Actually George W Bush was the last person to raise the minimum wage. That's the second Bush for anyone who might not know.
Obama did nothing with it.
this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023
49 points (96.2% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
9545 readers
425 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government-contracts/minimum-wage
Obama issued an executive order to raise the wages of federal contractors to a minimum of $12.15/hr after the Pelosi/Schumer Congress fumbled the ball. Biden was reluctantly unopposed to signing a $15/min national bill, until the Manchin/Sinema Senate quashed it back in '21.
And it should be noted that the Min Wage hike Bush signed was only on his desk when Pelosi stapled it to the Bank Bailout of '08.
So this isn't a Dem/Rep thing, so much as it is a particular moment of convenience when certain progressive politicians can choose to exert leverage over their more conservative colleagues.
Pelosi/Schumer Congress fumbled the ball. Biden was reluctantly unopposed to signing a $15/min national bill, until the Manchin/Sinema Senate quashed it back in '21.
Of course Pelosi and Schumer "fumbled" it...that's because that's what they really wanted. And Biden, even though he said he would do that, he won't.
When Biden was running in the primary, he said outright that he'd veto medicare for all if it ever got to his desk. Does that sound like someone who would raise wages?
And where is the public uproar about this? I only hear crickets.
There are laws against insider trading not only in general but also specifically for Congressmen. Also, there have been (failed) bills to raise the federal minimum wage, including an attempt to add it into the stimulus bill in 2021 as a $15 Minimum Wage.
People like to ask "WhY iS noBOdY DoInG SoMEtHInG?!" while completely ignoring that one party consistently is trying but we never give them enough seats in the senate to actually do it.
Would love to see some bipartisan support for banning congress members from trading stocks. Both sides are doing it to such a degree that they are more likely to be replaced before any legislation regarding this gets passed. Obligatory Nancy Pelosi Stock Tracker link: https://twitter.com/PelosiTracker_/
Nancy Pelosi gets a bad rap, but she's actually not one of the most successful traders in congress. Of the 26 traders in Congress who beat the S&P 500 in 2022, Nancy was not one of them.
She also doesn't actually trade any stocks. She married a man in college who now owns a brokerage. To ban her from owning stock trades would be the same as asking her to divorce her husband or be removed from office.
One of the biggest controversies she's ever been in was when VISA lobbied her and made meetings with her before an influential vote, at which point her husband bought large shares in VISA, and then she...
voted against VISA's interests anyways...
The best part of all this is Paul Pelosi still made money selling the shares because society as a whole has duped itself into thinking following Pelosi is the ultimate grift for decades now. The fact is that we only even know about their trades because of legislature that Pelosi helped pass in the first place.
Of the 26 traders in Congress who beat the S&P 500 in 2022, Nancy was not one of them.
We only started tracking trades in 2021. Pelosi has been in office since the 1987 and her husband's venture capital firm Financial Leasing Services, Inc. is the primary reason for the family's $115M household valuation. A big part of the FLS holdings is sports venue real estate. And a big part of the profitability of that real estate stems from city, state, and federal grant money. So... shrug
But no, this isn't just Nancy Pelosi personally getting in on the ground floor of Facebook, Google, or Amazon, back before they were major recipients of NSA money for data collections and warehousing.
Look, I'm all for raising the minimum wage, and if it ever comes across the ballot I would always vote yes. But this is such a shit take, of fucking course dress code is easier to deal with than the economics of the whole country. If you're going to critique the government, make sense at least.
You see, this impacts them. Never mind that there's no actual impact, they only want those among them who behave as expected. Also, he got excessive attention due to his attire, which gave him a bigger audience for his political views.
Also, he got excessive attention due to his attire, which gave him a bigger audience for his political views.
Not necessarily.
People who disagree with his dress attire may not care to pay attention to his message/opinions (ex.: "This guy's a joke, I'm not listening to him").
Those who dismiss him because of his attire would, most likely, not listen to him, regardless. It's the others, who otherwise would know nothing of this man or his policies, who may be swayed in some way.
So youre saying that things need to impact these people?
Only very small things though. A few millimetres at most.
Do you think about 5.56 milimeters would be enough, or should we splurge on 7.62 milimeters?
Nah youll want way thicker rope than that
Once the Miserables found themselves outvoted in the Estates General of 1789 by about 3% of the population (the ones with money), it became very uncomfortable in France for aristocrats.
Just saying,
American's don't have the drive or the energy to care. We willingly lost 40 years ago.
Not willingly. What can I do I got work tomorrow
"If you don't wear Special Clothes around me I'm going to lose it."
When are we going to move past costuming for work?
Dress codes serve as class signifiers. Like most rules of decorum, they're cultural artifacts used to delineate the haves from the have-nots. They don't dislike the fact that Fetterman refuses to wear a suit. They dislike the fact that he dresses like the common people he actually represents. Whereas they dress like the people they represent - capitalist oligarchs. They're wanting to close ranks and keep people from realizing that not everyone in the senate serves the same masters.
Probably never. People will always judge others based on how they are dressed. We subconsciously attach a certain image of what people should look like. And these dress codes are often enforced by society indirectly. 99% of people would not want to have a lawyer dressed casually to court and will pick someone else even if the alternative is by all accounts not as good as the casually dressed lawyer.
My knee jerk reaction to seeing anyone in a suit is "Asshole".
People with their little collars and jackets and ties to make them feel important
The only costume I wanna wear for work is a mascot costume for a sports team that named themselves after an animal.
Best I can do is racist caricature
I still think instead of changing their name, the Red Skins should have changed their mascot to a potato.
It's ok to admit you're a furry on the Internet. We run the damn thing, after all
Look at the instance that user is from
This comment chain is a yiffit party