8 ms·

I don't get why minimum wage isn't tied to the CPI by default. I supposed there's a risk of it creating a positive feedback loop, but only a small portion of th

I don't get why minimum wage isn't tied to the CPI by default. I supposed there's a risk of it creating a positive feedback loop, but only a small portion of the workforce is paid at minimum wage. It seems capricious for minimum wage to only be increased when the legislative branch decides it's popular enough to fight for.

pydry 5y ago
Because both parties are owned by oligarchs who would lose money if that happened. Minimum wage hikes chew through profits and profits are pretty much the #1 legislative priority because that's the primary concern of those doing the campaign financing. Same reason gun control wont happen no matter how many people get killed - ultimately its because gun manufacturers would lose money. American politics is the art of trying to shape public opinion just enough to be compatible with the desires of campaign financers.
- shakezula 5y ago
  And the reason countries like NZ seem to be able to quickly and efficiently pass sweeping gun reform laws is because it’s not effecting any major gun producers bottom line. In America that is very much not the situation. Additionally, even if profits were a moot point, the 2nd amendment is a culture war wedge issue that runs bone-deep for the average American.
  - pydry 5y ago
    The gun industry started the culture war for profit and fans the flames for profit. Take away the profit margins and have a few more mass shootings and I imagine the 2nd amendment would melt away as easily as the 4th did.
    - dfxm12 5y ago
      A few more mass shootings? HA! A few more at this point would be like a raindrop in the ocean. It's obvious that's not a factor for anyone with any real political/legislative power here.
    - germinalphrase 5y ago
      Even if we entirely ended the manufacture and sale of guns, there are far too many guns already in private possession for it to matter (I.e. there are more guns in circulation right now than there are people in this country). As a gun owner, it is obvious that to eliminate mass shootings we would have to eliminate private ownership of all semi-automatic firearms. That is so incredibly far outside the realm of possibility. The ability to engage in a mass shooting is not going to change; we need to engage the issue from other angles.
      - bumby 5y ago
        For those downvoting, consider when NJ banned bump stocks and required them to be turned in. There was a total of one turned in voluntarily last I heard.
    - shakezula 5y ago
      I disagree that it was the gun industry that started the war, but they absolutely fan the flames for profit. The 2nd amendment will never go away as long as conservatives use it as a wedge issue. It's far too important as leverage, and they've been incredibly successful in cementing it further into law even very recently. My state just passed Constitutional Carry into law this year.
      - mayormcmatt 5y ago
        Fresh Air recently aired an interview with former gun industry marketing exec Ryan Busse, about their responsibility in the American culture wars. I can't remember off the top, though, whether he claim they are only fanning it or are the main origins of it. Anyway, an interesting listen.
      - 8note 5y ago
        Conservatives will happily do away with the 2nd amendment if you arm a bunch of black people, and have them constantly open carrying while black
        nonford150 5y ago
        Not sure about your location, I see about a 50/30/20 (white/black/Hispanic)racial mix at my Atlanta Bass Pro gun counter, which about matches this counties’ demographics. People just want to be able to protect themselves; don’t take Brunswick as the norm for everywhere.
        shakezula 5y ago
        They’re referencing how California republicans were lightning fast to legislate away gun rights as soon as the Black Panthers started organizing and flexing their second amendment rights.
  - 988747 5y ago
    The reason NZ can pass any gun law they want is that they do not have the right to own guns written into their Constitution. US are unique in this regard - most of the laws passed would be struck down by the Supreme Court anyway.
  - bumby 5y ago
    Does NZ have an equivalent of the 2nd Amendment? In the US, States can regulate, even those without strong ties to manufacturers. The fact that many haven’t makes me think the 2A is a bigger issue than profits.
