comment: >
  
  No. Same freedom, just a different capacity for projecting that speech
context: The last minimum wage increase phased in over three years, ending in 2009. Democrats lost the House in the 2010 election and didn’t get a trifecta back until 2021. The GOP won’t increase minimum wage. 
  The Fight for $15 movement started in 2012 and achieved notable success in getting states to increase the minimum wage. 
  Covid caused a big shift in the labor market. Workforce participation has gone down and megacorps like Amazon have a virtually unlimited need for labor, so what they offer has increasingly become a defacto minimum wage. >
  
  ... until they take it away because they can. >
  
  Really curious to see if places will actually drop their wages from $10-$15 down to $7.25 (or what the state minimum wage is) during a sustained recession to cut costs and avoid headcount reduction but then say "look, see we didn't have to lay anyone off!" >
  
  They can and they will, if we ever enter a situation where job supply drops and demand increases. Those were the market conditions when I left college. I took a really hard retail sales job and got paid $9.25 plus commission that amounted to a few bucks per month.
  The kicker was that I was actually expected to wear a 3-piece suit. I couldn’t afford dry cleaning on my wage and I had 3 roommates. 
  I don’t expect any job to piss on their employees to this extent in today’s economic climate, but one day mass unemployment will return… and companies will once again start treating us like we’re lucky to have a job at all.
  Enjoy it while the gettin’ is good. >
  
  The main reason it passed last time was Democrats conceding to tax cuts being passed with it. It was also added to a military spending bill, to make sure no one would vote against it.
  Democrats would have to win a super majority or concede to something huge to get it passed now. >
  
  Add in that people actually making minimum wage in this country is pretty minimal. 1.4% of all workers make minimum wage and the demographics of those earners are like half being sub 18 years old. 2/3 of all hourly wage workers are also tipped workers (see: not making minimum wage). 
  There's just no political pressure to raise a minimum wage because virtually no one is making the true minimum wage. The labor market basically has taken care of that on its own. >
  
  Question: would raising the minimum wage not help those making barely above minimum? For example, in my state minimum went up to $13, as I was making a little above that they adjusted my wage (let’s say for the sake of this, if I was making $13.50 they bumped me up to $14.50), or is this not common place? >
  
  Has anyone else noticed a complete lack of engagement by conservative users on these basic, mainstream subreddits? I know they are on reddit… >
  
  It's because their ideas are unpopular and fare poorly in places like reddit where they don't control the mod team.
  The system hides their comments and throttles their posting frequency because they get mobbed with downvotes for advocating incredibly unpopular (putting it kindly) policies. The people who keep commenting in the face of that are usually trolls and/or psychotic true believers, and that shows through on a lot of the convervatives who actually show up in the comments here. >
  
  I mean if they were extremely unpopular they wouldn't win 50% of the votes. They're just unpopular on reddit, which is a good deal to the left of mainstream America 
  Example: on reddit people shouting ACAB is perfectly acceptable. IRL it's a very unpopular statement >
  
  They don't win 50% of the votes, though. They sometimes win 50% of the seats because their voters are concentrated more heavily in rural areas/states that get systemic advantages. 
  Also, ACAB isn't exactly popular on reddit outside of very lefty subreddits, which really says a lot about the biases you hold as well. Statements critical of policing are popular - 1312 is a different story. >
  
  Democrats since Bill Clinton have become
  Incredibly gunshy about market interventions that don’t directly benefit capital. Republicans have regressed fully to pre depression economic policy. Further our economy is almost fully finaicilized with the only real growth happening in cutting costs. On the social front every major network is millionaires carrying water for their billionaire owners. >
  
  Who was it who observed the RW media is a bunch of millionaires working for billionaires by telling thousand-aires the hundred-aires are coming to take their money? >
  
  I dunno, but they said it perfectly. >
  
  Citizens-f***ing-United. Recognizing corporations as people and money as speech basically guarantees that corporations and their paid cronies will obstruct any attempt to raise wages on a federal level. >
  
  And for the millionth time that case did neither of those things. Corporate personhood goes back to the 1600s and joint stock companies sponsoring trade expeditions. It didn't say money is the same as speech, but it did say that money facilitates speech, and that putting a cap on money you spend to facilitates speech is just another way of limiting speech.
  How much could you get your message out if you tje government banned you from buying ads on the radio or online, or any of the other ways money is used to spread a message. 
  Imagine if the Youtube algorithm dictated what speech you could be exposed to. Sure the video isn't being taken down, but its harder to find. That's not per se being censored, your metaphorical newspaper press (computer) isn't being confiscated and destroyed, but you would be really stupid to say there is no suppression of speech from Youtube.
  That's viewpoint discrimination, and the government isn't allowed to do that, at all, as that would violate freedom of speech, because its a negative right.
  Alternatives to Youtube do exist, they might not be great, but good luck trying to run from the government. >
  
  Ok, so rich people have more freedom of speech than poor people?
  Did I get that right?