Even I could put on a suit and walk in off the street and convince the jury of his liability in those killings.
‘yes your honor, he’s liable because he dared to put out that fire, and then ran away when the guy who said it screamed “I’m going to kill you” and charged at him, and then tried to wrestle the rifle out of his hand.’
Buffoon.
It would have made zero difference. Actions speak louder than words, and what he did that day directly contradicts this ‘message’.
Fact checking time~
the kid who took a gun he didn’t own to
The gun was not in his possession until the day after he arrived.
to a state he didn’t live in
But that he previously worked in, and his father lived in. Not exactly a strange neighborhood.
to shoot protestors he didn’t know
It’s obvious he didn’t go there “to shoot protesters”, for several factual, verifiable reasons:
ostensibly to protect businesses he’s unaffiliated with
There are text records of the business requesting his help, and one of the co-owners of that business, after denying it, was seen taking a posed ‘thank you’ picture with him after they had spent some time at the dealership that day. The evidence is clear they were there because they were directly requested to be there.
Honestly of course he wanted to murder people, anyone who disputes that is and has always been deliberately lying.
Nope, but I can understand how you’d reach that conclusion, considering you have basically every relevant fact of the case wrong. That’s what happens when you get narratives from social media, instead of drawing conclusions based on facts and evidence. There’s a ton of hard video evidence, you know.
It’s funny that on the day the verdict was delivered, the megathreads on Reddit announcing it were full of people admitting coming to terms with the fact that it was ironclad self-defense, and that social media and sensationalized news sources had created a narrative that directly contradicted the facts. And now years later, the only people still really talking about that case are the ideologues on both wings still clinging so desperately to those bullshit narratives, still repeating the same easily-debunked talking points they were fed by their echo chamber of choice, that were debunked before the trial even began. Hell, you can still find people claiming all the people he shot were black, lol.
This case has become such a perfect litmus test for identifying ideologues over people who both care about what’s actually true, and are actually willing to inform themselves instead of just swallowing whatever talking points they’re fed. Especially considering how EASY it is to debunk the bullshit, in this particular case.
It almost makes me not want to correct the lies, to make sure I can keep easier tabs on the liars, lol.
Your reaction to my factual comment, lol
If they were actually good products/services, they wouldn’t need to advertise
How do they get their first customers without advertising?
This is the quintessential stereotype of ‘the left can’t meme’, wall of text and all, lol.
Couldn’t have said any of this better myself.
Absolutely, it’s absurd for that guy to assume this is a racist act.
But that’s what happens when victim mentality is drilled into one so deeply that it becomes the primary component of one’s identity.
Someone’s mad that their idealism was confronted with inconvenient truths, lol.
I hope one day you’ll mature enough not to react so childishly to being contradicted.
Fine points, though I think automation is much more likely (as we’ve already seen it begin to happen) to phase out the human being entirely, rather than make their labor more productive, by simple virtue of the fact that it costs less.
Plus, it only becomes easier for it to cost less, the higher wage the human beings are demanding (and/or forcing via legislation).
The fact that your response to the dilemma of a particular job position creating less value than the minimum wage you intend to force upon it with “fix your business model” reveals a massive ignorance of what goes into starting a business, and of how thin profit margins are in the majority of small businesses.
You’re unwittingly advocating for there to be insurmountable hurdles for starting new small businesses, which will inevitably result in megacorporations with deep enough pockets to eat those inflated costs (and having a lack of competition to the degree that they can easily mark up their product far beyond where they normally could without being punished for it, to more easily eat said costs) being the only ones employing anyone, because only they can afford it.
And then, invariably, the same ‘advocates’ will come along and complain about monopoly and lack of competition, oblivious to their own facilitation of that end result.
In short, your ‘solution’ is objectively foolish, and merits no serious consideration.
College tuition has massively outpaced inflation, much less wage growth.
