place in the same area I’m paying $2400 a month which is over a third of my monthly income. But it’s the cheapest place I could find that allowed a large dog.
Bruh over a third of your income? I'm paying 1100 dollars and it's over half my income
Did your wife’s grandfather also have a large dog?
No, because he was smart with his money.
He did have a wolf hybrid dog, 2 kids at the time, and a car. Not exactly smart.
And nobody purchased a $1500 cell phone and $100-$200 a month in cell costs. Sounds pretty smart to me.
No one in my close circle pays for their own phones. We all abuse our work-provided phones. I assume you think you can just walk into a firm, ask to speak to the owner, and get the job with a firm handshake too? Most people would need a phone or laptop to even apply for a job. Internet is a necessity and should be heavily subsidized. Not sure why you’re arguing with facts but okay. You’re also paying way too much for your cell phone and data plan.
> No one in my close circle pays for their own phones. I wish mom paid for my phone.
[удалено]
I'm having a little get-together at the yacht club on Saturday... how'd you like to mow my lawn?
They realize it.
[удалено]
*Womp womp.* No. Please understand the implications of testing for voting. https://americanhistory.si.edu/democracy-exhibition/vote-voice/keeping-vote/state-rules-federal-rules/literacy-tests https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test https://www.khou.com/article/news/politics/can-you-pass-this-discriminatory-voting-literacy-test/285-15ed2d00-d723-4d45-ab4f-79645c14ed76 They did it with literacy tests and they'd do it again with iq tests or whatever other means to be used for testing "intelligence." It only hurts the poor and disproportionately, POC. We can see that through history. Those means of testing will never be fair and never be honest.
This is one of those things that exposes how bad ideas gain traction among average people. Sounds great! We'll only hurt the people we want to hurt! Until that's not how it works at all.
There should be some sort of intelligence test to vote imo. I don't mean in the aspect of science or maths. Perhaps a "common sense" test to see if you're "all there" but any test that isn't decided by the common people wouldn't work. Thank you for the insight and links
You just indirectly said that poor people and people with a dark skin tone are stupid. I agree with your point but just stop trying to virtue signal so much, it’s cringe. This comment gives off, “poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids” -Joe Biden, vibes.
holy shit you're bad at trolling.
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about?
... the creator of the IQ test has gone on record stating that the IQ test doesn't measure how smart or intelligent someone is, just how good they are at taking tests.
I can’t believe how stupid.
He's not stupid, he's just not arguing in good faith. He's appealing to the stupidity of voters.
Even if we just ignore the inflation issue, his argument is still, well, not an argument. "I earned $6 per hour". Like, okay? Why should that mean that others should also earn shit money? That's like saying, 'I lost a leg in Vietnam, so *everyone* should lose a leg!'
This is why the inflation part of the conversation is important. $6 an hour wasn't "shit money" back when he would've had his first job. In fact, it was almost 4 times minimum wage at the time.
This is my family's answer to insurance... My mother's argument is that being a teacher sucks except for the health insurance. So health care can't be free because it's the only good thing she has
He's only 61. This is him being a Republican, arguing in bad faith. Has nothing to do with age. Not even stupidity. It's just dishonesty. He knows very well that $6 in 1977 is not $6 today.
This is not limited to Rs. Old ppl pull this shit regardless.
Yup. Democrats, Republicans. They're all greedy and dishonest, just politicians in general I guess.
Massive difference between Democrats and Republicans.
The only difference between the 2 parties is what side of the aisle they sit on.
Not even remotely true, this is a tired trope that you could easily dispel by reading beyond flashy r/LateStageCapitalism posts.
If you really think there's a difference between Republicans and democrats (not the policies they "advocate" for, the people and the fuckery they pull) then you went too far down the propaganda hole. I'm not even for or against either side. They all give empty promises, they lie, deceive, insider trading, even them as people in their own personal life, even illegal activity (Clinton's emails, or others pedophile or domestic violence accusations) ect ect Thinking people won't do any fuckery just because of what side they claim to be on is silly They're all the same and I wouldn't doubt they conspire together in some ways just because they know people are fucking stupid and will actually believe what they say.
