Every argument against raising the minimum wage involves pointing to some other part of our broken system as if it were a beloved cultural treasure to defend rather than just the next unacceptable thing that needs fixing.
They can't risk exposing the truth that you can actually just give people the money they need and nothing will break.
Is this obvious, it feels obvious.
More from A.R. Moxon
If you ever want to consider how committed our society is to the foundational lie that life must be earned, and those who fail to earn it must die, consider that the proposition “giving everyone money to spend would be bad for the economy” is widely accepted as truth.
“Giving money to people in poverty solves poverty” is an obvious truth, which needs (another) study for proof, for the same reason that this finding will be ignored (again).
We don’t want to fix poverty, even if doing so helps everyone—not if it means life for the “undeserving.”
It’s not about saving money.
There's a great fear in this country that a single dollar might go to someone who might not deserve it; or that a single given dollar might be spent on something we deem unworthy.
We'll spend five dollars to prevent the waste of that one dollar.
The manifestations are everywhere. From the overt, gleefully cruel hostility of conservatism toward people in poverty, of course. But also hidden in almost everyone's assumptions.
Our use of charity as a way of controlling who gets helped, for example.
Even the reversal—a desire to prevent aid from going to "undeserving" wealthy who don't need it (true)—leads us to create obstacles to aid people in poverty often can't overcome, but wealthy people can.
Which is why wealthy people like means
A new study found that giving low-income workers money upfront in their work period helped alleviate the mental burden of their financial problems and allowed them to be more productive \u2014 echoing other findings on the psychological impacts of poverty.https://t.co/zdxItTLDLZ
— NPR (@NPR) February 3, 2021
“Giving money to people in poverty solves poverty” is an obvious truth, which needs (another) study for proof, for the same reason that this finding will be ignored (again).
We don’t want to fix poverty, even if doing so helps everyone—not if it means life for the “undeserving.”
It’s not about saving money.
There's a great fear in this country that a single dollar might go to someone who might not deserve it; or that a single given dollar might be spent on something we deem unworthy.
We'll spend five dollars to prevent the waste of that one dollar.
The manifestations are everywhere. From the overt, gleefully cruel hostility of conservatism toward people in poverty, of course. But also hidden in almost everyone's assumptions.
Our use of charity as a way of controlling who gets helped, for example.
Charity isn't primarily an act.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) November 10, 2019
Before the act comes an alignment.
Charity is the natural fruit of a deep alignment with the virtue of generosity.
It sure shouldn't be a delivery mechanism for one's own beliefs about worthiness.
Even the reversal—a desire to prevent aid from going to "undeserving" wealthy who don't need it (true)—leads us to create obstacles to aid people in poverty often can't overcome, but wealthy people can.
Which is why wealthy people like means
Whenever someone proposes a means-testing solution, it's an indication they've internalized the lie, foundational to the United States, that some people deserve life and others don't.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) December 18, 2020
It's an expensive lie.
Bullshit.
I have family members all the way up the Fox News Facebook misinformation hole, and they didn’t get vaccinated because they felt respected; they got vaccinated because their children told them they wouldn’t get to see their grandchildren until they got vaccinated.
3 observations:
People don't tend to change their worldviews from a place of comfort.
When selfish assholes decide to behave like selfish assholes, the problem isn't that others aren't coddling their feelings enough.
Selfish assholes aren't everyone else's job to fix.
Selfish assholes would love for you to *think* they are everybody else's job to fix.
It puts them at the center and in control.
That means when they act like a selfish asshole, it's *your* fault. You should have been more persuasive. Daddy hits you because you made him angry.
Truth is, vaccine resistors are behaving this way because their feelings ARE being respected.
Malicious media entities created self-feeding networks that reassure selfish assholes they can be selfish assholes and still be respected.
Antvax, racist, sexist, all are welcome.
The way you make a selfish asshole stop being a selfish asshole is well known.
You draw a clear boundary and then you enforce that boundary. You tell them that their bullshit won't be tolerated, and then you don't tolerate their bullshit.
I think we all know that, actually.
I have family members all the way up the Fox News Facebook misinformation hole, and they didn’t get vaccinated because they felt respected; they got vaccinated because their children told them they wouldn’t get to see their grandchildren until they got vaccinated.
Vaccine resisters can\u2019t be persuaded if they feel disrespected | Opinion by @michaelbd https://t.co/nwszm47IOf
— National Review (@NRO) July 16, 2021
3 observations:
People don't tend to change their worldviews from a place of comfort.
When selfish assholes decide to behave like selfish assholes, the problem isn't that others aren't coddling their feelings enough.
Selfish assholes aren't everyone else's job to fix.
Selfish assholes would love for you to *think* they are everybody else's job to fix.
It puts them at the center and in control.
That means when they act like a selfish asshole, it's *your* fault. You should have been more persuasive. Daddy hits you because you made him angry.
Truth is, vaccine resistors are behaving this way because their feelings ARE being respected.
Malicious media entities created self-feeding networks that reassure selfish assholes they can be selfish assholes and still be respected.
Antvax, racist, sexist, all are welcome.
The way you make a selfish asshole stop being a selfish asshole is well known.
You draw a clear boundary and then you enforce that boundary. You tell them that their bullshit won't be tolerated, and then you don't tolerate their bullshit.
I think we all know that, actually.
Imagine if Christians actually had to live according to their Bibles.
Imagine if Christians actually sacrificed themselves for the good of those they considered their enemies, with no thought of any recompense or reward, but only to honor the essential humanity of all people.
Imagine if Christians sold all their possessions and gave it to the poor.
Imagine if they relentlessly stood up for the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner.
Imagine if they worshipped a God whose response to political power was to reject it.
Or cancelled all debt owed them?
Imagine if the primary orientation of Christians was what others needed, not what they deserved.
Imagine Christians with no interest in protecting what they had.
Imagine Christians who made room for other beliefs, and honored the truths they found there.
Imagine Christians who saved their forgiveness and mercy for others, rather than saving it for themselves.
Whose empathy went first to the abused, not the abuser.
Who didn't see tax as theft; who didn't need to control distribution of public good to the deserving.
"If they start canceling these American presidents, they're gonna come after Bible characters next. Mark my words" -- Fox News "news side" host Bill Hemmer pic.twitter.com/qTPV0NERv8
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 19, 2021
Imagine if Christians actually sacrificed themselves for the good of those they considered their enemies, with no thought of any recompense or reward, but only to honor the essential humanity of all people.
Imagine if Christians sold all their possessions and gave it to the poor.
Imagine if they relentlessly stood up for the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner.
Imagine if they worshipped a God whose response to political power was to reject it.
Or cancelled all debt owed them?
Imagine if the primary orientation of Christians was what others needed, not what they deserved.
Imagine Christians with no interest in protecting what they had.
Imagine Christians who made room for other beliefs, and honored the truths they found there.
Imagine Christians who saved their forgiveness and mercy for others, rather than saving it for themselves.
Whose empathy went first to the abused, not the abuser.
Who didn't see tax as theft; who didn't need to control distribution of public good to the deserving.
More from Society
1/OK, data mystery time.
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.
Like most movements, I have learned that the definition of feminism has expanded to include simply treating women like human beings.
(A thread for whoever feels like reading)
I have observed feminists on Twitter advocating for rape victims to be heard, rapists to be held accountable, for people to address the misogyny that is deeply rooted in our culture, and for women to be treated with respect.
To me, very easy things to get behind.
And the amount of pushback they receive for those very basic requests is appalling. I see men trip over themselves to defend rape and rapists and misogyny every chance they get. Some accounts are completely dedicated to harassing women on this site. It’s unhealthy.
Furthermore, I have observed how dedicated these misogynists are by how they treat other men that do not immediately side with them. There is an entire lexicon they have created for men who do not openly treat women with disrespect.
Ex: simp, cuck, white knight, beta
All examples of terms they use to demean a man who respects women.
To paraphrase what a wise man on this app said:
Some men hate women so much, they hate men who don’t hate women
(A thread for whoever feels like reading)
Neighborhood gents, what\u2019s something you\u2019ve learned about feminism (or gained a better understanding of) that you think other men should know?
— feminist next door (@emrazz) February 19, 2021
Note - the quoted is a friendly/good faith replier. https://t.co/048kuxxX6q
I have observed feminists on Twitter advocating for rape victims to be heard, rapists to be held accountable, for people to address the misogyny that is deeply rooted in our culture, and for women to be treated with respect.
To me, very easy things to get behind.
And the amount of pushback they receive for those very basic requests is appalling. I see men trip over themselves to defend rape and rapists and misogyny every chance they get. Some accounts are completely dedicated to harassing women on this site. It’s unhealthy.
Furthermore, I have observed how dedicated these misogynists are by how they treat other men that do not immediately side with them. There is an entire lexicon they have created for men who do not openly treat women with disrespect.
Ex: simp, cuck, white knight, beta
All examples of terms they use to demean a man who respects women.
To paraphrase what a wise man on this app said:
Some men hate women so much, they hate men who don’t hate women
