>

Biden needs to pull his head out of his ass, the cat is already out of the bag. I'm a lefty that ends up voting blue or green as a lesser of two evils and I'm sick of this band-aid, last minute type politic that only addresses issues when they're at a critical point.   
The middle class as we knew it is basically non-existent at this point. About 33% of the country makes less than $28,000 a year. Nearly 50% of households make less than $50,000 a year. Only 16% of households make $50k to $74.99k a year. Only 30% of households make over $100k a year - which with the relative cost of things would be considered "middle class" in a housing market where million dollar homes are becoming a frequent developer priority. 
#Only 10M out of 380M households make over 200k a year.
#Only 1.5M out of 380M households make over 500k a year.
#Only 380k out of 380M households make over 1 million a year.  
Now, politics aside - this trickle down economics scam that's been in place since the 80s has lead to a pool of wealth at the top that seems to never trickle down. This is the biggest heist in human history by the US government and the "elite" of the country. If they can invest in products of war, start wars, foot the bill of the war on the poor tax payer, then profit off of the war, there is no reason to ever bring peace to this world for the wealthy. When they run out of countries to export war to, they'll make it domestically.   
Biden's rhetoric is meant to be comforting in a time of great stress in the history of our civilization. He doesn't really care about families, just making sure the economy remains stable enough for the elite to continue to profit off of war. And if that means bargaining with the lower class for basic things that other develop countries already have, like health care, child care, better public transpiration, etc. etc. - they're going to make some concession to keep our heads just enough over water to continue to rob us all blind at the expense of their profits.
My uncle is super pissed off that my cousin's wife is staying home and not working.  Childcare is so expensive she doesn't think it is worthwhile.  She was making 12 an hour, and childcare was eating around 700 a month, after taxes she was spending half of her time working just to pay for childcare.    My cousin was vocally against it until he figured out that with her clipping coupons, not driving, not eating lunch out every day etc., they actually have nearly the same spending money.  
Pay is too low and everything costs too much. >

I’m amazed she can find childcare for $700. I’m paying close to 2,000, and we were on like five waiting lists when I was 12 weeks pregnant to even get a spot by the time he was 4 months old. >

Worked in childcare for 5+ years, I'm convinced the entire industry is on the verge of collapse any time now. We were dangerously low on staff, much less staff you want to trust your children with like 4 years ago and we were bleeding staff including myself. Then COVID hit, some other things and I'm amazed any childcare is even available anymore. >

When I moved here to Texas I did all the research and wrote up a full pro-forma on running an in home daycare so my wife could stay home. The math simply makes no sense without either paying slave labor wages ($12/h is average here for childcare workers) or charging ridiculous prices. Subsidy really is the only viable answer because I won't pay people garbage to work for me so we scrapped the idea. When Texas completely runs out of child care maybe they will change their tune. >

They’ll probably try to have child labor laws scrapped. No day care needed if the kid has a job. >

The plan as far as I could see by reading through the regulations to get certified is to just lower the standards of care. You can have an unlicensed day care here with up to 4 kids. So... Yeah, you could be an axe murdering chomo meth addict here and watch 4 kids no problemo. Also, for a state so obsessed with illegal immigration, that does seem like a glaringly obvious loophole right? Almost like the state is OK with it as long as it's low paid, unskilled labor. >

The four kids rule is in my state as well. My wife looked into doing it since she's a SAHM and with cpr training and other certs, insurance, and increased overhead from food/diapers/clothes/toys it wasn't worth even considering without charging an insane amount per child. The money just isn't there for anyone involved. >

exactly the same results I came to when I wrote up a business proforma. >

I'm not sure what a proforma is lmao. I just understand numbers and costs. I think the point where it was remotely worth it to us was if she charged 10 an hour per kid. And that still amounts to, a minimum of 20k a year in child support for a family. It's not worth it for most families when the secondary income usually isn't much better than that, or even that good. >

A proforma is just a financial plan, a breakdown of how your business would perform with numbers. It's exactly what you just said done formally. >

Because employers sure as hell aren't holding up their end with benefits like *checks notes* fair compensation >

They need to bring back pensions! THAT will get the results they're looking for! >

I tell someone old this weekly. There is zero reason for company loyalty without a pension. Even pensions were over promised and under delivered, but at least it was worth hanging around for. >

My grandfather used to work at BF Goodrich for the majority of his career.  When he was 6 months from retirement (having worked there for along ass time) they cut him and a few other people, citing "poor performance" and he lost his pension.  Was there for decades working.  
If pensions were a thing, there would need to be more protections for people.  Or something.
Maybe there are?  But most places don't offer them so who knows. >