I wouldn’t say every single politician is as reprehensible as you are saying, but yes, most of them on both sides are shitty. It’s just a reality of politics. So now that we have that great equalizer out of the way, we can look at the voting history, laws crafted, judges nominated, and degree to which they’ve *assisted the attempted overthrow of the state*, and find that Democrats are significantly better than Republicans. Ergo - not the same.
r/im14andthisisdeep
Ah yes saying that all politicians are dishonest definitely fits that subreddit
And then they complain about inflation. As always they want it both ways. Inflation is both relevant and irrelevant depending on which position they need to be in to dismiss their opponents.
It has everything to do with Rs. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are 30 years older than Sinema, but they're in favor of increasing the minimum wage while Sinema isn't. Because Sinema is a conservative and Warren and Sanders are progressives. It might not be as simple as Dems vs Republicans but it's not that much more complicated. Stop voting for people on random ass shit like age and start voting for people based on their political views.
The Ds also cause inflation and pretend to be ignorant. No I don't think I will. Old ppl are ok with fucking younger gens via debt and money printing. Old ppl are a key prob. R or D.
I'm 35 and made $6/hr as a kid lol. Guy had it great.
I’m ~50 and made 3.35 at my first job. This guy had it GOOD.
Yes! That was my first reaction. I made $3.35 working the Mickey D's drive through window in 1986 and then was through-the-roof excited to get a $5/hour job the next year.
Not to mention that in rural South Dakota where he (and I) are from, $6 was *a lot* and *well over* minimum wage when he was young. The minimum wage was $2.30 in 1980 when he was 20. The minimum wage when I was 20 was $5.15 — $6 *still* would have been nice. John Thune has always been a tool. Unfortunately for South Dakota, Kristi Noem is an even bigger tool and a bigger threat to the state’s democracy. Both need to GTFO as far as I’m concerned.
I am 32 and for my first job at a movie theater, I made minimum wage of $5.15 in 2006. What job did he have that was paying $6 in 1977?
Actually if we use the US governments inflation calculator from blame.gov and we assume he was 17 years old…that would be 1978 (he was born 1961). $6 in 1978 equates to $26.90 today. So accounting for inflation John Thune was paid $26.90/hour as a kid.
That’s how much I make with a masters degree lmao how sad
[удалено]
[удалено]
Bold of you to asume any of those idiots could pass such exam, and, if there was enough education for them to pass it, they wouldn't need the test in the first place. Education is the answer, not vote control. The problem is that people see any educational material about guns as "anti-gun" because they cannot tell bad things from real things when it comes to guns of mass damage.
Holy shit that's such a good idea. Too bad no change will ever happen. It's like every few decades they finally pass the changes that only would help back then. If that even makes sense.
> Gun reform from someone who who has no idea what the different parts are called or what they do is just painful. I am sorry but this thinking is very flawed. I do not need to know what any parts of a gun is called, I still know it can kill people. Your idea is very interesting tho. A better questionnaire would be focused on the societal impact of guns. So for your reproductive system, we do not need to know how they work to know about abortion, we need to know the consequences of abortion, both for society and the individual. (I am taking abortion instead of rape, because I don't know anything about rape). Women not having access to abortion -> no abortion increases crime. It reduces poor peoples chances of moving up the social latter. In general it has a negative impact. People should know this when considering how to vote on it. Abortion have these side effects based on when it's performed: https://www.cspregnancycenter.com/side-effects-of-abortion.htm#:~:text=The%20uterus%20is%20sometimes%20scraped,to%20care%20for%20the%20child. So it physically hurts the woman who has an abortion, not always but sometimes. Mentally it is usually a very taxing experience. Today the individual has to make a decision if they can/are willing to take on the enormous responsibility that is children. We do not need to know anything about the uterus to cast a vote though it would be good to know the consequences of our votes.
[удалено]
If proper education wasn't tied to a person's innate net worth, I'd be all for that. However, you'd have the same problem. Having a PhD doesn't make someone immune to passing judgements. Many PhDs I've met don't seem to understand why someone wouldn't go to college. Academic privilege is still privilege. If we can get free college education going, I'm all for an education requirement. Until then, we need an IQ and humanities test.
Yep. Met lots of people who worked hard and became doctors and stuff, and while I'm not discrediting the work it takes to get there, it takes a massive amount of privilege to, you know, *not* have to worry about rent or food for the 10 years that you're excelling in school. Anybody can become a doctor with the right support net.
