supersoygrrrl:

stfuconservatives:

anticapitalist:

libertarians-and-stoya:

anticapitalist:

libertarians-and-stoya replied to your post:DAMMIT

blame the minimum wage laws

I agree.

If they were higher, the working class would have more disposable income that they could spend on buying things like guitars. Increased aggregate demand for guitars would cause greater employment at guitar center.

Instead, the shitty minimum wage law allows employers to pay workers stupidly low wages, so that the working class can’t buy any thing fun, and thus guitar center can’t hire very many people.

The problem with your argument is the fact that employers cannot supply those jobs at higher wages artificially.  Wages rise with time - employers do not have means to hire everyone at those higher wages.

They’re too busy paying themselves 375 times more than the average working class citizen. They could reduce their own pay to pay for more workers.

Unless there was some way to instantly grant employers the money to demand those jobs, they won’t be able to.

Employers already have the money, the monopoly on capital, and the support of the state. But they still need MORE before they stop exploiting people?

It’s like saying “Oh if you give a Mafia boss more guns then he’ll stop shooting people”. 

Employers don’t need more money or capital. They need to start paying their workers more, and they need to stop exploiting the shit out of the workers. 

Eliminating minimum wage and allowing employers to create sweatshops will increase employment, but the working class would still be fucked over.

“Wages rise with time”

Too true! CEO wages increased 27% in just ONE YEAR! Average worker pay increase in that time period? 2.1%. Oh. Hmmm. Seems like we’ve granted these people plenty of money to hire people at higher than the minimum wage. Tell me, wise Libertarians: how much do we have to pay CEOs before we can make a living wage?

-Jess

Hahaha. Adjusted for inflation, wages have actually been stagnant since the 1970s. Exactly how much time are we going to give wages to rise until they’re both liveable and poor and middle class people are actually earning more towards the American dream? 

I’m sorry to say this, because people who don’t know much about Libertarian philosophy will think I’m being hyper-partisan or unable to sympathize with another person’s point of view, but anyone who buys Libertarianism whole hog is a fucking idiot.

You know what Libertarianism is, really? When you strip away all of the fluff and talking points? It’s a return to feudalism. Plain and simple. Allow me to explain.

Libertarianism is based upon what they say is the basic human right to own property. According to a Libertarian, all other rights stem from this right. Feudalism is an economic system controlled entirely by those who own land. Anyone who does not own land must work the land they live on for the landowners, in order to remain living on that land. In a Libertarian society, anyone who does not own land (or other real property) will be forced to work for those who do, and without wage laws and other forms of worker protection, will be screwed. The “free market” only works as such for those with economic power, i.e. landowners. In other words, feudalism.

So please, Libertarians, don’t try to tell me this is some new, magic-bullet idea that can save the country. Average people have been fighting this type of system for over 1000 years. You’re all assholes.

Ron Paul - a Bad Lip Reading soundbite

Wage War: Employers Stealing Millions from US Workers

supersoygrrrl:

drinkthe-koolaid:

supersoygrrrl:

stfuconservatives:

Breaking news: despite what Republicans and Libertarians would have you think, employers are more concerned about their bottom line than their employees.

-Jess

Posting this to facebook. I can’t wait to see what all the libertarians who argue with me about how abolishing the minimum wage/all regulations on business because business always acts in the best interest of employees will argue for this one. 

Getting rid of the minimum wage may make some sort of sense from a strictly mathematical & theoretical standpoint. I personally don’t think that it does, even if you remove the fact that we’re talking about actual people with actual families.

That being said, we are talking about real people and real families. Businesses are machines, machines designed with one goal mind: maximize return on investment. With no miminum wage laws, these corporations will pay their employees as little as possible. Libertarians like to believe that if the companies’ pay is too low, they simply won’t be able to hire anyone. This is their vaunted “invisible hand” horseshit.

Unfortunately for them and their classroom theory, the reality is people who need money just to survive will be forced to take whatever jobs they can find. There is no real “free market” in this country; or in the world for that matter. The scales are unfairly tilted toward employers as is. Removing the few protections left to average every day working people is not the way to repair our economy.

