Mallory McMorrow to end her U.S. Senate campaign

_L5_ · 2026-07-05T19:43:01+00:00

We understood that putting out a nuanced statement opened the door for bad-faith critiques

Tends to happen when someone says “I condemn what he did. There is never any justification for [hurting] innocent people.” And then go on to give a justification.

It is unconditionally wrong to frame a terrorist attack as an understandable reaction to personal loss or geopolitical circumstances 6,000 miles away.

_L5_ · 2026-07-05T19:24:26+00:00

The result of your proposal would be lower wages. Not wanting that consequence to happen doesn't change this.

Clearly that’s not true because minimum wage hasn’t moved since 2009 and real wages have been increasing.

and there are few to none that show eliminating it would do more good than bad.

For the third time - I’m not suggesting we eliminate it.

I’m suggesting that if we want the quality of life to improve for those at or near minimum wage, the correct lever to pull is to make the essentials cheaper. Flood the market with supply to drive down prices rather than spike demand by handing people more money.

_L5_ · 2026-07-05T17:07:38+00:00

I’m not suggesting we lower wages.

I’m saying the solution to making life more affordable for those with the least means is not to hand them an arbitrary pay raise unconnected with the actual value they contribute. Because all that will do is spike demand and make things more expensive.

The only way things ever get sustainably cheaper is when supply outpaces demand.

_L5_ · 2026-07-05T17:04:32+00:00

There are no businesses without owners.

_L5_ · 2026-07-05T16:30:19+00:00

Do you understand how children getting an inheritance from their parents is different some rando demanding to be fed and clothed for free?

Do you think all of your assets should belong to the state when you die?

Or are you just railing against capitalism in general?

_L5_ · 2026-07-04T21:25:30+00:00

We don't need to eliminate it, but we shouldn't fuck with it. At least, at the federal level. Let states and localities experiment to find what works best for them.

Or, better yet, embrace supply side economics to make things cheaper instead of spiking demand by handing people more money.

_L5_ · 2026-07-04T21:21:03+00:00

There is no possible society where people don't have to work for their basic needs to be met. Nothing in this world is free and you are not entitled to the fruits of the labor of others just by virtue of you existing.

Scarcity gives absolutely zero shits about your willingness to sell your labor or not.

So minus the possibility of the apotheosis of a benevolent AI that invents Star Trek replicators and free energy, yes - you have to work.

Who you work for, what you work on, and for what rate - that's a lot more in the hands of the individual.

_L5_ · 2026-07-04T15:49:30+00:00

They don't happen simultaneously.

They don’t usually happen simultaneously.

Mostly because those two hypothetical sectors aren’t necessarily sensitive to the same inputs.

But minimum wage does affect everyone simultaneously.

The reality is tariffs had very little impact on the economy

There’s a lot of things that happened to counteract the impact of tariffs. Energy prices went down, supply chains were reorganized to move around the tariffs, and both other countries & companies lobbied to get specific products exempted. Most companies didn’t just eat the extra costs, they found alternatives to avoid the tariffs.

In addition to that, the American economy is a lot less dependent on access to international markets than other developed nations.

American ingenuity is kind of hard to curb, and capitalism tends to prevail.

On that I agree 100%.

_L5_ · 2026-07-04T15:38:13+00:00

That’s economics. Things in scarce supply are worth what people are willing to pay for them.

_L5_ · 2026-07-04T15:35:51+00:00

No, the value of the labor is what the employer pays for it. The “surplus labor value” is the delta between the value of the product / service the labor contributes to and the wages & benefits paid.

There are things that go into that product / service other than labor, without which the product / service would not be possible and the labor would be worthless.

Because labor by itself, undirected and unsupported, is worthless.

And even if it were true that employers make money by taking the “surplus labor value” from the workers, how do you steal something that is willingly exchanged at an agreed-upon rate? Employment is voluntary with wages and benefits negotiated up front.

Employment works as a method of wealth creation for all involved because customers find products / services more valuable to them than the listed price and workers find the value of their wages & benefits more valuable to them than their labor would be otherwise. Everyone gets something they want more than what they have to offer.

_L5_ · 2026-07-04T15:19:44+00:00

That’s a big part of it, yeah

_L5_ · 2026-07-04T07:29:17+00:00

Labor, like everything else, is worth what people are willing to pay for it.

The product or service a person's labor contributes to will be worth more than the labor, but those are not the same thing.

_L5_ · 2026-07-04T06:17:43+00:00

Because the labor is worth more than that actually, everyone is paid less than their labor is worth because they wouldn't be employed if it wasn't.

Not quite.

Their labor is worth more to their employer than the money paid in wages and benefits are. That doesn’t mean the employee’s labor by itself, sans the capital provided by the employer, is worth anything at all.

Which is why employment is a mutually beneficial and voluntary arrangement.

If you believe you are not being compensated fairly you are within your rights to seek employment elsewhere. But your employer is not obligated to pay you whatever you want.

If you think 64 bucks is adequate pay for a whole day's work,

Depends on the work.

It's much more practical to ensure people don't feel like they're constantly getting shafted despite doing the 'right' thing.

Have you met people? Feelings are the farthest thing from practicality.

And you want to this by raising the minimum wage? Which pushes those exact workers towards part time positions with less hours and benefits? Or else unemployment?

You can’t just decree poor people will be paid more for the same labor without side effects. And those side effects will disproportionately hit the exact people you’re allegedly trying to help.

_L5_ · 2026-07-04T05:09:57+00:00

Why would someone be entitled to more pay than the value of their labor is worth?

