The term “living wage” is used a lot in discussions on affordability, wages, etc.
What would a “living wage” cover for an individual or family of four?
MIT also made a calculator to see what a “living wage” is for various parts of the country, by individuals and households.
Thoughts on the accuracy of this calculator and other such projections that tell people how much they should be making?
If that turned out to be the case, what then? Paint me a picture of what you'd like to see or what you'd support at that point in terms of punishment/retaliation/justice/etc.
Do you agree with this deregulation to undo worker protections?
https://theweek.com/politics/heat-workplace-protections-trump-osha
> It is hot out there. Summertime heat can take a deadly toll on workers, especially in the era of climate change and frequent heat domes. The Biden administration initiated rules to ensure that U.S. companies provide their employees with breaks to hydrate and recover while laboring in warm temperatures. Now the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are looking to roll back those protections. > > ‘A matter of life and death’ > > Heat causes “hundreds of workplace deaths” every year, but the Trump administration is rewriting rules that “mandate breaks and access to water and shade for workers,” said The New York Times. The details of those changes are still unknown, but already the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is “curtailing workplace inspections” that had been designed to “raise awareness of heat-related illnesses.” > > A House committee last month also gave approval to a bill that would block the Labor Department “finalizing any worker protections for extreme heat,” said E&E News. The Biden-era rule solves a “problem that doesn’t need solving,” Rep. Mark Messmer (R-Ind.) told the outlet. At least a few workers disagree. “We didn’t sign up for the heat to become as severe as it is,” Trina David, a baggage handler at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, said to the Times. > > “Trump will cause some of you to die from the heat,” Robert Reich said on Substack. There are countless workers who toil “under the hot sun, or in stifling warehouses or in delivery trucks with no AC,” which can “trigger heat stroke, organ failure and chronic kidney disease.” Those illnesses and deaths “can often be prevented with strong safety standards,” but the Trump administration is “retreating from worker safety.” Workplace heat protections are “literally a matter of life and death.” > > The Biden-era rules had a “deep benevolent paternalism” to them, Matthew Kahn said at Environmental and Urban Economics. But workers possess a “degree of choice over where they live and work, what job they take and what shifts they agree to work,” Kahn and Joseph Tracy said in a 2025 paper for the American Enterprise Institute. They can “move or switch firms” if conditions are too onerous. There is “no ‘crisis’” in on-the-job heat injuries that requires a heavy regulatory touch. > > ‘Can’t afford to stay cool’ > > New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani in June signed an executive order “ensuring the safety of municipal workers in the heat,” said E&E News. Workers should not have to “choose between their paycheck and their health,” Mamdani said at the signing ceremony. > > For many workers, though, the twin trends of “high temperatures and high inflation” are creating a “crisis that rarely makes headlines,” Sharon Block and Dr. Satchit Balsari said at USA Today. Cash-strapped workers increasingly “can’t afford to stay cool.” Rising prices force them to choose between paying for “food, rent and healthcare” or the electricity needed to “cool off during their off-hours.” The combination of low wages, increased costs and poor protections are forcing workers into “deadly trade-offs.”
Which GOP President of the modern era had the best long view of trying to make conservative gains not only for their term but beyond it?
Tweet posted today: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2090136255694881101
>Derek Chauvin was unjustly convicted of murder, therefore he should be freed.
>The facts show that he was not the cause of death, nor did he at any time intend for a death to occur. Whatever else he may be, he is not a murderer.
>That is the truth.
I'm curious if you agree with the assessment that Chauvin was not the cause of death and whether you agree with Elon.
Editorials aren't news. They are bias opinionated articles/segments that serve to promote a POV.
If, as a country, we are so worried about Propaganda than maybe we shouldn't allow "News Stations" to constantly editorialize and if they "News Station" wants to have an editorial station, that would be a "different channel"?
IDK - I'm just spit-balling here.
(this could be a Freedom of speech issue, but i see it more of a delineating a difference in programming to ensure those susceptible aren't propagandized on either side without knowing it...)
EDIT:
I'd am just referring basically to ensuring that we have the same guardrails for Text based and non text based media.
I have concern that visual and audio don't have the same guardrail that Text media does.
Question in title.
Key parts
> Minnesota's attorney general sued the governor of Texas on Tuesday, seeking to compel the extradition of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent charged with wounding a man and then lying to justify the shooting during the agency's crackdown in Minneapolis.
>The lawsuit Ellison filed in U.S. District Court in Texas cites a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that compliance with the Constitution's extradition clause is mandatory, affording no discretion to the governor or courts of a state where a defendant is being held.
>Moriarty said that since Castro's arrest, Texas has extradited three unrelated criminal defendants without incident to Minnesota.
What i mean is,like look at economics. Allmost all US conservatives are pro-free markets and anti regulations while in Europe while still capitalist the right wing movements are ok with more restrictions.
Or even libertarianism at all. The US considers conservatives and libertarians to be both on the same side mostly,while both rightist and leftist european barely know what it is.
One country that seems to be a midway is Britain. So maybe does the difference stem from Protestantism vs Catholicism?
​
Most of these companies aren't making much money and by going public they can offset the loss to people. If you have a 401k or any index fund you will be automatically bought into the companies.
50billion in yearly revenue. 2 trillion in private investor funding. Going public inflated the value allowing them to pay off their investors.
Not really knowledgeable about economics but from my understanding thats what's happening.
Im personally not that much a fan of it,but I noticed here most tend to be libertarians/anti-authoritarian.
Out of pure curiosity,why? Why do you reject statist type of governance even if rightist like for example Pinochet or LKY?
I assume its because most of people here are from the US,and its a country born on freedom and liberty. Unfortunately the American right is the only one to truly oppose government intervention in daily life and economics.
I’m curious because another poll just dropped showing a historic shift toward Democrats among Hispanic men — a group Donald Trump won in 2024 — for the upcoming congressional elections and yet the response seems to be “meh 🤷♂️ don’t let the door hit ya on the way out”
The Right stumbled into a multiracial coalition by accident and with bafflement, now they’re stumbling right back out of it with equal gracelessness. I don’t understand why y’all can’t just make a few concessions.
I consider myself an independent/centrist. I generally see significant fault in both major parties, and if I’m being honest, I’ve often been overly critical of the Republican Party in the past.
That said, I see a huge amount of anger, frustration, and deep dislike directed toward the Democratic Party from conservative and Republican voters. I’m trying to better understand the rationale behind that intensity rather than relying on media caricatures.
A few specific questions I’m hoping to get perspective on:
What are the primary drivers of this opposition for you? Is it core economic and governance policies (e.g., spending, regulation, foreign policy), or is it mostly cultural issues?
Does this frustration extend to individual Democratic voters, or do you view the mainstream voters and the party leadership/media apparatus very differently?
For those who view the modern Democratic Party as fundamentally harmful to the country, what specific actions, philosophy, or direction do you point to as the main culprit?
I’m genuinely looking to listen and understand where you’re coming from, so I appreciate any thoughtful answers.
So the oil reserves are getting critically low. To the point it will soon be damaging the salt domes it is stored in. Should we be rationing fuel yet? How long should we wait?
From what I've read Democratic Socialist seem to be fighting for the working man, focusing on affordability, energy independence, getting us out of foreign conflicts, etc. That's pretty much what MAGA stood for during T1.
There are differences for sure, like on immigration. But even DSA seem to agree with the right that the current system is broken but we need a different way to manage it without resorting to Trump running a secret police.
If you're MAGA, do you find any of the ideas from the Democratic socialist platform appealing? Why or why not?