- ericmay 5y ago
  > Same reason gun control wont happen no matter how many people get killed - ultimately its because gun manufacturers would lose money. Depends on what you mean by gun control though. Many (myself included) are pro 2nd Amendment so it's not just the gun lobby/NRA who oppose some (not all) regulation. I guess my point is that gun control (whatever that means) won't happen not only because of gun lobbyists but because many Americans support gun ownership.
  - pydry 5y ago
    It's not the tail wagging the dog, though. The large contingent of Americans who throw their political weight in an organized way behind gun ownership as a point of principle were rallied by the gun manufacturing industry. It wasn't organic. It didn't happen in Australia or New Zealand or the UK even though gun enthusiasts exist in all of those countries.
    - fathereatsass 5y ago
      I don't think that's a claim you can just throw out there. The gun industry is tiny and barely has any money compared to big tech, not to mention the insane ability big tech has to manufacture consent. Gun companies are successful because people support them, not the other way around.
    - bumby 5y ago
      But that ability to organize is also protected by the US Constitution. You may consider it unethical, but it’s not illegal.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      > It's not the tail wagging the dog, though. The large contingent of Americans who throw their political weight in an organized way behind gun ownership as a point of principle were rallied by the gun manufacturing industry. It wasn't organic. Idk exactly what you mean by organic, but if it means what I think you're trying to say, idk what's more organic than creating the Second Amendment which was created long before there were gun lobbyists. > It didn't happen in Australia or New Zealand or the UK even though gun enthusiasts exist in all of those countries. America is a different country isn't it?
- rspeele 5y ago
  The biggest gun manufacturer you can buy stock in is Ruger (RGR) with a market cap of 1.17B. Add Smith & Wesson and you're at 2B. Throw in Vista Outdoors which owns many of the top US ammo brands (plus some minor firearm and accessory brands) and you can get the total up to 4.3B. I'll multiply that by 10 to guesstimate privately held companies, local gun stores, and the rest of the long tail. So let's say we're at $43 billion for the whole gun industry in the US. Isn't that kind of podunk scale for an industry to have a rock solid hold on US politics? Snapchat alone is valued at $72B. Ford is $80B. Pfizer is $330B. Dollar General is $51B. Heck, Office Depot is worth more than S&W or Ruger.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    Yeah, that's weird in perspective. Snapchat's valuation doesn't give them buying power, but Apple has nearly 200B cash on hand -- they could theoretically buy and close down all of these manufacturers and test the hypothesis that Big Gun is causing all the shootings.
    - halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
      Theoretically, could Apple buy S&W and…just shut it down? Would the government allow it? Curious…
      - madengr 5y ago
        Well, I'd use the $ from the sale to start a new gun company.
      - klyrs 5y ago
        I imagine that if they bought them all at the same time, it would be seen as anticompetitive. But if they bought them serially, and shut each down before acquiring the next, would that skirt the law? Curious indeed.
        colejohnson66 5y ago
        From my non-lawyer understanding: the Sherman Antitrust Act and any further bills/amendments aren't exactly explicit on what it means to be "anticompetitive" because it depends on the circumstances, and the writers wanted to allow the definition to adapt to changing circumstances. Regardless of if they buy them all at once, or buy and shutting them down serially, it's still arguably "anticompetitive". It's ultimately up to the courts to decide (if the FTC presses charges).
- robobob5000 5y ago
  You forgot to mention that the left is mostly funded by anti-gun interests. That is where the majority of gun control legislation comes from. If money from Bloomberg or Soros helps you win, you push gun control in return. I also think trying to pin the 'culture war' on gun companies is bizarre. Are you from the US? Your take on this seems like something you would see on MSNBC.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > You forgot to mention that the left is mostly funded by anti-gun interests. It’s...not. > If money from Bloomberg or Soros helps you win Neither Soros nor especially Bloomberg are or especially fund the left; Bloomberg is center-right, Soros is, frankly incoherent; while, yes right-wing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories focus on his funding of organizations to the left of the Republican platform, among the organizations he funds are ones like Cru, the organization known as “Campus Crusade for Christ” before its recent rebrand. (The Democratic Party is a center-right to center-left coalition party, where dominant power is held by the center-right, neoliberal corporate capitalist faction.)