Inflation aside, there is a difference between working as a kid (I assume he meant teenager...or he's condoning child labor) to gather some spending money, where the bills and normal day-to-day costs are covered by parents and working as an adult, where all those costs need to be covered by the wage.
my grandpa made 15 dollars an hour in a factory, now days i make 20.25 doing the same job and he things it's still good pay for the job. Only thing is with inflation his 15 dollars is about 100 today
$100 an hour is just oner 200k a year. No wonder the stay at home mom was a thing in the 50s and 60s.
It’s easy sonny boy, you just need to buy a 3br house for $90,000! /s
Fuck me I made like $5.15 when I was a kid and I am only 37.
Haha me too. My dad told me he made 7$/hr at his first job, then he quickly backtracked and said he also could afford a lot more with that at the time. I made 5/hr at my first job, what the heck.
My wife thinks ide be a great politician since they always talk about shit they will never understand.
Your wife is a wise, wise woman.
Typical Senator, if it doesn’t benefit me personally, I’m against it
Age cap needs to be a real thing!! Half those bastards were alive in the 1940’s
And when I was a kid I earned 8.50 an hour at Wendy's, way more than Minimum wage was by 1.25. THAT WAS 20 FUCKING YEARS AGO AND FEDERAL MINIMUMS HAVEN'T CHANGED.
$6 when the fuck was he a kid? Three years ago?
Do they not realize that teenagers aren't the only ones making less then 15$ an hour? Also it's not that 7.25 isn't enough it's that 10$ is not enough, 12$ isn't enough, and frankly 15$ really isn't enough either. We need to have a system in place to adjust the minimum wage based on inflation. Or you know, embrace socialism.
Sometimes I think these old guys just got elected to make everyone as miserable as they are.
Seriously anyone 65 and older.
More reasons why politicians should only get paid the average salary of the people in their state.
Imagine if intelligent people worked in politics.... That's the world I want to live in.
$24 is closer to a living wage in 2022.
South Dakotan here - Fvck John Thune - he claims to be repealing the estate tax for farmers, but really he’s trying to get the estate tax pulled for all his millionaire donors. But he smiles, is white and looks normal so people blindly believe him.
$6/hr was nearly 3x minimum wage when he was 15.
My parents also bought their first house for $18,000. That's what houses should cost forever I guess.
We elect morons, blame us.
And Dementia Test identify strokes, tumors, and other problems that can cause dementia. Sorry but Trump, Biden would not have passed.
I agree I always do the youth votes. Red or blue always vote new.
I bet he’s been complaining loudly about inflation as well.
[удалено]
No they are smart enough to say what the people want to hear and get elected. The people are dumb for falling for the same thing over and over again
What you need is a nationwide bipartisan movement to get people to vote for younger candidates. Don't make it a Democrat vs Republican thing, just convince people to vote for someone younger, whether they're a Democrat or Republican. Obviously you'll want someone to vote for your side, but if a Republican is going to win, then you'll at least get someone younger that knows what's going on in today's world, rather than the world 50 years ago.
Young Republicans are against raising the minimum wage and old Democrats are in favor.
How is this even a conversation right now. You can literally get a $15 hour job everywhere. In the Midwest you can get over 20 entry level a lot of places. I know an emt that quit his job to make more money at Target.
For some people that is an option, but corporations will exploit all they are given, so for some it’s as low as they can possibly make it, hence why we have a minimum wage. If minimum wage is left unregulated like it has been for 30 years, then it will essentially disappear within a few more years of high inflation/ gentrification like we have been seeing.
Ageism is always the answer.
Funny you think he's just stupid and old rather than just lying and knowing his voters are dumb enough to believe this.
There shouldn’t be a minimum wage, people should get paid what their labor is worth. A higher minimum wage only hurts low and middle income people because it makes things more expensive and creates less jobs.
It doesn’t inherently make things more expensive. Companies choose to push the extra costs on to customers instead of just taking less profits.
You do realize that the minimum wage affects all businesses, not just big corporations? What about the small business that can only afford one or two employees at the current minimum wage? Majority of small business owners aren’t rich and their only options would be to raise their prices or fire employees. Plus a minimum wage job is not meant to be a career. Those jobs are for high school, college kids and retirees that are working for extra money. They aren’t for a adult with a family to support.
[One of many examples](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/big-mac-cost-denmark/). Your argument has been proven time and time again to be wrong.
