Submitted by nsfwdailyy t3_ybofmi in pics
Comments
Lordnerble t1_itit6o4 wrote
You work two jobs? Your fired! -assholes
Thin_Tea_3525 t1_iti5uxg wrote
One of those is definitely a lie to make the sign work
neanderhummus t1_itk3mh2 wrote
At least the sign has work
wish1977 t1_ithj91a wrote
Today's Republicans still wouldn't care.
Lurkingandsearching t1_itinjim wrote
This is pre-Nixon, so pro Union blue collar Republicans would care along with the growing progressive Democrat Federalist wing. Southern Democrats and North Eastern Industrialist Republicans (the Federalist society types) would not.
Gorstag t1_itjz9zr wrote
Which is why it is a lot easier to just say conservatives and progressives or even liberals. Conservatives have had a long history of being pretty shit people.
Lurkingandsearching t1_itk7sjg wrote
Not really, Conservative and Progressive as a label is actually not functional as it's just an where an opinion on a policy is. Washington was right when he said Parties were a bad idea, but human nature made it so they would naturally occur. You can be Progressive on some things, Conservative on others, and Regressive on a few things too.
Conservative means keeping the status quo, like wanting to protect free speech. Progressive means changing it, like wanting to change current banking regulations. Finally regressive, which is returning to a previous state, like removing the amendment that banned Alcohol or removing the illegality of Marijuana. Because regress is taken into the negative, it gets the worse rap, so it makes a good buzz word to attack policies a party doesn't like.
They are currently used as basically marketing terms, thus is why I used them because explaining how the terms are suppose to be used in Realpolitick is rather hard to explain. Like explaining Right (Federalism) vs Left (State Power) to people who use them how they are used post 19th century. Now both parties are Federalist (spare the Southern Republicans, but the Federalist pay and run the party). I think the closest definition we use now is the French one, but even that's a bit loosely adapted.
Sorry for the long winded explanation, but I try to stay non-partisan the best I can, though I admit I have my bias's on policy too.
Caldwing t1_itlopqi wrote
The modern usage of the word conservative doesn't align very well with historical political terms and I think it's best understood completely separately. When people talk about "conservatives" today, at least in North America, they are referring to people who want a strongman leader enforcing social hierarchies and protecting the ability of an arbitrary elite to dominate the less fortunate.
Historically this described nearly all political entities regardless of their other beliefs. Basically people have been absolutely horrible for most of recorded history.
Lurkingandsearching t1_itm2j94 wrote
>Historically this described nearly all political entities regardless of their other beliefs. Basically people have been absolutely horrible for most of recorded history.
That is a very reductive way to view things.
Gorstag t1_itltsqr wrote
Interesting. Thanks.
milktoastyy t1_itkbm8t wrote
Right leaning fella here. For what it's worth, this kinda stuff breaks my heart. Especially so when I see it in real life. My family and I make food bank and rehabilitation center donations every Christmas. A lot of us do care.
[deleted] t1_itknlrt wrote
[removed]
Shoddy_Performer_999 t1_itj6tp1 wrote
Conservatives were always assholes, doesn't matter the party.
Can-ta-loupe t1_ithgl0y wrote
There are lots of lucky 3s
OysterTongs t1_itj7crr wrote
"Should have studied something useful instead of language, stupid 1890s kids"
-What people today would say if they went back in time.
niklas3070 t1_iti3lc2 wrote
Thats why my sims in my coty arent happy
grumpusbumpus t1_itj4u1t wrote
This photo haunts me.
meeyeam t1_itj9iix wrote
Instead of doing something about unemployment, we decided to just redefine what unemployment actually is.
If we defined it the same way, we'd see similar numbers in the next couple years.
motogucci t1_itjumg0 wrote
The supremely wealthy have no need to pay for your services. There's nothing they really need, that they would pay for. They just hang a little bit of money to lure in more.
The mildly wealthy are losing their money to the surpremely wealthy, but think you're the problem. They won't pay you for services unless they absolutely have to.
The less-than-wealthy have nothing to pay you with.
Higher taxes for the supremely wealthy and a different tax structure modified the incentives of the wealthy, and are what got the country out of the depression. Essentially, pay the government much extra, if you aren't paying people. Doesn't ultimately affect the owners of oil, coal, steel, and other incredibly basic commodities. All money flows right back to them, since there's a guaranteed need for these things, by everybody.
But in the interim, either they were paying people more, or the government was taxing these supremely wealthy. And for this brief period where such funds were not in their coffers, those taxes were invested in public works. So the money was paid to people such as in the photo, who are then customers, and the money continues to circulate.
