This is a GREAT argument to pull up when talking to people about minimum wage. Some others nested below
"it doesn't affect me if companies pay low wages"
— Dan Price (@DanPriceSeattle) February 11, 2021
In reality, you're paying for it. Over 50% of people on food stamps are actively working. The leading employers are Walmart, McDonald's and Amazon.
As taxpayers, you're subsidizing corporations to pay literal poverty wages.
Helps Infant mortality? Yup.
Lowers Suicide? Yup.
Reduce smoking rates? You bet.
This is millions of workers.
370%!!!
*(poverty line is calculated poorly, it would realistically be way more than this)
You only don’t want to raise minimum wage for bad faith reasons.)
#FightFor15 #MinimumWage #RaiseTheWage #raiseminimumwage
#LivingWage
More from Business
Introducing "The Balloon Effect"
Many businesses & creators have experienced a similar pattern of success.
From @MrBeastYT and @MorningBrew to @oatly and @Rovio.
Let's break down what "The Balloon Effect" is and examples of it in real life.
Keep reading 👇
1/ What is "The Balloon Effect"?
It is a particular pattern of growth.
It is not Instagram's growth trajectory.
It is not https://t.co/5axsTUKek6's growth trajectory.
"The Balloon Effect" is defined by several years of hard work & grit complemented by slow, linear growth.
2/ And then one day, one month, or one quarter...everything changes.
A business hits a tipping point and its trajectory shifts entirely.
Gradual growth turns to exponential growth & your brand and your size explode.
Like a step function.
3/ Now, you're probably wondering.
Why is it called "The Balloon Effect"?
Because filling/popping a water balloon follows the exact pattern I just described (and so many businesses experience).
Long unsexy slog 👉 Exponential tipping point.
4/ Initially, you turn on the faucet & water takes up space in the empty balloon.
Through effort you open the faucet, yet the results are unexciting.
But it's what must be done for water (or growth) to happen at all.
It's not sexy, but it's necessary.
Many businesses & creators have experienced a similar pattern of success.
From @MrBeastYT and @MorningBrew to @oatly and @Rovio.
Let's break down what "The Balloon Effect" is and examples of it in real life.
Keep reading 👇
1/ What is "The Balloon Effect"?
It is a particular pattern of growth.
It is not Instagram's growth trajectory.
It is not https://t.co/5axsTUKek6's growth trajectory.
"The Balloon Effect" is defined by several years of hard work & grit complemented by slow, linear growth.
2/ And then one day, one month, or one quarter...everything changes.
A business hits a tipping point and its trajectory shifts entirely.
Gradual growth turns to exponential growth & your brand and your size explode.
Like a step function.
3/ Now, you're probably wondering.
Why is it called "The Balloon Effect"?
Because filling/popping a water balloon follows the exact pattern I just described (and so many businesses experience).
Long unsexy slog 👉 Exponential tipping point.
4/ Initially, you turn on the faucet & water takes up space in the empty balloon.
Through effort you open the faucet, yet the results are unexciting.
But it's what must be done for water (or growth) to happen at all.
It's not sexy, but it's necessary.
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?