- csomar 5y ago
  > Same reason gun control wont happen no matter how many people get killed - ultimately its because gun manufacturers would lose money. This is ... derailing. If Americans didn't love guns, they wouldn't go and buy guns. There is close to 400 million unregistered firearm in the USA. I don't think it's only Republican's. The companies who make guns will try to protect their business but at this point they are just secondary. Also both Canada and Finland are in the top 10: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g... A person with a gun is not necessarily dangerous. An idiot with a gun is. An idiot without is still as dangerous.
  - katbyte 5y ago
    Canada and Finland and very different rules and regulation around ownership and licensing and what you can and cannot do with them.
  - maerF0x0 5y ago
    > A person with a gun is not necessarily dangerous. An idiot with a gun is. An idiot without is still as dangerous. just adding some facts here -- 1.2% of gun deaths were accidents https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/21/jason-miyares/62-us-gun-deaths-are-suicides/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/21/jason-miya...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - 8note 5y ago
    A person with a fun is dangerous, whether they are an idiot not. It's the same as all code having bugs, regardless of whether the programmer was skilled
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - csomar 5y ago
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  > gun control We must also keep in mind that the most likely person to be killed with a firearm is the person firing it-- ie suicide. Furthermore we have to question what percentage of the ~37% of gun deaths as murders would be curbed by gun controls, particularly what percent of those murders will happen via an illegal firearm or just some different weapon (are we going to have knife control, poison control, strangle control...) IMO America has a (largely male) mental health issue more than a murder/firearm issue, I suggest we treat the root not the symptom. How? apropos to the thread one potential solution is we might give people some economic hope via a good working wage. (Perhaps it's not the right solution, but still emphasize the roots not the symptoms) some sources for food for thought: [1]: https://bigthink.com/the-present/switzerland-high-gun-ownership/ https://bigthink.com/the-present/switzerland-high-gun-owners... Switzerland has lots of guns but few mass shootings [2]: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/21/jason-miyares/62-us-gun-deaths-are-suicides/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/21/jason-miya... [2]:

pydry 5y ago

Because both parties are owned by oligarchs who would lose money if that happened. Minimum wage hikes chew through profits and profits are pretty much the #1 legislative priority because that's the primary concern of those doing the campaign financing. Same reason gun control wont happen no matter how many people get killed - ultimately its because gun manufacturers would lose money. American politics is the art of trying to shape public opinion just enough to be compatible with the desires of campaign financers.

shakezula 5y ago
And the reason countries like NZ seem to be able to quickly and efficiently pass sweeping gun reform laws is because it’s not effecting any major gun producers bottom line. In America that is very much not the situation. Additionally, even if profits were a moot point, the 2nd amendment is a culture war wedge issue that runs bone-deep for the average American.
- pydry 5y ago
  The gun industry started the culture war for profit and fans the flames for profit. Take away the profit margins and have a few more mass shootings and I imagine the 2nd amendment would melt away as easily as the 4th did.
  - dfxm12 5y ago
    A few more mass shootings? HA! A few more at this point would be like a raindrop in the ocean. It's obvious that's not a factor for anyone with any real political/legislative power here.
  - germinalphrase 5y ago
    Even if we entirely ended the manufacture and sale of guns, there are far too many guns already in private possession for it to matter (I.e. there are more guns in circulation right now than there are people in this country). As a gun owner, it is obvious that to eliminate mass shootings we would have to eliminate private ownership of all semi-automatic firearms. That is so incredibly far outside the realm of possibility. The ability to engage in a mass shooting is not going to change; we need to engage the issue from other angles.
    - bumby 5y ago
      For those downvoting, consider when NJ banned bump stocks and required them to be turned in. There was a total of one turned in voluntarily last I heard.