Australia: government pensions, not company based; mandatory superannuation payments paid at 10% of base salary, by ALL employers; government supported aged care places; social housing solutions. Pension increases are indexed to CPI. It’s not a lot of money - currently about $27k per annum against an average wage of $65k but it helps. >

socialism!! evil!!! first pensions, then universal healthcare! it’ll be the apocalypse!!! >

Wait til I tell you about the universal healthcare, with private options and the pharmaceutical benefits scheme that means we DON’T go bankrupt from paying for healthcare or overpriced medications. Then there’s a minimum wage guarantee, 4 weeks paid annual leave, 10 days paid sick leave and paid maternity leave (usually 12 weeks). Many employers pay above these wage floors. We have to pay for university education now, but that can be offset and repaid over time as a small percentage of income. >

“Childcare won't fix all the labor market's challenges. Men in their prime working years, or those between 25 to 54, have fled the workforce since February 2020.” I’m not sure why this author seems to think that childcare costs don’t impact men’s participation in the labor force. My wife earns more money than I do, so if one of us stayed home then it would be me. Honestly I only am still working because I like my job, financially it makes almost no difference if I work or not. >

Yeah, my husband is now a stay at home Dad. He was only making $23/hour. It wasn’t worth him working when childcare for an infant is $400/week. After gas, mileage, and buying lunch 5x week was factored in, we’re breaking even with him staying home. >

I mean I make good money but buying lunch every day is crazy. I normally get something oce a week as a treat but that shit is too expensive >

What do you eat then? Sandwiches? >

Generally that's the sensible thing. Or make a big dinner and eat leftovers. The whole eating out every day is upper middle/lower upper class mindset.
Or just don't eat because humans have evolved to resist famine. >

Yeah I need to adjust my lifestyle. I’ve eaten out every day 2-3 times a day for almost 10 years now. Costs more than my rent, but it’s all I’ve known in my adult life >

Holy fuck. How is your health? >

No reply, assumed dead. >

And Republicans would block these plans at every turn, including the Supreme Court. >

The historical average of workers entering the labor pool is down 400,000 this year. Next year it will be 500k fewer than historical average.Now add in the fact peak retirement for baby Boomers is right now, and we have a labor crisis that idiots are blaming on low participation by zoomers, and millenials. The zoomers are such a tiny generation that it guarantees a labor crisis for the next two decades get used to it. >

To be fair, this should have been expected and planned for years ago. Generation X was a very small generation and this is the second time it's happened due to those smaller numbers. 
Boomers waited longer to have kids than the generations before them. Women having actual careers only furthered this. This continued into the already small Gen X.  It picked back up with Millenials and will in time with Gen Z, but there will be a lull a few more years. It is just the start of Gen Z entering the workforce. 
Gen Z also has a higher number going to some form of post HS education than before. This also stalls the numbers temporarily.  Those in Gen Z who pursued law school or medical school are also just now entering the work force. >

None of it would matter if capitalism didn’t demand unlimited growth. If CEOs and Corporate boards could analyze their quarterly reports in the context that they will never see the amount of consumption that that occurred in the late 20th - early 21st century our society might stand a chance. There just is not enough demand with boomers entering retirement and millennials and gen z just don’t buy shit as much as boomers did. >

But but but….. 
The corporatists have had ~75 years of near unlimited growth, profits and consumption. Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg and the cadre of mega billionaires are going to run the whole world into the ground before even lifting an eyelash to stabilize and/or change the system.
It’s going to take mass demonstrations like in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and significant government reforms to wrest control from them and the religionists. 
That being said, I’m actually hopeful this will happen. The crush of climate change and the resulting mass migration to more temperate climates will likely force their hands. >

The US and the west in general may reduce consumption, but there is a great big world out there full of people who are ready to buy.  We may never be free of rampant consumerism, but we can work to make it less impactful on the environment.  And even if we do end rampant  consumerism, more sustainable practices are not a wasted endeavor.
It is easy for people with full fat stomachs to tell everyone to skip a meal. >

Relying on corporate America and Wall Street to have employees best interests in mind is a fools gambit. 
Corporations won’t let this hit their bottom line. They’ll just lower salary, or start hiring more contractors and part-time workers without benefits.  
No government action that requires voluntary compliance from corporations will work >

Money is a benefit, how about we start with that one? >

On one hand - yes. More money.
On the other hand - sure. More money.
But. And this is a horrible but. But how do we ensure businesses don't just start charging more for things and blame it on people having extra money? Because, like, we once got 1400 bucks and that seemed to drive inflation for a good 18 months somehow. >

I know the free market crowd would hate this but federally set price ceilings based on the cost of providing the good / service. For example if it costs 10¢ to produce a pot of coffee at a convenience store they shouldn't be able to charge any more than $1.79 for a 24 oz cup. We need the government to intervene because the profit driven model of society and businesses is killing people. >


We need the government to intervene because the profit driven model of society and businesses is killing people.