The argument against minimum wage they’ve given me before is if a company pays too little why, employees will simply just leave and find a job that pays better! Because that’s practical, especially in a recession. But in this magical world where that happens once everyone leaves for companies that pay better, the original shitty paying companies will be forced to pay better wages to lure employees back. And by abolishing minimum wage it’ll actually make employers pay people more because it creates libertarian’s favorite thing ever -competition! 

Right! That is their theory. However, in reality that is not what would happen. I cannot quit my job for a better paying job if the better paying job does not exist. And these libertarians are naive if they think these companies won’t collude to keep wages down.

(Source: stfuconservatives)

Wage War: Employers Stealing Millions from US Workers

supersoygrrrl:

stfuconservatives:

Breaking news: despite what Republicans and Libertarians would have you think, employers are more concerned about their bottom line than their employees.

-Jess

Posting this to facebook. I can’t wait to see what all the libertarians who argue with me about how abolishing the minimum wage/all regulations on business because business always acts in the best interest of employees will argue for this one. 

Getting rid of the minimum wage may make some sort of sense from a strictly mathematical & theoretical standpoint. I personally don’t think that it does, even if you remove the fact that we’re talking about actual people with actual families.

That being said, we are talking about real people and real families. Businesses are machines, machines designed with one goal mind: maximize return on investment. With no miminum wage laws, these corporations will pay their employees as little as possible. Libertarians like to believe that if the companies’ pay is too low, they simply won’t be able to hire anyone. This is their vaunted “invisible hand” horseshit.

Unfortunately for them and their classroom theory, the reality is people who need money just to survive will be forced to take whatever jobs they can find. There is no real “free market” in this country; or in the world for that matter. The scales are unfairly tilted toward employers as is. Removing the few protections left to average every day working people is not the way to repair our economy.

(Source: stfuconservatives)

apoplecticskeptic: jeffmiller: Earlier, I noted that Mr. Buffett’s secretary only makes $60,000 a year—not a bad living, but pretty meager when compared to her boss’ $50 billion net worth.  As the chart above shows, the average CEO secretary makes more than this; indeed, $60,000 would place Buffett’s secretary around the 25th percentile.  And I think we all know that Buffett is not the average CEO—he’s the richest CEO in the United States.   Isn’t there something fundamentally weird about a man who is willing to use his secretary’s economic situation to make a political point without any embarrassment whatsoever about his responsibility for her income?  Again, she’s been his secretary for two decades; she’s been at the company for 38 years.  Instead of crusading for his own taxes to be higher, maybe Buffett could try to pay his employees a little bit more.   Someone should start a petition. The irony of a Libertarian stating that anyone other than the individual is ultimately responsible for their own income is too rich too pass up. Seriously? She’s a secretary in Omaha who clearly likes her gig enough to remain there for nearly 4 decades. He must be doing something right by his employees. She can walk anytime she wants. Hell, if she played her cards right she could walk into any other high-profile CEO’s office and ask for 5x that salary, probably. Should the pay for a given position be based on, or evaluated in light of, the personal wealth of the person doing the hiring (or even the overall financial health of the company itself)? Or should it be based chiefly on the task for which the employee is being hired and the comparative wages in the workplace for similar positions while being considered alongside the relative value the company places on the tasks it needs performed?

apoplecticskeptic:

jeffmiller:

Earlier, I noted that Mr. Buffett’s secretary only makes $60,000 a year—not a bad living, but pretty meager when compared to her boss’ $50 billion net worth.  As the chart above shows, the average CEO secretary makes more than this; indeed, $60,000 would place Buffett’s secretary around the 25th percentile.  And I think we all know that Buffett is not the average CEO—he’s the richest CEO in the United States.  

Isn’t there something fundamentally weird about a man who is willing to use his secretary’s economic situation to make a political point without any embarrassment whatsoever about his responsibility for her income?  Again, she’s been his secretary for two decades; she’s been at the company for 38 years.  Instead of crusading for his own taxes to be higher, maybe Buffett could try to pay his employees a little bit more.  

Someone should start a petition.