  - shakezula 5y ago
    I disagree that it was the gun industry that started the war, but they absolutely fan the flames for profit. The 2nd amendment will never go away as long as conservatives use it as a wedge issue. It's far too important as leverage, and they've been incredibly successful in cementing it further into law even very recently. My state just passed Constitutional Carry into law this year.
    - mayormcmatt 5y ago
      Fresh Air recently aired an interview with former gun industry marketing exec Ryan Busse, about their responsibility in the American culture wars. I can't remember off the top, though, whether he claim they are only fanning it or are the main origins of it. Anyway, an interesting listen.
    - 8note 5y ago
      Conservatives will happily do away with the 2nd amendment if you arm a bunch of black people, and have them constantly open carrying while black
      - nonford150 5y ago
        Not sure about your location, I see about a 50/30/20 (white/black/Hispanic)racial mix at my Atlanta Bass Pro gun counter, which about matches this counties’ demographics. People just want to be able to protect themselves; don’t take Brunswick as the norm for everywhere.
        shakezula 5y ago
        They’re referencing how California republicans were lightning fast to legislate away gun rights as soon as the Black Panthers started organizing and flexing their second amendment rights.
- 988747 5y ago
  The reason NZ can pass any gun law they want is that they do not have the right to own guns written into their Constitution. US are unique in this regard - most of the laws passed would be struck down by the Supreme Court anyway.
- bumby 5y ago
  Does NZ have an equivalent of the 2nd Amendment? In the US, States can regulate, even those without strong ties to manufacturers. The fact that many haven’t makes me think the 2A is a bigger issue than profits.
ericmay 5y ago
> Same reason gun control wont happen no matter how many people get killed - ultimately its because gun manufacturers would lose money. Depends on what you mean by gun control though. Many (myself included) are pro 2nd Amendment so it's not just the gun lobby/NRA who oppose some (not all) regulation. I guess my point is that gun control (whatever that means) won't happen not only because of gun lobbyists but because many Americans support gun ownership.
- pydry 5y ago
  It's not the tail wagging the dog, though. The large contingent of Americans who throw their political weight in an organized way behind gun ownership as a point of principle were rallied by the gun manufacturing industry. It wasn't organic. It didn't happen in Australia or New Zealand or the UK even though gun enthusiasts exist in all of those countries.
  - fathereatsass 5y ago
    I don't think that's a claim you can just throw out there. The gun industry is tiny and barely has any money compared to big tech, not to mention the insane ability big tech has to manufacture consent. Gun companies are successful because people support them, not the other way around.
  - bumby 5y ago
    But that ability to organize is also protected by the US Constitution. You may consider it unethical, but it’s not illegal.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    > It's not the tail wagging the dog, though. The large contingent of Americans who throw their political weight in an organized way behind gun ownership as a point of principle were rallied by the gun manufacturing industry. It wasn't organic. Idk exactly what you mean by organic, but if it means what I think you're trying to say, idk what's more organic than creating the Second Amendment which was created long before there were gun lobbyists. > It didn't happen in Australia or New Zealand or the UK even though gun enthusiasts exist in all of those countries. America is a different country isn't it?
rspeele 5y ago
The biggest gun manufacturer you can buy stock in is Ruger (RGR) with a market cap of 1.17B. Add Smith & Wesson and you're at 2B. Throw in Vista Outdoors which owns many of the top US ammo brands (plus some minor firearm and accessory brands) and you can get the total up to 4.3B. I'll multiply that by 10 to guesstimate privately held companies, local gun stores, and the rest of the long tail. So let's say we're at $43 billion for the whole gun industry in the US. Isn't that kind of podunk scale for an industry to have a rock solid hold on US politics? Snapchat alone is valued at $72B. Ford is $80B. Pfizer is $330B. Dollar General is $51B. Heck, Office Depot is worth more than S&W or Ruger.
