🔥 | Latest

employment: Finally able to find employment. Proud to follow in Paul Blart’s footsteps.
employment: Finally able to find employment. Proud to follow in Paul Blart’s footsteps.

Finally able to find employment. Proud to follow in Paul Blart’s footsteps.

employment: Finally able to find employment. Proud to follow in Paul Blart’s footsteps. by MrBreasts MORE MEMES
employment: Finally able to find employment. Proud to follow in Paul Blart’s footsteps. by MrBreasts
MORE MEMES

Finally able to find employment. Proud to follow in Paul Blart’s footsteps. by MrBreasts MORE MEMES

employment: Employment ain’t nothing but a number
employment: Employment ain’t nothing but a number

Employment ain’t nothing but a number

employment: Employment ain’t nothing but a number
employment: Employment ain’t nothing but a number

Employment ain’t nothing but a number

employment: Sassy coworkers really save us from complete insanity at work. #Memes #FunnyPics #Work #Employment
employment: Sassy coworkers really save us from complete insanity at work. #Memes #FunnyPics #Work #Employment

Sassy coworkers really save us from complete insanity at work. #Memes #FunnyPics #Work #Employment

employment: blackwitchmagicwoman: auroraluciferi: askmace: scholarlyapproach: DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN TO CEREAL!!! Listen in the past the poor have had to improvise cheap food the rich never wanted as a means to survive. And over the many years of innovation made the food taste good until eventually the rich where like: “Oh hay you actually like that garbage? Why on earth would you like it?” Then they try it, love it, start buying it, and then drive the price up so much it becomes a luxury good. They do this and its devastating, the food typically never becomes affordable again. It don’t matter how cheap the foo dis to produce, it doesn’t matter if there is almost no meat on the bone or its super difficult to eat and messy. Once the poor discover how to make some bit of cheap food taste good, the rich take it away via driving the price of it up. THEY DID THIS TO RIBS. Ribs were garage meat. Just look at them, there is hardly any meat on the bone, you have to eat them by hand usually, and they are messy. They where an undesirable cheap source of junk meat. But the poor being the poor made them taste good. (Because they don’t have much to choose from.) The rich discovered the meals the poor made with them and decided they liked ribs too. People discovered they could sell a few ribs to rich people and make way more money then selling lots of ribs to poor people and the price was driven up. DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN TO CEREAL!!! They did the same to brisket.  You used to be able to get brisket for less than a dollar a pound, which meant you could get a twenty pound brisket fairly cheaply.  And then you smoked it, sliced it, and had meat for weeks if not a full month.  And it was tasty.  I grew up eating brisket at least once a month because my family could afford it. It was a cheap meat because no rich person looks at the dangly part of the neck of a cow and goes ‘ooh, that looks tasty!’. But then Food Network started showcasing things like barbecued brisket.  Rich people started showing up at places that weren’t just Rib Crib to get their barbeque.  And the price of brisket went up.  A lot. I regularly see it for over five dollars a pound in stores now.  And while yeah, that might not seem like a lot when you’re talking only a pound or two of meat, brisket is normally sold in ten to twenty pound sizes.  It’s become completely unaffordable to the people that made it delicious. Sushi used to be really cheap, too, until it became ‘trendy’.  Guess why you’re now paying twelve dollars for your order of California rolls?  Because rich people discovered something that poor people had been eating for ages. Noticed the prices of fajita meat, chicken thighs, or ham hocks has gone up recently?  You guessed it.  Rich people are taking our food and now we’re scrambling to afford the things that we grew up eating. Lobster is a perfect example of this phenomenon. For hundreds of years, lobster was regarded as a sort of insect larvae from the depth of the sea. It had zero appeal as a “luxury food” until people living in NY and Boston developed a taste for it. Before the 19th century, it was considered a “poverty food” or used as fertilizer and bait - some household servants specified in employment agreements that they would not eat lobster more than twice a week.It was also commonly served at prisons, which tells you something about prison food. Only by cleverly marketing lobster as an indulgence for the privileged made it cost so much. It became a vehicle for enormous profit spawning a multi-billion dollar global industry in the process. This mythical affection for lobster flesh - not its practical value in terms of taste, nutrition, or any other reasonable consideration - drives its value. LMAO. Wait.
employment: blackwitchmagicwoman:
auroraluciferi:

askmace:

scholarlyapproach:

DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN TO CEREAL!!!
Listen in the past the poor have had to improvise cheap food the rich never wanted as a means to survive. And over the many years of innovation made the food taste good until eventually the rich where like: “Oh hay you actually like that garbage? Why on earth would you like it?” Then they try it, love it, start buying it, and then drive the price up so much it becomes a luxury good.
They do this and its devastating, the food typically never becomes affordable again. It don’t matter how cheap the foo dis to produce, it doesn’t matter if there is almost no meat on the bone or its super difficult to eat and messy. Once the poor discover how to make some bit of cheap food taste good, the rich take it away via driving the price of it up.
THEY DID THIS TO RIBS.
Ribs were garage meat. Just look at them, there is hardly any meat on the bone, you have to eat them by hand usually, and they are messy. They where an undesirable cheap source of junk meat. But the poor being the poor made them taste good. (Because they don’t have much to choose from.) The rich discovered the meals the poor made with them and decided they liked ribs too. People discovered they could sell a few ribs to rich people and make way more money then selling lots of ribs to poor people and the price was driven up.
DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN TO CEREAL!!!

They did the same to brisket.  You used to be able to get brisket for less than a dollar a pound, which meant you could get a twenty pound brisket fairly cheaply.  And then you smoked it, sliced it, and had meat for weeks if not a full month.  And it was tasty.  I grew up eating brisket at least once a month because my family could afford it.
It was a cheap meat because no rich person looks at the dangly part of the neck of a cow and goes ‘ooh, that looks tasty!’.
But then Food Network started showcasing things like barbecued brisket.  Rich people started showing up at places that weren’t just Rib Crib to get their barbeque.  And the price of brisket went up.  A lot.
I regularly see it for over five dollars a pound in stores now.  And while yeah, that might not seem like a lot when you’re talking only a pound or two of meat, brisket is normally sold in ten to twenty pound sizes.  It’s become completely unaffordable to the people that made it delicious.
Sushi used to be really cheap, too, until it became ‘trendy’.  Guess why you’re now paying twelve dollars for your order of California rolls?  Because rich people discovered something that poor people had been eating for ages.
Noticed the prices of fajita meat, chicken thighs, or ham hocks has gone up recently?  You guessed it.  Rich people are taking our food and now we’re scrambling to afford the things that we grew up eating.

Lobster is a perfect example of this phenomenon. For hundreds of years, lobster was regarded as a sort of insect larvae from the depth of the sea. It had zero appeal as a “luxury food” until people living in NY and Boston developed a taste for it. Before the 19th century, it was considered a “poverty food” or used as fertilizer and bait - some household servants specified in employment agreements that they would not eat lobster more than twice a week.It was also commonly served at prisons, which tells you something about prison food.
Only by cleverly marketing lobster as an indulgence for the privileged made it cost so much. It became a vehicle for enormous profit spawning a multi-billion dollar global industry in the process. This mythical affection for lobster flesh - not its practical value in terms of taste, nutrition, or any other reasonable consideration - drives its value. 



LMAO. Wait.

blackwitchmagicwoman: auroraluciferi: askmace: scholarlyapproach: DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN TO CEREAL!!! Listen in the past the poor have...

