If you think caring about one tragedy means ignoring another, that’s a ‘you’ problem.

People who actually care about human suffering don’t play the ‘whataboutism’ game—because it’s not a contest, it’s a crisis. Your deflection isn’t advocacy; it’s just lazy, performative outrage disguised as moral high ground.

*bottom 20%

Because it’s not okay to write off underserved and disadvantaged as “silliness.” How we treat the least of our people says a great deal about how “good” the economy is.

The least paid full time worker should be able to live on the federal minimum wage. They can’t. That should be a huge red flag to anyone who A) cares about people in general and B) understands that corporate profit doesn’t equal a good economy.

And yes, people should be able to waive the salary they are entitled to and take $1 instead, of their own volition. But that has nothing to do with the question: how could the lowest paid full time wage be the best measure of anything in our economy? It absolutely the best indicator of our humanity and empathy (or lack thereof). You could look at the median of the bottom 2% but it wouldn’t point to our failures we need to fix as clearly as looking at the lowest paid full time salary.

Yes, we are 100% looking at people working 40 hours a week for this particular insight. The basis is, our economy is only baseline good if the least paid full time worker makes a living wage. Any other answer is a fail. Incentives for employers to hire staff from traditionally underserved persons can absolutely be affected through better means than giving them less of a share of their work.

As well, the question above that spawned this little thread was: Why would the lowest full time annual wage be the best measure of anything to do with an economy?

How the lowest paid full time worker is compensated is a keystone data point. The current full time yearly pay for a standard worker (should be ANY full time worker if the economy was good) is $15,080 a year. Before taxes and workers comp and health insurance. Not nearly enough for someone to survive, nonetheless better their situation. The underserved populations are getting even less currently, which should really grind your gears.

It is not the only data point that’s important, but to suggest it’s useless as a data point is ridiculous

Idk, I’d counter that the paperboy or special needs cashier would be a good starting place because they deserve the same quality of life for their work as others 🤷‍♂️ why should they be paid less and just ignored in the data “because they’re problematic?” Keep in mind that we are discussing full time wages.

The least a full time employee can make is absolutely an indicator of how good the economy is, as it impacts if there’s opportunity or not for the worker to better themselves. If the full time employees on the bottom couldn’t possibly work to the middle without additional assistance, the economy is shit.

… bears?

Lmao “far left extremism” is somehow contextually different than the phrase OP used (which btw is the context for this whole thread) than “extreme liberal?”

Laughably, you think your quibbling got you an out as far as providing proof of your claim. Please show me where Far Left Extremists™️ banned or burned books in any way near where Conservatives have. My proof is below, let’s see yours?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_banning_in_the_United_States_(2021–present)

Removed by mod

Yep. I am fully convinced corporate studios don’t give a single shit about the players or game outside of how much money they think they can squeeze out of us.

I just sent my AM5 motherboard in to Asus for repair. They comped my shipping which was really nice. FYI, just request it and they’re happy to help.

You can’t skeet on my ex, I trademarked that ass ;)

I can attempt something and succeed. Or I can attempt something and fail. Attempt does not imply it didn’t work

I never said it didn’t 😆

When someone attempts to italicize the title of the post

Saying crypto is pretty much the same as cash is disingenuous.

You don’t need to make an account to spend cash. You don’t need to pay fees to give cash to someone else. You don’t need to pay fees to process cash transactions. You don’t need an internet connection to acquire or spend cash. Cash transactions are executed in person, where mistakes can be reversed. If my personal info is compromised, my cash on hand is safe. Cash is generally much more stable, and is generally accepted everywhere.

And let’s address a biggie- cash doesn’t destroy the earth, unlike crypto. For all the protest I see about AI’s energy consumption, crypto was worse in 2022 than AI is projected to be in 2027. Let that sink in.

What is needed before crypto can actually be useful:

• needs to be as easy to use as real currency
• needs to be able to be spent freely on basic necessities
• recourse for fraud
• recourse to recover lost keys instead of losing funds permanently
• protection against market manipulation
• widespread merchant adoption
• address liquidity concerns
• actionable process to protect from illegal activities
• MASSIVE environmental protections- crypto was worse for the environment 4 years ago than AI is projected to be in 2027

There’s more, but I won’t bother as the above issues are more than enough to confirm that crypto is a scam.

How is it convenient? Its not simple setting up a wallet, picking a coin, registering with a market, hoping that the merchant you want something for happens to take your type of coin? And being anonymous is a turn off for most people- the vast majority of people want consumer protection. Merchants carry higher risk with a volatile, unregulated market, so they are hesitant to accept it.

Why would I pay fees to buy a faux currency, to pay for a pre-paid card of the same currency I used to buy to the faux currency, to spend it on things that can’t be paid for with the faux currency anyway? What?!?!

You might have had a salient point if the ancient Greeks made it popular for “solving thirst across the known world,” but really it was a novelty. Or if crypto was marketed as a novelty. But crypto was hyped to be the next big things, spreading around the world, no monetary boundaries. The same people making those claims are spending hundreds of millions on the election to making sure it stay unregulated with no consumer protection.

But sure, crypto somehow parallels steam?

99.9% of people could not pay for what they want or need except the handful of niche places that happen to accept it. Can’t pay medical bills with it, can’t buy my food at the grocery store with it, can’t buy my gas with it, can’t really apply it where I want to, only in the few spaces I get to.

That’s not what the developers claimed it would do, or what the investors wanted it to do. It’s not cost effective or simple. It’s created more problems than it’s solved. It flat out a scam.