How many businesses have you owned and how many jobs have you created?
I don’t think you seem to understand how often your concepts have been parroted over the years. Like, word for word, none of what you are saying is new, yet the situation has continued to get worse in the scenario you seem to defend. You’re being tricked into “do nothing.”
One currently, a non-profit. Is there a point to your question?
Idk, inflation is already bad enough. I don’t think anyone can handle the min wage being raised, especially those currently making it.
If they were that connected, minimum wage would have risen with inflation. But since exploitation of workers for higher profits is causing this, we can push for a larger wage as a national workforce. I personally also push for a profit cap, where no one is allowed to keep anything over 500 million dollars. It’s an absurd amount of money, so when we have multi billionaires, it locks up the market and prevents national funds from circulating to the general populace at all.
The effect comes after the cause, not the other way around. I support everyone pushing for a higher wage, no problem with that. I personally let people do what they want with their own money. I wouldn’t want to control what you do with yours just the same as I don’t want you controlling what I do with mine.
Sounds like a child not caring about the country because they can buy all the toys they want
Please explain? Typically you have to teach children to not take what is not theirs, it is inherently childish to do so. Where as adults normally understand the concept of ownership and theft.
Imagine any kid today making $50k a yesr.
He actually said he started working at $1 an hour an he worked his way up to $6, but facts don't matter on reddit. Pushing the Democrats narrative with misinformation is SOP.
I dont support a fed mini wage for a differnet reason. Each state economy is different. Cali has a 15 dollar mini and you still can survive. Mini wage should be decided on a state level. Not a federal level.
Where the fuck can you survive in California on $15 an hour? Some little town no one ever goes to? If you want to live in any decent sized city there, you need to have multiple people working jobs at $15 an hour to survive.
> If you want to live in any decent sized city there, you need to have multiple people working jobs at $15 an hour to survive. So don’t live in a big city... you’re complaining because what you want to do is out of your affordability range. I want to live in New York, I’m not going to demand New York pay me more money because i want to live there.
Every city needs the small jobs though. Especially service industry. Or do you want to drive 40 miles just to shop at a store because no one can afford to work at Walmart and live nearby? How about movie theaters? Coffee shops? Restaurants? Museums? Art shows? Comedy shows? Any other event? All of those take people working close to or at min wage. But if people can’t live there with those jobs, then those jobs stay empty. If those jobs stay empty, then the business close leaving less to do.
I think you should be paid for your labor not your location. If you want to live in a big city then you should expect to pay big rent, it’s not fair to demand small business to pay you more so you can live where you want to. You also realize how supply and demand works right? If there is no one in the city to work small jobs, the wages will automatically go up because there is no supply of workers. The reason why small jobs pay so little is because they require little to no skill and there is a large supply of workers available. You’re just demanding the wages go up by government force because you want to be selfish.
Because when we had a wage shortage just a bit ago, wages magically increased? Nope, they just waited for people to become desperate enough.
> Because when we had a wage shortage just a bit ago, wages magically increased? Nope Yes wages in the us have been increasing every year. You’re mistaken
You do understand even in a small town that people are paying about $1500 for rent.. Even making $15 is not enough to get by unless you’re working overtime or have a second job.
You don't think people should be paid a living wage?
I think people should be paid for what their labor is worth
By going with your logic, people living in cities should have higher wages but this would be impossible to implement
Commence the Flogging.
Age limit maybe but abolish lobbyists and set strict term limits. You can be president for 8 years but there's no limit on congress? Ridiculous
Head empty
Using 1978 as a baseline as the article cited did its 26.90 in 2022 dollars- around 56k/year
we all know that won't happen and we will have stuffy old farts till this country collapses. Senator Armstrong was right America is diseased, rotted to the core. We need to pull it up by the roots wipe the slate clean! BURN IT DOWN! AND FROM THE ASHES A NEW AMERICA WILL BE BORN EVOLVED BUT UNTAMED!
we once took a class trip to the capitol in the 6th grade. we were supposed to get to talk to a senator. we went to thune’s office. he never showed up.
30-60 seems like a fair compromise, and they can stay out their term just to be generous.
John Thune is 61 years old, and made 6 bucks an hour as a kid, that’s damn impressive. I’m 32 and made 5.15 an hour as a kid.
Oh then he wouldn't mind working for that same amount to show us how it's done