- klyrs 5y ago
  Yeah, that's weird in perspective. Snapchat's valuation doesn't give them buying power, but Apple has nearly 200B cash on hand -- they could theoretically buy and close down all of these manufacturers and test the hypothesis that Big Gun is causing all the shootings.
  - halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
    Theoretically, could Apple buy S&W and…just shut it down? Would the government allow it? Curious…
    - madengr 5y ago
      Well, I'd use the $ from the sale to start a new gun company.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      I imagine that if they bought them all at the same time, it would be seen as anticompetitive. But if they bought them serially, and shut each down before acquiring the next, would that skirt the law? Curious indeed.
      - colejohnson66 5y ago
        From my non-lawyer understanding: the Sherman Antitrust Act and any further bills/amendments aren't exactly explicit on what it means to be "anticompetitive" because it depends on the circumstances, and the writers wanted to allow the definition to adapt to changing circumstances. Regardless of if they buy them all at once, or buy and shutting them down serially, it's still arguably "anticompetitive". It's ultimately up to the courts to decide (if the FTC presses charges).
robobob5000 5y ago
You forgot to mention that the left is mostly funded by anti-gun interests. That is where the majority of gun control legislation comes from. If money from Bloomberg or Soros helps you win, you push gun control in return. I also think trying to pin the 'culture war' on gun companies is bizarre. Are you from the US? Your take on this seems like something you would see on MSNBC.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > You forgot to mention that the left is mostly funded by anti-gun interests. It’s...not. > If money from Bloomberg or Soros helps you win Neither Soros nor especially Bloomberg are or especially fund the left; Bloomberg is center-right, Soros is, frankly incoherent; while, yes right-wing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories focus on his funding of organizations to the left of the Republican platform, among the organizations he funds are ones like Cru, the organization known as “Campus Crusade for Christ” before its recent rebrand. (The Democratic Party is a center-right to center-left coalition party, where dominant power is held by the center-right, neoliberal corporate capitalist faction.)
csomar 5y ago
> Same reason gun control wont happen no matter how many people get killed - ultimately its because gun manufacturers would lose money. This is ... derailing. If Americans didn't love guns, they wouldn't go and buy guns. There is close to 400 million unregistered firearm in the USA. I don't think it's only Republican's. The companies who make guns will try to protect their business but at this point they are just secondary. Also both Canada and Finland are in the top 10: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g... A person with a gun is not necessarily dangerous. An idiot with a gun is. An idiot without is still as dangerous.
- katbyte 5y ago
  Canada and Finland and very different rules and regulation around ownership and licensing and what you can and cannot do with them.
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  > A person with a gun is not necessarily dangerous. An idiot with a gun is. An idiot without is still as dangerous. just adding some facts here -- 1.2% of gun deaths were accidents https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/21/jason-miyares/62-us-gun-deaths-are-suicides/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/21/jason-miya...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- 8note 5y ago
  A person with a fun is dangerous, whether they are an idiot not. It's the same as all code having bugs, regardless of whether the programmer was skilled
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - csomar 5y ago
maerF0x0 5y ago
> gun control We must also keep in mind that the most likely person to be killed with a firearm is the person firing it-- ie suicide. Furthermore we have to question what percentage of the ~37% of gun deaths as murders would be curbed by gun controls, particularly what percent of those murders will happen via an illegal firearm or just some different weapon (are we going to have knife control, poison control, strangle control...) IMO America has a (largely male) mental health issue more than a murder/firearm issue, I suggest we treat the root not the symptom. How? apropos to the thread one potential solution is we might give people some economic hope via a good working wage. (Perhaps it's not the right solution, but still emphasize the roots not the symptoms) some sources for food for thought: [1]: https://bigthink.com/the-present/switzerland-high-gun-ownership/ https://bigthink.com/the-present/switzerland-high-gun-owners... Switzerland has lots of guns but few mass shootings [2]: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/21/jason-miyares/62-us-gun-deaths-are-suicides/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/21/jason-miya... [2]: