This is a personal blog. I talk sense and nonsense.
Install Theme
azspot:

When We Say The Right Doesn’t Care About the Poor, This is What We Mean

Steadfast conservative = Teabagger, Christian theocrat
Business conservative = plutocrat
Young “outsiders” = libertarians, more accurately described as young Republicans

azspot:

When We Say The Right Doesn’t Care About the Poor, This is What We Mean

Steadfast conservative = Teabagger, Christian theocrat

Business conservative = plutocrat

Young “outsiders” = libertarians, more accurately described as young Republicans

(via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)

While today’s pair of horrible decisions might seem like distinct issues, in fact they are both part of a larger war on women and workers.

The absurdity of the Hobby Lobby decision…is obviously part of the Republican war on women, but it is also very much a war on the poor. An IUD costs about a month’s worth of wages at the minimum wage. If an executive can’t get birth control because her employer gets too hot and bothered thinking of her having sexy time, she can afford it on her own. A Hobby Lobby floor worker? Probably not. For women workers at closely held corporations, this decision will be devastating.

The Harris case is specifically about home care workers in Illinois. Who are home care workers? Women. Poor women. Lots of African-Americans, lots of Latinos, lots of undocumented workers. Home care workers are a major emphasis for SEIU right now…But moreover, it shows how little Alito and the boys care about rights for women wherever they are. It’s hardly coincidental that this case comes down the same day as the contraception mandate. The Court evidently believes that the home is not a workplace, but of course it is a workplace, especially if someone is getting paid to do work. That it is women working in the home, as it has always been, just makes it easier for conservatives to devalue that work.

If we don’t do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It’s not if, it’s when.

The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats (via azspot)

I agree with him, but there’s a good reason why police departments in the U.S. are becoming increasingly militarized. And no, it’s not to stop “the terrorists”, not really.

(via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)

workingamerica:

Good question. http://bit.ly/1jFytQ8
(Graphic via Being Liberal) http://ift.tt/1q9Hsw3

A: Conservatives who send their kids to private school (some of which were founded to avoid integration btw)

workingamerica:

Good question. http://bit.ly/1jFytQ8

(Graphic via Being Liberal) http://ift.tt/1q9Hsw3

A: Conservatives who send their kids to private school (some of which were founded to avoid integration btw)

(via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)

Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day, who has been turning his employees over to the Government relief rolls in order to preserve his company’s undistributed reserves, tell you — using his stockholders’ money to pay the postage for his personal opinions — that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry.

— Franklin Delano Roosevelt, The public papers and addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt. 1938 volume, The continuing struggle for liberalism: with a special introduction and explanatory notes by President Roosevelt. [Book 1] (via shitfuckingworldplease)

(Source: quod.lib.umich.edu, via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)

If this is the wave of the future, it makes nonsense of just about all the conventional wisdom on reducing inequality. Better education won’t do much to reduce inequality if the big rewards simply go to those with the most assets. Creating an “opportunity society”, or whatever it is the likes of Paul Ryan etc. are selling this week, won’t do much if the most important asset you can have in life is, well, lots of assets inherited from your parents. And so on.

Paul Krugman (via azspot)

People are going into debt for the majority of their lives in order to get the college degree that’s necessary for many jobs, yet that BA has become less and less valuable over time. Why should people invest so much in their training if it’s not going to pay off?

(via azspot)

theyoungturks:


Al Sharpton Quote


'Shared sacrifice' my ass

theyoungturks:

Al Sharpton Quote

'Shared sacrifice' my ass

(Source: tytnetwork)

"When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him whose."
—Don Marquis, newspaper columnist, quoted in O Rare Don Marquis (1962) by Edward Anthony

"When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him whose."

—Don Marquis, newspaper columnist, quoted in O Rare Don Marquis (1962) by Edward Anthony

(Source: questionall, via recall-all-republicans)

I don’t know how much of the devaluation of labor either technology or monopoly explains, in part because there has been so little discussion of what’s going on. I think it’s fair to say that the shift of income from labor to capital has not yet made it into our national discourse. Yet that shift is happening — and it has major implications. For example, there is a big, lavishly financed push to reduce corporate tax rates; is this really what we want to be doing at a time when profits are surging at workers’ expense? Or what about the push to reduce or eliminate inheritance taxes; if we’re moving back to a world in which financial capital, not skill or education, determines income, do we really want to make it even easier to inherit wealth? As I said, this is a discussion that has barely begun — but it’s time to get started, before the robots and the robber barons turn our society into something unrecognizable.

Paul Krugman (via azspot)

(via azspot)

There is an argument sometimes made by union activists that unions should run persuasion campaigns to collect dues because the workers are more invested and supportive of an energized organization than when dues are passively/invisibly collected on a union’s behalf. There is some evidence that this is true. For example, the most powerful local union in the country, Culinary 226 in Las Vegas—a political powerhouse that ensures middle-class wages and benefits for hotel housekeepers—operates in a right-to-work state and gets close to 100% dues compliance. Thus the Culinary local has the classic “free rider” problem—but the union solves the problem itself thru its intense advocacy. However, the very invisibility and ease of collecting union dues in the non-right-to-work states has paradoxically made unions more dependent on these “automatic” functions than ever. In short, most local unions today are logistically and, often, intellectually, atrophied. They lack the esprit, borne of success and militancy, of Culinary 226. Unfortunately, on balance, and in most situations, unions need automatic dues collection just to function at a reasonably high level. The medicine may make them weaker, but to take them off it immediately could be fatal.

This Is Not Wisconsin. It’s Worse.

This article is really, really, really good. 

(via differentclasswar)

(via differentclasswar)

theuppitynegras:

youngblackandvegan:

commie-pinko-liberal:

true fucking story

the end

The important thing to understand now is that while the election is over, the class war isn’t. The same people who bet big on Mr. Romney, and lost, are now trying to win by stealth — in the name of fiscal responsibility — the ground they failed to gain in an open election.

[…]

Consider, as a prime example, the push to raise the retirement age, the age of eligibility for Medicare, or both. This is only reasonable, we’re told — after all, life expectancy has risen, so shouldn’t we all retire later? In reality, however, it would be a hugely regressive policy change, imposing severe burdens on lower- and middle-income Americans while barely affecting the wealthy. Why? First of all, the increase in life expectancy is concentrated among the affluent; why should janitors have to retire later because lawyers are living longer? Second, both Social Security and Medicare are much more important, relative to income, to less-affluent Americans, so delaying their availability would be a far more severe hit to ordinary families than to the top 1 percent.

Or take a subtler example, the insistence that any revenue increases should come from limiting deductions rather than from higher tax rates. The key thing to realize here is that the math just doesn’t work; there is, in fact, no way limits on deductions can raise as much revenue from the wealthy as you can get simply by letting the relevant parts of the Bush-era tax cuts expire. So any proposal to avoid a rate increase is, whatever its proponents may say, a proposal that we let the 1 percent off the hook and shift the burden, one way or another, to the middle class or the poor.

The point is that the class war is still on, this time with an added dose of deception. And this, in turn, means that you need to look very closely at any proposals coming from the usual suspects, even — or rather especially — if the proposal is being represented as a bipartisan, common-sense solution. In particular, whenever some deficit-scold group talks about “shared sacrifice,” you need to ask, sacrifice relative to what?

— Paul Krugman, Class Wars of 2012

Likely brand sales won’t keep Hostess from screwing employees out of millions

shortformblog:

  • $1.1M in monthly retiree benefits will not be paid by Hostess during the company’s liquidation process according to an attorney for the company.
  • $1.5M was collected by Hostess CEO Gregory Rayburn during fiscal 2012 — an average monthly salary of $125,000 — before bonuses or other incentives.
  • $1.8M has been set aside for the incentive bonuses of 19 Hostess executives, bonuses which the company argues are needed to retain the corporate officers and other high-level managers. Maybe it’s just us, but does this sound like, “Let us pay ourselves another $2 million, or we’ll quit too!” to anybody else?source

lalie reblogged your link: Paying Retail Workers a Little Better Can Make a Huge Difference

I made 25K with a BA working a full time research-heavy desk job. I worked in the Chicago Loop. Basically: Aww, how cute

Yeah, that’s the thing. NO ONE is being paid enough. The people at the very, very top of the pay scale have experienced a huge jump in income, but everyone else is being underpaid. I just saw an article the other day about a federal judge who was looking for a law clerk who would work for him for free:

This is the practical endpoint of a social system that has produced a vast oversupply of bright, ambitious, hardworking and highly educated young people, who are increasingly desperate for any sort of employment that bears a vague resemblance to the kind of work they thought they were being trained to do. The zero-salary job is merely the logical extension of what has been called “the internship rip-off,” which allows employers to exploit unpaid labor under the guise of educational training.

Casualization is happening in both blue and white collar jobs. And employers are expecting both white and blue collar workers to work for less money and fewer benefits. And the fact that white collar workers are being underpaid is a means of turning them against blue collar workers. If you’re not getting paid that much for your white collar job, then why should a retail worker get paid more? Eric Loomis characterizes the class warfare this way:

So much of our ideology about workers is looking down on blue-collar labor. They aren’t educated so they deserve to be at the bottom. Plus I have a college degree and I have an unpaid internship. I am so lucky to get this “job” and I am so valuable with my bachelor’s degree in journalism from Michigan. So if I’m not getting paid, certainly those losers should be getting even less.

The thing is, almost everyone is being underpaid. Work in general is being undervalued. Everyone is working harder and investing more in their education and skills, but income hasn’t risen to match increases in productivity. And that’s because the very wealthiest among us are effectively cutting wages and salaries so that they can pay themselves the most. The 1% are making off with the lion’s share of this country’s wealth while the rest of us squabble over the scraps.

In 2004, a year in which Wal-Mart reported $9.1 billion in profits, the retailer’s California employees collected $86 million in public assistance, according to researchers at the University of California-Berkeley. Other studies have revealed widespread use of publicly funded health care by Wal-Mart employees in numerous states. In 2004, Democratic staffers of the House education and workforce committee calculated that each 200-employee Wal-Mart store costs taxpayers an average of more than $400,000 a year, based on entitlements ranging from energy-assistance grants to Medicaid to food stamps to WIC—the federal program that provides food to low-income women with children.