employment: Hey guys, I've been seeing these memes where muscular men at laptops explain elementary concepts in some topic or other to a nerdy-looking, curious kid. They really make me laugh, but I can't quite put my finger on why. It's not like there's any real jokes in there or anything First of all, I think this format makes excellent use of a comedic technique called incongruity, whereby viewers' preconceived notions are upended by unexpected juxtapositions. In this case, many people don't think of musclebound, traditionally masculine men as kind, intelligent and eager to advise. While not a joke in any conventional sense, this produces a humorous effect King, I want to echo what you're saying and also suggest that there's an even broader employment of incongruity here.. Viewers expect earnest requests for basic information to be met with vitriol due to a sense that discourse on web forums is generally noxious. The conviviality of the buff men's responses runs totally counter to viewer's expectations. It's not just muscular men that we presume to be hotheaded and condescending this kind of unacceptable behavior is endemic to the medium as a whole, and viewers are tickled to see that dynamic inverted. I really think Chief hit on something with that last response, and I want to add that part of the appeal of the format lies in its warmth those of us who spend a lot of time online find ourselves bathing in a sea of toxic discourse but, for a cohort so frequently described as overwhelmingly self-absorbed, I think that the millennials making and consuming these genuinely value humility a lack of ego and self-importance and empathy the ability to understand others. The men in these memes display these in spades and, through the experience of incogruity, viewers are given theopportunity to deepen their own humility and extend their sense of empathy. Here you go
employment: Hey guys, I've been seeing these memes
 where muscular men at laptops explain
 elementary concepts in some topic or other
 to a nerdy-looking, curious kid. They really
 make me laugh, but I can't quite put my
 finger on why. It's not like there's any real
 jokes in there or anything
 First of all, I think this format makes excellent
 use of a comedic technique called incongruity,
 whereby viewers' preconceived notions are
 upended by unexpected juxtapositions. In this
 case, many people don't think of musclebound,
 traditionally masculine men as kind, intelligent
 and eager to advise. While not a joke in any
 conventional sense, this produces a humorous
 effect
 King, I want to echo what you're saying and
 also suggest that there's an even broader
 employment of incongruity here.. Viewers
 expect earnest requests for basic information
 to be met with vitriol due to a sense that
 discourse on web forums is generally noxious.
 The conviviality of the buff men's responses
 runs totally counter to viewer's expectations.
 It's not just muscular men that we presume to
 be hotheaded and condescending this kind
 of unacceptable behavior is endemic to the
 medium as a whole, and viewers are tickled to
 see that dynamic inverted.
 I really think Chief hit on something with that
 last response, and I want to add that part of
 the appeal of the format lies in its warmth
 those of us who spend a lot of time online find
 ourselves bathing in a sea of toxic discourse
 but, for a cohort so frequently described as
 overwhelmingly self-absorbed, I think that the
 millennials making and consuming these
 genuinely value humility a lack of ego and
 self-importance and empathy the ability
 to understand others. The men in these
 memes display these in spades and, through
 the experience of incogruity, viewers are given
 theopportunity to deepen their own humility
 and extend their sense of empathy.
Here you go

Here you go

employment: Emplovee Saves Child From Kidnapper, Instead Of Promotion Gets This Letter Saying He's Fired This is Dillon Reagan. He recently stopped a child from getting kidnapped while he was at work OREGON EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT PO Box 14135 Satem, Oregon 97309 5068 (503) 292-2057, (541) 388-6207 or (877) 345 3484 (tol tree) Fax to (866) 345 1878 Administrative Decision OILLON T REAGAN Date Issued June 29,2017 Appeal Deadline Date: uly 19,2017 Cust ID: OUTCOME/RESULTADO. You are ALLOWED benefits on this claim, if otherwise eligible. Se le OTORGAN los beneficios en este reclamo, si de otra manera es elegible. FINDINGS You were employed by THE HOME DEPOT until June 19, 2017 when you were fired because you assisted the police in preventing a kidnapping. This was not a willful or wantonly negligent violation of the standards of behavior an employer has the right to expect of an employee LEGAL CONCLUSION/CONCLUSION JURÍDICA: You were fired but not for misconduct connected with work Usted no fue despedido por mala conducta relacionada con el trabajo. Dillon Reagan Jun 9 at 11:21pm HoPot Update: The Friday before Mother's Day, I was involved in a kidnapping attempt at my place of work. A woman had been assaulted and her child had been abducted by a drunk, violent man who was making a quick exit with the child in his arms. My co-worker and I called the police and followed their directions to follow at a distance to make sure they could find them when the squad care arrived on scene. Because of the actions of my co-worker and myself, that child was rescued from his abductor and the man was arrested on the spot. Today, Home Depot terminated my employment. I was fired for stopping a kidnapper from successfully abducting a child. FML chrisray-the-lariat-king: pon-raul: waisted-daisiess: thetrippytrip: If he manages to get that story viral, he’ll get a job 5 times better than his last one #youknowwhatImean BLOW THIS SHIT UP That’s Home Depot national policy 101 If an armed attacker comes into the store and threatens you, you will be fired for any form of retaliation, they tell you this on like day 1 More reasons Home Depot is Trash
employment: Emplovee Saves Child From Kidnapper,
 Instead Of Promotion Gets This Letter
 Saying He's Fired

 This is Dillon Reagan. He recently
 stopped a child from getting
 kidnapped while he was at work