Setting prices is a bad idea, but I do know something that would help, if not solve most of our problems. Taxes. See my other posts for some links.
Basically we've given people like Warren Buffet a lower tax rate than his secretary for too long - regressive tax policies. We do this because the wealthy pay for the tax rates and policies they want buy purchasing our representatives. 
50 years of this is why the recession we're about to go through could be a huge shitstorm. The rich people have all of the fucking money and they're gonna want the public to foot the bill when their stocks and "too big to fail" businesses that they've benefitted from and squeezed the middle and lower classes with for decades fail. We can't bail out everyone indefinitely. We know where all the fucking money is going and it isn't to the people who need it. >

True and if you suggest forcibly taking and redistributing those fucker's money because they don't deserve it you'll get droves of people lining up to defend them. It honestly gives off Stockholm syndrome vibes. >

This mentality used to surprise me until I began to realize that these people defending billionaires wholeheartedly believe that one day they too may become absurdly wealthy. >

I want nationalized healthcare! Americans can no longer be tethered to their job for health insurance
WHAT A SCAM! >

Solution: establish something like the 'Commons' in the US. Designate specific industries or types of services as 'for the common good', and while they can be run privately, they would fall under the umbrella of the govt and COULD NOT BE RUN FOR PROFIT. 
Schools, prisons, healthcare, peer-reviewed journals, and I'm sure there are a dozen other things I'm missing that should be on this list.
This country really needs to stop relying on 'for the shareholders' as the mantra for why things can't get done in a way that actually helps people. Fuck the shareholders. If they don't like it, they can sell their shares and invest somewhere else. >

Everything you just said makes perfect sense and yet Fox News viewers that are under-insured, in debt, and on the losing side of income inequality would actually die in the streets screeching about socialism rather than see a system like that implemented.
The "smart" conservatives, the ones that own homes and have jobs that provide for them and their families, would repeat the mantra that it's the "wrong" way to solve these problems without ever being able to suggest a real alternative solution that wasn't some version of "It's the federal government's fault!". >

Oooh, I have a solution for that one, too!
Solution: Ignore them. Put in earplugs so we don't hear their 'SKREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE' about whatever bullshit Fucker Carlson talking points they're trying to peddle... and make progress. Hell, declare a federal state of emergency and ram those changes through.
I'm far past the point where I care about giving them an 'equal voice' in the discussion. Their stupidity cannot be a reason to impede progress, to prevent us from making everyone's lives better, to avoid dealing with the big problems because some jackass thinks 'it is just too hard' -- or, more likely, because a bunch of their donors don't want to lose that sweet money train. >

Americans are working though. There just aren't enough able bodied people to fill all the jobs. I don't buy any suggestion the "labor shortage" is because of lazy people just sitting around on unemployment. More benefits is always a good idea but ultimately there will never be enough people to satisfy these openings. >

And unemployment payments are temporary anyway. So if that’s what’s people are indeed staying home on unemployment, then they’re coordinating amongst themselves to take turns staying out of the workforce, because unless they want to have no money at all they have to go back to work once their unemployment runs out. Somehow I doubt there’s a FB group with millions of people out there assigning who is going to stay home when… >

The biggest factor is retiring people. Boomers are starting to retire in droves. This is why Congress is attempting to raise the retirement age with Secure 2.0 to a minimum of 70 1/2 for penalty free withdrawal of 401Ks from 59 1/2. Congress is also mulling raising the SS distribution age. This would keep Boomers in the workforce longer. >

I know boomers who don't want to retire. >

The US is at near Record-level employment right now. It really speaks to how fucked up capitalism is when having so many people working, and you still need more workers. >

When you stop looking for work, you fall off of the unemployment rate calculation. So there are less people working than you might think.
"Someone who does not have a job but claims they are not looking for one is considered out of the labor force and is not counted in the unemployment rate." >

In 1972 the minimum wage was $2.00/hr. Calculated just for inflation (not Cost of Living Adjustment) in 2022, it should be $14.24. 
The last time minimum wage increased was in 2009 at $7.25 for all covered, nonexempt workers.
If minimum wage was adjusted according to inflation, even the small business owners owe you guys a brand new car. >

I've never really understood why minimum wage wasn't just automatically tied to a localized CPI.  We spend tax dollars polling the country for the price of rent, milk, etc.  How hard would it really be to draw a line between these two numbers and figure out what minimum wage should be, without having to roll the rock uphill with congress every time it needs to increase?  I'm guessing this would also have a cooling effect on all these greedy fuckers that are raising prices and blaming inflation yet somehow magically earning record profits.  If raising your prices translates directly to having to pay your employees more, you might think twice about sneaking in a price increase just to try to pad your wallet.
A localized CPI would also help to differentiate between the COL in San Fransisco and rural Kansas.  I'm all for raising the rates, but different areas have different costs, and a nationwide minimum wage is kind of a terrible idea if you think about it this way.  I get that it exists so that no states are able to unilaterally deploy essentially slave labor.  But a federally mandated minimum wage that corresponds to local CPI data is much more reasonable so that low COL areas don't have to scale the same as high COL ones. >