The policies (chiefly the change that made student loans no longer dischargeable in bankruptcy) that rocketed college tuition up are a MUCH more significant factor in college affordability, that’s just a fact.
Anyone who does a job full time deserves to be able to cover their basic necessities.
Okay, but I’d add also that no one should be forced to hire someone at a literal loss. After all, it’s a business, not a charity.
And the fact is that there exist jobs that don’t create enough value that it’s possible to satisfy both of the above conditions. So what’s the solution? This isn’t such a simple problem to solve.
If you say ‘fuck the employers, they have to pay a living wage, no matter how valuable the labor is’, then new small business creation will be smothered to a standstill–no one is going to want to start a new small business if they’re unable to attain the same ‘living wage’ they’re forced to pay every employee, regardless of what they bring to the business.
And if you say ‘fuck the workers, low/no minimum wage’, it becomes much easier to exploit/intimidate individual workers into accepting unfairly low wages.
That’s why I think the most effective system is something I heard of in a few countries, I forget which, where there is no minimum wage, BUT there is a lot of strong codified protection for things like unionization and collective bargaining, which enables the best possible compromises possible, in every industry (and for certain, compromise will be necessary to a degree, for the reason stated above). The result in those countries, as I recall, is that the median wage tends to be higher than what the ‘baseline’ minimum wage set by law would end up being. Another advantage is that it’s much better finely-tuned to each individual industry/job, and also much better at reacting to changing circumstances, than the beauraucracy of legislation could ever hope to realistically match.
TL;DR: The EPI graph isn’t measuring productivity vs. pay, even for “typical workers”; it’s measuring wage inequality, and images like these are the visual equivalent of out-of-context half-truth soundbites:
https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/6rtoh4/productivity_pay_gap_in_epi_we_trust/
My rule of thumb is “the less I’d like to do a job, the more the person doing it should be paid.”
That does already put upward pressure on the wage. Same reason that graveyard shifts tend to pay more than first or second shift positions of the same job, and that more dangerous jobs tend to pay more than safer ones of equal overall difficulty.
so-called unskilled jobs
“Unskilled” is not an insult when talking about jobs, it’s just terminology/jargon. In this context, it describes a certain category of job: one that requires no prior special certification or schooling to be qualified for, and that the typical person can be trained to do to a satisfactory level within a month or so.
jobs that get routinely exploited.
The fact that many people are qualified to do those jobs (due to their low requirements) is the primary thing driving the wage down for them. As long as there is someone willing to do the job for X amount less than you’re willing to, they’ll get hired over you, because the job is such that individual excellence doesn’t make nearly as much difference. You can’t really blame the company for hiring the cheapest adequate labor they have access to, they’re doing no different than the workers trying to find the highest paying job they can. To criticize one without criticizing the other is a double standard.
Demonstrably false. Prices will always go up regardless.
Uh, this is a total non-sequitur. It’s like arguing that also getting shot will not affect the situation of someone who’s been stabbed.
Just because prices are going up does not mean that something else can’t also make them go up (more/faster), what a bizarre assertion.
Nobody should have to work for less than a liveable wage.
Should people be forced to hire workers who cost more than they produce?
I don’t see how both of these conditions can be met simultaneously, and unless they both are, there is still unresolved unfairness to contend with. What do you suggest?
If you disagree with me you are a piece of shit.
You’re not nearly as omniscient as you think you are, to make such an arrogant statement.
Are you aware that that would be more than double what the (inflation-adjusted, of course) minimum wage has ever been in US history?
That had nothing to do with the minimum wage (which has been lower than $15 of today’s dollars since inception), but because of how much cheaper college was back then.
The minimum wage in the US has never been higher than about $12 in today’s dollars.
It’s not evidence of anything. Actions speak louder than words. The actions he took that day directly contradict any stated intention to shoot anyone. He used his weapon as a literal last resort all 3 times, when not doing so would have meant forfeiting his own life.
Textbook self-defense.