top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 198 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (13 children)

The minimum wage was supposed to be enough for one person to take care of a family of four and keep them out of poverty.

Now, the minimum wage is inadequate to support a person, let alone a pet or family.

Henry Ford, the first CEO of Ford Motor Co. made 50x more than his baseline employee.

Now, a starting employee for Ford makes about $18.00 an hour, $38,000 a year. Not enough to support any family (but more than minimum wage by far)

Now the CEO of Ford made $27,000,000 a year, or about $37,000.00 an hour. That's over 700x more than a baseline employee.

(all approx. from duck duck go search)

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 87 points 4 days ago (4 children)

    I met Americans telling me that these poor corporations can't survive if they have to pay a minimum salary and how it was meant for teenagers ... it was weird. I was like, you live in SF ... what's the minimum again? how much is rent again?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    It's just objectively false. The minimum wage was not "meant for teenagers".

    No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country... By living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level - I mean the wages of decent living.

    -Franklin D. Roosevelt

    You can hem and haw all day and what minimum wage should be, but what it was meant to be is unambiguously clear.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 24 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    Ben and Jerry had it right. We need to take their policy and turn it into a federal law.

    A static multiplier that is the most that they can receive based on the lowest salary level.

    Let's find a way to work in some math so that they make everybody part-time to avoid the trouble, like Walmart. They suffer harder.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    What we need, desperately, is a restoration of the 91% top-tier tax rate, that nobody ever paid, and nobody ever will pay.

    The purpose of such a tax rate isn't revenue. The purpose is avoidance. What companies have to do to avoid that tax is exactly what the economy needs. The largest businesses need to reduce prices to lower revenue below the line. Alternatively, they need to Increase business spending, which reduces their taxable income by paying more to employees and outside workers for products and services.

    Capital Gains need to be taxed progressively, and higher than labor.

    The Social Security tax limit needs to be eliminated, and cap gains needs to be subject to this tax as well. Social security tax needs to be shifted from regressive to progressive. The social security benefit age needs to be incrementally decreased until Social Security is a UBI system instead of a retirement system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 15 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    and this is why minimums should be pegged to some cost of living measure so they constantly adjust

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    If this were done, I wouldn't be surprised if every industry did everything in their power to manipulate the specific qualifying items used to generate the measure in order to keep wages as low as possible.

    Like if the price of a gallon container of milk were to be the measure, the industry would start selling milk by the liter and limit galon containers to special sales where it cost $0.05, but each store only had a stock of 5 units on January 1st.

    Some bullshit like that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    this is done in australia, and sure… but… it’s pegged to CPI (among other things: they do a review and release a report every year) which is literally the cost of groceries (like not just 1), so… go ahead and manipulate the price of groceries down. i’ll wait

    https://www.fairwork.gov.au/about-us/workplace-laws/annual-wage-review/annual-wage-review-2026

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 103 points 4 days ago (10 children)

    What's really funny is that if you ask a MAGA about FDR they'll swear that FDR's policies kept the Depression going longer and it was only the massive government spending for WW2 that got the economy going again.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Dude the cognitive dissonance necessary to hold that point of view is insane. Like ... FDR's policies were squarely pegged to government spending to boost the economy - you can't say that higher taxation for the ultra wealthy paired with government spending kept the depression going longer then turn around and say the exact same thing got the economy going again.

    It's maddening to me how folks can even think like that. What kind of brain must one possess to believe these sorts of lies?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    Hilary Clinton was both a senile old woman who didn't understand how to send an email AND a criminal mastermind who'd killed dozens without ever leaving a clue.

    Obama was a lazy do-nothing AND tirelessly undermining the American way.

    Immigrants are stealing our jobs AND getting welfare.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    Not even MAGAts, my great grandmother allegedly hated FDR so much she refused to utter his name or refer to him as the President.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 days ago

    My dad would sometimes loudly comment within earshot of my great-grandmother, "Well, this is a woman who voted for FDR four times" in a derisive fashion, and if she was feeling spicy, she'd yell "I'd have voted for him a fifth time too!"

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 29 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    That particular prez also beat the shit out of nazis. As opposed to, you know, hiring them.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 51 points 3 days ago (8 children)

    FDR wasn't a democratic socialist and was only a social democrat by our current absolutely fucked standards but sure whatever everyone just lies about everything anyways why not.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    They're not lying so much as they just don't know what those terms mean. They don't know what socialism is, or what the difference between social democracy and Democratic socialism is.

    All they hear is "government does good things and must be socialism of some kind."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 3 days ago

    To be fair to people in the US, this is because Bernie and all who followed have referred to themselves as DemSocs when they're SocDems. As someone who studied PolSci this has annoyed me since the beginning, but at this point it's too far gone to do anything about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    Democratic Socialist is mostly a U.S. centric (post) Cold War era term, designed to work around red scare propaganda. Older references I have been able to find are mostly either French mistranslations of social democrat (the grammar has a different word order) or intended as adjectives (socialists who are democratic).