--
Money spent does not go in the garbage.
Money hoarded, however, is effectively pulled out of circulation.
And for the lot who like to bicker on this last point, saying the wealthy add money when they "invest": it's like using a minnow to catch a trout. You wouldn't say you're adding fish to the water, when you're simply using bait to retrieve more.
When large companies invest in an area, they only improve the area for a moment, if at all, during some construction phase. Because of course, the whole purpose of their investment is to draw more money toward themselves. Over time huge companies are a drain. The walmarts, the McDonald's, and forth, syphon money out of regions (some faster than others), and you're left with poor areas.
[deleted] t1_ithwggu wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itj4hy0 wrote
[deleted]
Ho3n3r t1_itk9u2s wrote
We still have that in other countries. Our unemployment rate is 33%.
The boards just don't look as fancy.
Good200000 t1_itkmlwb wrote
This was during the Great Depression. Unemployment was greater than 25 percent and the Market crashed
[deleted] t1_itiudz0 wrote
[deleted]
nsfwdailyy OP t1_itiuqzg wrote
Scroll down to see image https://www.history.com/.amp/news/1929-stock-market-crash-warning-signs
smecta t1_itivngp wrote
Well, it’s from gettyimages and it is on a website. Totally legit. I stand corrected. /s
Btw I heard using AMP links is bad for your health.
Shoddy_Performer_999 t1_itj6psc wrote
We didn't see those unemployment numbers again until trump. Now unemployment is lower than it's been in decades. Job opportunities everywhere. We need more immigrants.
PizzaPet t1_itjplnc wrote
Trump brought unemployment down 1.5% from inauguration to Feb 2020. It shot up in March 2020 (covid, obviously) and has been going down since,now back to 3.5% as it was before covid. I wonder how you think that bringing more immigrants will further improve the unemployment numbers of American citizens.
Edit: unemployment was 3x as high at its peak under Obama than it was under Trump (barring covid). Neither of them got anywhere near 25%, but Obama certainly got closer.
Falmarri t1_itjsca4 wrote
>I wonder how you think that bringing more immigrants will further improve the unemployment numbers of American citizens.
Wtf? Who's "bringing more immigrants"?
PizzaPet t1_itjsgwk wrote
Welcoming/allowing them. Semantics.
Falmarri t1_itmsr5m wrote
You're saying we shouldn't welcome/allow legal immigrants? What exactly are you saying?
PizzaPet t1_itq8kxb wrote
I think the US should adopt the system they have in the Netherlands. The system works so that you MUST find a Dutch citizen to fill a job before you consider foreign applicants. Foreigners can only get a job if there is absolutely no Dutch person who is capable and willing for that job, and you need a job before you move to country, unless you're rolling in money that will help the economy. Bring value to the country or stay out.
Shoddy_Performer_999 t1_itjqdr5 wrote
Unemployment is the lowest it's been in decades. Thanks Biden. Immigrants will improve the employment issue for companies. Not sure how you got so lost on that. lol.
Anyway, a trip down memory lane is good. Trump's achievements - highest unemployment since the great depression. Millions of businesses closed never to reopen again. Insurrection. Hospitals over capacity all over the country. Government shutdowns. Tens of thousands of americans dying every month. Airports closed. People stuck in their house for months. Massive bailouts. Bread lines. Failed tariffs. Huge deficits. It was the end of days. Sad.
CactusChan-OwO t1_itjrf74 wrote
More than half the negatives you mentioned were a direct result of COVID lockdowns, not Trump’s economic policies. Also, the way the unemployment rate is measured doesn’t necessarily mean more people have jobs, it just means fewer people are looking for jobs. It could mean more people are working, sure, but it could also mean lots of people aren’t looking for employment, and given all the labor shortages, I’d hazard a guess on the latter.
Shoddy_Performer_999 t1_itjt3j9 wrote
Trump downplayed covid which is why the US had the most deaths by far. Trump failed the covid response so badly that that vast majority of deaths were unvaxxed - his own voting demographic. Then he lost by 8 million. lol.
And fewer people are claiming unemployment benefits than they have in decades. Under trump, unemployment benefit claims ballooned like we never seen before. Oof.
>It's one person coming in from China.
lmao
PizzaPet t1_itjrmp5 wrote
You don't take corrections well, do you? You claimed that we saw 25% unemployment under Trump. You were wrong. Why have you nothing to say about Obama's 10% record? The world didn't shut down during his two terms. Also, positions filled has nothing to do with American employment rate. 500 million Chinese immigrants can come start working tomorrow. That will not effect the employment rate.
