i agree, and further think that the penalty for falsifying inculpatory/hiding exculpatory evidence by the prosecution should automatically be the sentence they were seeking for the defendant.

assessing performance by conviction rate is antithetical to justice or "corrections."

you're missing the point; we vilify minimum wage earners for asking for a living wage, as if they're greedy, yet allow corporations to engage in profligate wage theft, grossly overpaying their c-suite.

See also:
bsky.app/profile/step...

if the hypothetical barista in this example can afford all of those things, i doubt they'd qualify for federal assistance programs (that aren't tax breaks), and certainly isn't using their barista income to afford that lifestyle.

i know what that feels like, lol.

i'd argue that we're still riding upon the largesse of slavery.

yep. interestingly, it's not like that everywhere i. the world. i studied in japan in undergrad, and their attitude toward service jobs is wildly different than ours.

i think capitalism is a terminal condition, but even if one purports to be for it, what we have in the US is not it.

it's almost as if none of the purported "adults in the room" have ever seen a campaign from the inside, worked on one, or understand how much success relies on the relationships built through the hard work and creativity of the ground level folks who do most of the work and you never hear about.

more importantly, it's using depressed wages/increased prices to maintain an artificially high percentage of profit.

this is the other side of the coin from artificially suppressing minimum wage, and conning you into thinking the person who isn't paid enough to afford rent in is being greedy.

and before you raise the "but coffee will cost too much if we pay the barista enough to live on" argument, you should know that if we hadn't artificially suppressed minimum wage, you'd never have noticed.

you should want as many people as possible to be paid enough to meaningfully participate in the economy, to be able to afford basic living. not because it's right an just (it is) but because it makes the economy better for you, for small business, for everyone.

when you decry the demand for a living wage by a barista, you're caping for billionaires, private equity, CEOs, at the expense of the basic ability to live of the barista.

you're also shooting yourself in the foot, by advocating for that money to be siphoned out of the economy.

and people were either oblivious, or took comfort in thinking that "welfare" would make sure no one starved. except now they want that money, too, and have systematically villainized the working poor for being underpaid.

you live in an economic system where the value of labor has been artificially and intentionally suppressed. organized labor has been largely neutered, minimum wage intentionally stagnated, etc., all efforts to keep the system out of balance.

"flipping burgers" or "serving coffee" are devalued because the business can get away with pocketing the difference more easily, and you've been conditioned to agree with it.

if you're thinking that you believe in "capitalism," then you should be advocating for these jobs to earn a living wage.

this is such a disingenuous take. jobs should pay enough for people to live. the argument that "that job isn't worth that much" is specious, and belies a lack of understanding of economic systems.

wild watching all these fascist simps show us exactly who they see in the mirror via projection.

i would offer that at least one prevailing theme that the candidates shared this week was a commitment to working people, not mere "affordability," and not just being reactive to the gop dumpsterfire.

many of these commenters are seeking to deepen factional
divides on the left, "why is mamdani's win in blue nyc such a big deal compared to spanberger's win in purple virginia" and other similar bullshit.

we need to focus on what all these candidates got right, and how we build on that, period.