 OREGON EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT
 PO Box 14135 Satem, Oregon 97309 5068
 (503) 292-2057, (541) 388-6207 or (877) 345 3484 (tol tree)
 Fax to (866) 345 1878
 Administrative Decision
 OILLON T REAGAN
 Date Issued
 June 29,2017
 Appeal Deadline Date:
 uly 19,2017
 Cust ID:
 OUTCOME/RESULTADO.
 You are ALLOWED benefits on this claim, if otherwise eligible.
 Se le OTORGAN los beneficios en este reclamo, si de otra manera es elegible.
 FINDINGS
 You were employed by THE HOME DEPOT until June 19, 2017 when you were fired because you assisted
 the police in preventing a kidnapping. This was not a willful or wantonly negligent violation of the
 standards of behavior an employer has the right to expect of an employee
 LEGAL CONCLUSION/CONCLUSION JURÍDICA:
 You were fired but not for misconduct connected with work
 Usted no fue despedido por mala conducta relacionada con el trabajo.

 Dillon Reagan
 Jun 9 at 11:21pm
 HoPot Update:
 The Friday before Mother's Day, I was involved in a
 kidnapping attempt at my place of work.
 A woman had been assaulted and her child had been
 abducted by a drunk, violent man who was making a
 quick exit with the child in his arms.
 My co-worker and I called the police and followed their
 directions to follow at a distance to make sure they
 could find them when the squad care arrived on scene.
 Because of the actions of my co-worker and myself,
 that child was rescued from his abductor and the man
 was arrested on the spot.
 Today, Home Depot terminated my employment.
 I was fired for stopping a kidnapper from successfully
 abducting a child.
 FML
chrisray-the-lariat-king:

pon-raul:
waisted-daisiess:

thetrippytrip:


If he manages to get that story viral, he’ll get a job 5 times better than his last one #youknowwhatImean

BLOW THIS SHIT UP 


That’s Home Depot national policy 101
If an armed attacker comes into the store and threatens you, you will be fired for any form of retaliation, they tell you this on like day 1 

More reasons Home Depot is Trash

chrisray-the-lariat-king: pon-raul: waisted-daisiess: thetrippytrip: If he manages to get that story viral, he’ll get a job 5 times b...

employment: he Swiss are voting on a plan to end poverty forever. Step one: give every adult $33,600 a year, no strings attached. There is no step two. Photo: Flickr/twicepix fangirltothefullest: tank-grrl: hello-missmayhem: cptprocrastination: doomhamster: belcanta: nikkidubs: attentiondeficitaptitude: belcanta: Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole.  Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea. The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income. But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture. “BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?” screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. “You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!”“But where will people get the incentive to work?!” Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. “You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!” “But who will serve me?” grumbled Marty McMoneybags. “Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??” I laughed. This is perfect! Well said! The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.) And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat! Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity. And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work. Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out. And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax. The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere? TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest. reblogging for more top commentary They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours.  But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred. Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than. The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for. The only reason people are against this is because when people are financially stable there is less crime (therefore less prison industrial complex free labour) there are less medical problems (IE less hospital visits meaning less money for the medical and pharmaceutical companies) and the point I am making is that a full guaranteed income to all means that those wealthy people at the top get less money and so they try and fool you into thinking it’s bad so you help encourage them lining their pockets.
employment: he Swiss are voting on a plan to end poverty forever.
 Step one: give every adult $33,600
 a year, no strings attached.
 There is no step two.
 Photo: Flickr/twicepix
fangirltothefullest:

tank-grrl:

hello-missmayhem:

cptprocrastination:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

nikkidubs:

attentiondeficitaptitude:

belcanta:

Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole. 

Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea.
The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income.
But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture.

“BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?” screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. “You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!”“But where will people get the incentive to work?!” Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. “You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!”
“But who will serve me?” grumbled Marty McMoneybags. “Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??”

I laughed. This is perfect! Well said!

The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.)
And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!
Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.
And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work.
Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out.
And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax.
The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere?
TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.

reblogging for more top commentary

They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours. 
But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred.
Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than.

The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for.