    In 1944 it would have been considered a distinction without difference.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 61 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    FDR’s signature policy for his fourth term was going to be riding his popularity from winning the war to pass a second, economic Bill of Rights, enshrining a constitutional right to housing, a fair wage, etc. Unfortunately, he didn’t survive to pursue it, and Truman had less than zero interest.

    FDR’s former VP, Henry Wallace, would have gone even further, but he was replaced by Truman.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 3 days ago

    FDR was a social democrat and the reason his social policy didn't stick around is because he compromised with racists and allowed them to condition the passing of welfare policy on the exclusion of black and brown Americans from receiving any benefits, and he also did not sufficiently challenge the power of capitalist property owners. When the civil rights movement began to see success in forcing the universalization of social welfare the still-powerful capitalists were able to ride the wave of the racist backlash towards the near-total dismantling of the welfare state.

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

    While FDR was popular, he was a social democrat. Welfare under capitalism is not socialism, it's just welfare, and the welfare the US received was largely built from colonial holdings and imperialist plunder. Socialism isn't just having decent welfare, it's an entirely new economic system where the base of society is determined by social ownership of production and distribution. The only reason FDR was even allowed to pass these social reforms was because, at the time, economic unrest was high and workers could look to a largely unaffected and growing USSR for inspiration. The New Deal was a concession made to an organized working class, and the source was largely imperialist super-profits, ensuring both capitalists and workers could domestically be happy (assuming you were white). They exported the contradictions of society to the global south.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    I think FDR - maybe better than any president since - really “understood the assignment” in regards to the POTUS being the manager of international capitalism in the post-war world. Part of that is understanding that the working class, in times of crisis, need to be pacified with carrots because sticks only heighten contradictions in the long run (even if he didn’t see or understand it that way nexessarily). FDR understood that capitalism is a global system and thus requires global coordination. He saw what happened between the wars where the bourgeoisie of each nation turned inward and disregarded this global nature of capitalism. Recently it seems the bourgeoisie are forgetting this lesson.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 57 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

    That make you go "Hmm..." until you think about them for a few seconds. The fact FDR implemented progressive social policies isn't why the 22nd Amendment was ratified. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson established a convention of a maximum two terms by declining to run for a third.

    Just like a lot of laws, the 22nd Amendment was written when someone finally violated a long-observed norm. Four terms in a row (without a definite end, even, as Roosevelt died early in his fourth term) was wildly outside the norm and forced politicians to confront formal term limits instead of unspoken, honors system ones.

    The only states that voted to reject the 22nd were Oklahoma and Massachusetts.

    Congress was more partisan, mainly being Republicans and southern Democrats voting in favor. This was pre-Southern Strategy, and the GOP was more complicated. With Truman (FDR's former VP) on the backfoot when Congress was deciding on the 22nd, it's pretty obvious why there'd be a partisan split—with the amendment existing because of FDR, whose popularity the Democratic Party were still riding off of.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 11 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Personally, I think we will need to completely replace the economic system. Our norms are based on technical debt inherited from millennia of practice, with every great social hierarchy designed to make the ordinary person most useful to the wealthiest. Starting over, with a clean sheet design - new currency, new laws, new organizations, and new expectations, is the way forward.

    For example, what if workers could vote on who their boss is, and be able to set the pay of said bosses every three months? What if there was a hard 40 hour cap on workhours per week, with fixed pay per hour? What if tipping was outlawed nationwide, and delivery drivers had their fuel costs covered by employers? What if there was an absolute cap on income, wealth, and assets, to prevent the existence of moguls?

    We should just throw out our existing structures, because they are piles of bullshit.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)

    Term limits were absolutely instated because conservatives were afraid of the fact that people made FDR president for life, and the New Deal was too pinko for them.

    That said, FDR was not in any way a Socialist. And even if he was, no Socialist should be wanting to emulate a man who put Japanese people in concentration camps.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child)

    FDR was absolutely not a democratic socialist. He was a social democrat. He favored concessions to the working class to prevent them from revolting and overthrowing capitalism. The US was way behind Europe because the USSR showed workers everywhere what was possible and the US purged them all and sent them back to Europe, and the European bourgeoisie had to make concessions to the working class to prevent them from revolting and overthrowing capitalism. The US thought it had defended against this possibility with purges, but then the business cycle showed up and crashed the US economy, taking down the rest of the world with it. And they thought they could ride it out and let the working class suffer. But there was a real risk of class consciousness emerging and thus FDR presided over concessions to keep the people pacified

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago

    Republicans today wouldn't mind most FDR policies. The goalposts never stop moving.

  • source
  • People also seem to forget that FDR was a compromise position and that even he tried a few times to sell people out.

  • source
  • So sick of people glazing FDR. He seized the property of 100,000 innocent Americans and threw them in concentration camps. Fuck FDR.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    The 25th amendment was a mistake.

    Game it out. Every president after Roosevelt resigned or lost re election until Reagan, who had severe altzheimers. Clinton would have been the first 3 term president, and probably 4 terms. No citizen united, no Bush v Gore. A dem Supreme Court. No war in Iraq.

    Sure, a republican probably wins in 2008, but the country would have been on a much, much better footing. The 25th amendment was a mistake.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›