The irony of a Libertarian stating that anyone other than the individual is ultimately responsible for their own income is too rich too pass up. Seriously? She’s a secretary in Omaha who clearly likes her gig enough to remain there for nearly 4 decades. He must be doing something right by his employees. She can walk anytime she wants. Hell, if she played her cards right she could walk into any other high-profile CEO’s office and ask for 5x that salary, probably.

Should the pay for a given position be based on, or evaluated in light of, the personal wealth of the person doing the hiring (or even the overall financial health of the company itself)? Or should it be based chiefly on the task for which the employee is being hired and the comparative wages in the workplace for similar positions while being considered alongside the relative value the company places on the tasks it needs performed?

On way to anti-choice rally Rand Paul refused TSA pat-down. Because invasive government is wrong when it’s a man’s body.

On way to anti-choice rally Rand Paul refused TSA pat-down. Because invasive government is wrong when it’s a man’s body.

shitrepublicancandidatessay: “Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution.” -A discussion of why Lawrence v. Texas (the Supreme Court case about whether it was constitutional for police in Texas to enter a gay man’s apartment and arrest him for having anal sex) was wrongly decided. From Ron Paul’s “Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution,” August 2003. “Privacy is one of the most sacred elements of a free society. It is now common to pass laws which routinely violate the Constitutional guarantee that our homes and persons are not to be invaded by government agents.” -From Ron Paul’s book, Freedom Under Siege, published 1987. Makes perfect sense. My shit is stuff, your stuff is shit (thanks George Carlin).

shitrepublicancandidatessay:

“Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution.” -A discussion of why Lawrence v. Texas (the Supreme Court case about whether it was constitutional for police in Texas to enter a gay man’s apartment and arrest him for having anal sex) was wrongly decided. From Ron Paul’s “Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution,” August 2003.

“Privacy is one of the most sacred elements of a free society. It is now common to pass laws which routinely violate the Constitutional guarantee that our homes and persons are not to be invaded by government agents.” -From Ron Paul’s book, Freedom Under Siege, published 1987.

Makes perfect sense. My shit is stuff, your stuff is shit (thanks George Carlin).

scumbag Ron Paul. Someone please photoshop that hat onto him?

scumbag Ron Paul. Someone please photoshop that hat onto him?

shortformblog:

VIDEO: Ron Paul takes credit for controversial newsletters in 1995 video

We present you with the new news-oriented BuzzFeed: This video is a not-so-positive revelation from the Ron Paul camp — Paul straight-up talking up the controversial newsletters that have suddenly cropped up in the press again amidst evidence of racism. He does seem quick to take credit for them in this 1995 video. (As he puts it: “I also do an investment letter,” which seems to imply he writes or at least edits it.) The question, obviously: Do the next 16 years make up for what came before this clip, anyway? source

Follow ShortFormBlog

Not unless he publicly renounces any racism at all, which he has not done. Instead, it’s been deny, deny, deny. Oh and his stance that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional does him no favors, either. To put not too fine a point in it, he’s a seriously disturbed and misled idiot.

ATLAS SHRUGGED Inadvertently Releases Collector’s Item

kohenari:

The irony, as they say, is delicious:

Atlas Productions LLC announced today its plan to replace more than 100,000 title sheets appearing on the Atlas Shrugged Part 1 DVD and Blu-ray versions sold through major retail outlets. These retail versions were packaged with an inaccurate synopsis of Atlas Shrugged. Not affected were the “Special Edition” versions sold online at AtlasShruggedMovie.com.

The 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, is known in philosophical and political circles for presenting a cogent argument advocating a society driven by rational self-interest. On the back of the film’s retail DVD and Blu-ray however, the movie’s synopsis contradictorily states “AYN RAND’s timeless novel of courage and self-sacrifice comes to life…”

…

Harmon Kaslow, CEO of Atlas Productions and Producer of the film stated “As we all well know, the ideas brought to life in Atlas Shrugged are entirely antithetical to the idea of ‘self-sacrifice’ as a virtue. Atlas is quite literally a story about the dangers of self-sacrifice. The error was an unfortunate one and fans of Ayn Rand and Atlas have every right to be upset… and we have every intention of making it right.”

Oh, indeed.

(via Max Fisher).

oopsie