The only reason people are against this is because when people are financially stable there is less crime (therefore less prison industrial complex free labour) there are less medical problems (IE less hospital visits meaning less money for the medical and pharmaceutical companies) and the point I am making is that a full guaranteed income to all means that those wealthy people at the top get less money and so they try and fool you into thinking it’s bad so you help encourage them lining their pockets.

fangirltothefullest: tank-grrl: hello-missmayhem: cptprocrastination: doomhamster: belcanta: nikkidubs: attentiondeficitaptitude:...

employment: he Swiss are voting on a plan to end poverty forever. Step one: give every adult $33,600 a year, no strings attached. There is no step two. Photo: Flickr/twicepix tank-grrl: hello-missmayhem: cptprocrastination: doomhamster: belcanta: nikkidubs: attentiondeficitaptitude: belcanta: Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole.  Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea. The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income. But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture. “BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?” screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. “You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!”“But where will people get the incentive to work?!” Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. “You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!” “But who will serve me?” grumbled Marty McMoneybags. “Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??” I laughed. This is perfect! Well said! The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.) And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat! Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity. And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work. Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out. And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax. The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere? TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest. reblogging for more top commentary They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours.  But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred. Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than. The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for.
employment: he Swiss are voting on a plan to end poverty forever.
 Step one: give every adult $33,600
 a year, no strings attached.
 There is no step two.
 Photo: Flickr/twicepix
tank-grrl:
hello-missmayhem:

cptprocrastination:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

nikkidubs:

attentiondeficitaptitude:

belcanta:

Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole. 

Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea.
The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income.
But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture.

“BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?” screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. “You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!”“But where will people get the incentive to work?!” Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. “You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!”
“But who will serve me?” grumbled Marty McMoneybags. “Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??”

I laughed. This is perfect! Well said!

The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.)
And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!
Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.
And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work.
Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out.
And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax.
The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere?
TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.

reblogging for more top commentary

They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours. 
But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred.
Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than.

The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for.

tank-grrl: hello-missmayhem: cptprocrastination: doomhamster: belcanta: nikkidubs: attentiondeficitaptitude: belcanta: Guaranteed...

employment: he Swiss are voting on a plan to end poverty forever. Step one: give every adult $33,600 a year, no strings attached. There is no step two. Photo: Flickr/twicepix lazorsandparadox: tank-grrl: hello-missmayhem: cptprocrastination: doomhamster: belcanta: nikkidubs: attentiondeficitaptitude: belcanta: Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole.  Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea. The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income. But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture. “BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?” screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. “You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!”“But where will people get the incentive to work?!” Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. “You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!” “But who will serve me?” grumbled Marty McMoneybags. “Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??” I laughed. This is perfect! Well said! The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.) And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat! Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity. And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work. Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out. And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax. The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere? TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest. reblogging for more top commentary They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours.  But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred. Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than. The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for. With debt levels spiraling out of control as they are, america might have to do this in the near future, in order to prevent economic collapse from people just not having money to spend. The only problem i forsee with this is that, in order to get the money to distribute, taxes on rich people would have to increase by a lot, and if taxes raise too high, they just fucking move to another country to avoid paying them. If there was a way to prevent this, or if the whole world implemented a standard like this at the same time thereby removing the incentive to flee tax hikes, then this would absolutely work out great
employment: he Swiss are voting on a plan to end poverty forever.
 Step one: give every adult $33,600
 a year, no strings attached.
 There is no step two.
 Photo: Flickr/twicepix
lazorsandparadox:
tank-grrl:

hello-missmayhem:

cptprocrastination:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

nikkidubs:

attentiondeficitaptitude:

belcanta:

Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole. 

Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea.
The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income.
But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture.

“BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?” screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. “You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!”“But where will people get the incentive to work?!” Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. “You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!”
“But who will serve me?” grumbled Marty McMoneybags. “Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??”

I laughed. This is perfect! Well said!

The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.)
And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!
Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.
And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work.
Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out.
And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax.
The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere?
TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.

reblogging for more top commentary

They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours. 
But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred.
Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than.

The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for.


With debt levels spiraling out of control as they are, america might have to do this in the near future, in order to prevent economic collapse from people just not having money to spend. The only problem i forsee with this is that, in order to get the money to distribute, taxes on rich people would have to increase by a lot, and if taxes raise too high, they just fucking move to another country to avoid paying them. If there was a way to prevent this, or if the whole world implemented a standard like this at the same time thereby removing the incentive to flee tax hikes, then this would absolutely work out great

lazorsandparadox: tank-grrl: hello-missmayhem: cptprocrastination: doomhamster: belcanta: nikkidubs: attentiondeficitaptitude: bel...