Shoddy_Performer_999 t1_itjte5s wrote
Try again.
Trump's legacy.
Immigrants actually suffered even higher rates of unemployment during trump's failed single term,
PizzaPet t1_itjucy4 wrote
Alright, dude. Go look at 1933.
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/unemployment-rate-by-year-3305506#toc-us-unemployment-rates-by-year
Again, YOU were the one who said we didn't see unemployment rates that high until Trump. That's just false and you can't admit it for some reason. We have never seen 24.9% unemployment rate since 1933, so cut the crap just because you hate Trump. Lies don't help you.
I also don't give a single fuck about immigrants being unemployed, so I'm not gonna read that. Americans first.
Shoddy_Performer_999 t1_itjv1tt wrote
Nope. Wrong again.
>Trump's achievements - highest unemployment since the great depression.
Your lack of reading comprehension is probably why you're wrong all the time.
I like how you remove the highest unemployment rates from trump like it doesn't count. lol.
>(barring covid).
PizzaPet t1_itjvwjy wrote
Your original comment "we didn't see unemployment numbers that high again until Trump". No, we never saw unemployment numbers that high since 1933.
Your original comment did not say highest unemployment since the great depression. I can't help you backtracking.
Yeah, I feel it's fair to take the peak rate during covid with a grain of salt. I mean, Obama got to 10% without the world shutting down. What's 4.7% more when a global pandemic is in full swing?
Anyway, have a night.
Edit: "we didn't see those unemployment numbers until Trump" same thing. We never saw them again.
Shoddy_Performer_999 t1_itjw3ak wrote
Let's just forget the highest unemployment since the great depression since it makes trump look like shit? Nope. Too bad.
Trump is responsible for his mishandling of covid. Nobody else. He lied and a million americans died. Worst president ever. Also a traitor since his insurrection.
PizzaPet t1_itjwjpn wrote
Okay, I'll take your silence on the correction as you at least accepting that you were wrong.
I didn't say let's forget it. I'm saying take it with a grain of salt.
Shoddy_Performer_999 t1_itjxd9q wrote
Highest unemployment since the great depression. Trump's legacy.
Well that, and his insurrection.
If trump was a secret dem sent to fuck over republicans, it would make so much more sense.
m4nu3lf t1_itkmq7z wrote
Do people even know what caused the depression? Reading the comments it seems like nobody really knows. It was a governmental mistake. The new FED kept interest rates too high.
RooMagoo t1_itl3c1d wrote
That is a gross over-simplification of an extremely complicated situation. Government, yes; fed alone, no. The Fed certainly played a big role in allowing the recession to become a depression, but they were far from the sole cause. The toxic debt cycle Europe was stuck in repaying American banks for WWI, the Smoot-Hawley tariff Act, the gold standard, stupid repricing of currencies post war and mismanagement of banks all caused/led to the depression.
High interest rates killed farmers because the tariff Act killed commodity prices and there had been a land bubble previously. Farmers couldn't pay their loans to banks which caused over-leveraged banks to fail, taking all deposits with them. That example is just one of the many structural failures that occurred due to a multitude of poor decisions.
m4nu3lf t1_itl3nsj wrote
As far as I know that's what turned an otherwise recession into a deep and lasting depression. What I'm saying is that with lower interest rates, all other things being equal, you would have likely not had a depression.
RooMagoo t1_itn6yl2 wrote
It may have shortened the duration but I think there were way too many other structural problems to have avoided the depression entirely. It's not clear farmers could have paid their mortgages even at lower rates due to rapid deflation in commodities caused by the tariffs and overproduction from industrialization.
Don't forget, the secretary of the Treasury at the beginning of the depression, Andrew Mellon, was a staunch believer in liquidationism. Effectively, liquidate everything and everyone to get the rot out of the system. They actually welcomed deflation and claimed it had solved the '20-21 depression.
New York banks were going to fail no matter what. Over leverage in the stock market and literally lending Germany money to pay reparations to GB and France so they could repay war debt to the same banks. The stock market was in a bubble due to industrialization and mispricing currencies post war and was bound to crash, taking all those over-leveraged banks with them.
The Fed added fuel to the fire by raising rates in a deflationary environment, but that environment already existed due to terrible government and near zero banking regulations.
m4nu3lf t1_itn8n0f wrote
Deflation can usually be reversed by low enough interest rates though.
I don't know about the New York banks. If as you say they were highly leveraged, possibility.
XJ-0 t1_iti1oti wrote
"He only wants ONE job?! Lazy! No one wants to work hard anymore!" - Boomers maybe.