Well said!  👍👍😎 >

Dude. This is the best solution I have ever read. Totally agree. Record profits are happening right now. Corps are literally saying it’s because we can raise prices in their board meeting. >

I quit my electrical engineering job over a year ago to design video games.  I think once my game is done I can make far more than I did in my previous job, and I get to work from home on my own schedule.  Enticing me back into an office job will require a lot of money.  I'm never putting up with that crap again unless I absolutely have to or the salary is worth it.  For now, I'd rather risk it by gambling that my video game startup will succeed.  I really don't want to go back to work for a corporation that doesn't care about me, doesn't pay me enough to afford a home near work, and overworks me as much as they can while the shareholders and executives make hundreds of times what I make.  Fuck that.  It's a terrible deal.  If corporations want to entice workers, PAY US MORE.  A LOT MORE.  I want to make enough money to buy a house near work and I want to have a life worth living.  That's not an unreasonable request. >

After a horrible year dealing with mental illness, I have decided to just chill. I mean my career has been rough and I am tired of people telling me what to do. I rather do Uber eats or something like that than work for a corporation. I decided to listen to my family and stop worrying about work and focus on my health. I got private insurance that covers my medication. Eventually I can work freelance. It is just not worth fighting for a job when you have to apply about forty times before you get an interview and then compromise when it comes to pay just to get the job.
My family has everything taken cared for me. I filed for disability so hopefully that comes through. I am tired of employers questioning my work ethic and being over all hypocrites. My last job I was expected to do 12 hour days when management would leave early.
I have been applying but remote only no exceptions. >


I filed for disability so hopefully that comes through.

US disability benefits are rarely given to anyone on the first attempt, FYI. If you're not severely visibly disabled, like missing limbs, they tend to auto-reject. There are lawyers who specialize in disability claims, and won't charge anything up-front - they get paid from a portion of your back-pay if they get your re-application approved. >

PAY.  THEM.  MORE. 
Jesus fucking Christ it's like watching a toddler stand next to a fire with a bucket of water and trying to figure out how to put the fire out. >

And corporate tax rates are at historic lows. The tax burden has shifted to non-rich individuals. >

Y’know, I’m so flustered that everyone keeps looking for a solution that isn’t simply, “Pay a living wage, treat workers with respect, let them share in the profits they help create, and remember they are not slaves.”  
It’s not that hard. And it shows how tight-fisted nearly every business/business owner is that they will gyrate wildly to find a solution that ultimately doesn’t involve those things. 
You want to fix the system? Transform work from degrading servitude that doesn’t pay for a life, into something people can embrace and thrive from. We sell our bodies and lives for 50+ years, and by the time we can even think about retiring, most of us are too used up, too beaten down, and so far past our physical prime to make our remaining years enjoyable. “Work is life” should never have become an aspiration. >


“Pay a living wage, treat workers with respect, let them share in the profits they help create, and remember they are not slaves.”

Capitalists will try anything but something that requires they give up some of their unearned hoard. >

Somewhere on the internet there is a gaggle of conservative “Christians” who are opposed to this 🤡 >

See r/conservative for more >

Republicans want to entice Americans back to work by stripping all aid and benefits to ensure anyone in the lower classes that are not working multiple jobs will simply starve. >

No no, food isn't a right, so please work multiple jobs and still starve, peasants /s >

I work in behavioral health which truth be told is a thankless, underpaid, awful industry.  I try to make a difference but a lot of the time it feels like pissing in the wind.
In any case, most of our "frontline workers" (people going to provide 1:1 support to children) are hourly "employees".  They used to be called independent contractors but some funding decision up top said everyone needs to be called an "employee" even if they're part-time, hourly, no benefits, etc.  I could rant about this particular thing forever but that's not even the point.
We recently got permission to create a full-time version of the same job.  The only real differences work-wise are that you are agreeing to work full-time hours no matter what - so if your client is sick, you have to come into the office for trainings and such as opposed to just going home and not getting paid.  On the flip side, you get salary, benefits, PTO, etc.
Guess what?  After almost a YEAR of zero applications, we've had dozens of applications and have already hired 10+ employees.  Turns out people want steady pay, benefits, paid time off - ESPECIALLY in a brutal industry like ours!  Baffling that it took so long to get here but I'm glad we did. >

Make it so we can afford homes >

Offer Medicare for all at a fixed gross percentage rate that’s less than my current premiums.