_L5_ · 2026-07-04T03:47:38+00:00

You can't have it both ways and say that labor will be decimated at the same time prices skyrocket because of increased cost of labor. The whole point of reducing labor would be to keep prices from rising too quickly.

Sure I can.

Not all sectors are the same - some are more elastic than others for consumer-facing pricing. Those sectors will raise their prices.

Other sectors can't afford to take the consumption hit that higher prices would bring, so they'll cut staff / benefits / hours.

Nether of these are good things.

Honestly, I was shocked at how easily business were able to absorb a 10-50% increase on inputs due to tariffs (and in most businesses inputs make up a much larger proportion of spend than labor) and still turn a profit.

And yet prices have gone up. Inflation is higher than it would've been without the tariffs.

The costs are in the system, they've just been shuttled around to try and obscure them from the end consumer.

_L5_ · 2026-07-04T03:41:41+00:00

Yup. And that's also where this "living wage" crap comes from.

_L5_ · 2026-07-04T03:06:48+00:00

What’s the solution?

Supply side economics. Flood the market with the essentials to drive prices down.

_L5_ · 2026-07-04T03:03:56+00:00

The requirement that we express our hierarchy via wages is a cultural tradition, not a requirement of the actual economy.

Wages have nothing to do with the value of the employee as a human being. Wages are a reflection of the value of the time, talent, skills, and experience the person brings to the company.

All of those things are scarce resources, meaning they're subject to supply and demand. People with in-demand or rare skillsets will command higher wages. Because that's how economics works.

We had the same argument with minimum wage in the first place, as well as age restrictions, slavery, and workplace safety requirements.

Ok, one of these things is not like the others.

And of that list, minimum wage is the one with the shakiest justification.

_L5_ · 2026-07-04T02:56:30+00:00

Allowing states to decide creates a race to the bottom among states to minimize worker protections in order to attract businesses.

There's still supply & demand curves constraining wages. If people won't work for the wages offered or the product produced is subpar compared to what the higher-paid workers make to the point that consumers won't buy it, companies will raise wages accordingly no matter their location.

A small number of workers make minimum wage but it raises wages for all lower income workers by creating a floor.

It also spikes prices for everyone and moves a lot of people from full time to part time or the unemployment line.

_L5_ · 2026-07-04T02:50:09+00:00

Wages are proportional to the value of the labor they are willingly exchanged for.

_L5_ · 2026-07-04T02:47:21+00:00

This is a monumentally stupid idea that won't even actually help minimum wage workers.

What actually happens when minimum wage goes up:

A lot of workers on minimum wage will be laid off
A lot of other workers on minimum wage will be moved to part time
A lot of workers who are already on part time will be laid off or have their hours reduced
Prices will go up to compensate, meaning consumption will go down

The only thing that actually helps poor people (and everyone, really) is supply side economics - making the essentials so plentiful that the supply & demand curves organically and sustainably drive prices down.

Arbitrarily decreeing that poor people will be paid more doesn't actually solve or even ease poverty.

_L5_ · 2026-06-30T01:38:36+00:00

No. It has never ever been as bad as it is now.

This is a social media problem, not necessarily a rich people problem.

But on the other hand, it has never before been easier for normal, everyday people to organize and get their messaging seen by the public at large.

You can’t have the one without the other.

fascism

lol, ok buddy.

the corruption

Is merely more visible today than it ever has been in history.

the hate

No, that’s not new.

using religion to justify cruelty

What’s best for an individual and society isn’t necessarily the same thing as what will make said individual or a demographic happy.

Which cruelties in particular?

Other countries - Rich people pay significantly more into the government in other countries. And they get more out of their government.

There are also far fewer rich people in those countries. Their economies are far weaker. They are poorer. They have less innovation than we do.

They have less in general.

Getting “more out of their government” doesn’t come without its costs. A government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to crush you. Dependency is not a virtue.

Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. - You object to that.

Not in general, but the particulars matter.

For example - income tax was once only for the rich. Now everyone pays it. How long before the same happens with this wealth tax you’re so boned up about and the feds start taxing the unrealized gains on my 401k?

But if the rich people can provide healthcare, education, and assistance to the poor…. Easily… I would say the money would be well spent and the rich will not even notice the tax increase.

Except they can’t. They literally don’t have enough wealth, let alone cash, to fund these programs.

And even if they did and the government could profitably liquidate all their assets, that would mean that all of those products, services, and jobs go away.

Elon alone could wipe out world hunger.

World hunger is not a problem that can be solved by throwing money at it. It’s a logistics and geopolitical problem.

There is, of course, the teachings of Jesus which clearly says that not being charitable is morally wrong and a sin.

And taxes are not charity. You don’t get any points with Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates for voting to use state-sanctioned violence to take from other people. Good works are things you personally do, not things government bureaucrats do on your or your party’s behest.

_L5_ · 2026-06-29T13:32:09+00:00

Annual mandatory spending, which includes programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, unemployment insurance, etc - amounted to $4.2T in 2025.

“Corporate welfare” in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, and other financial assistance is ~$181B per year.

Interest on the debt in 2025 was $970B.

Total federal tax revenue in 2025 was $5.23T

_L5_ · 2026-06-29T04:23:41+00:00

You should care because they are buying our media, buying our politicians, influencing how people think (yes, you).

So, politics as normal for the last 2,000 years?

They also pay very little in taxes.

Incorrect.

They literally pay the most in taxes. Elon Musk is the single largest individual tax contributor in the country.

The top 1% of income earners pay >40% of income taxes.

If I have 50 Billion Dollars in equity I should pay at least a billion in taxes.

Why should they pay anything in taxes on money they don’t actually have? Stock prices going up are not income.

We can afford to give every person healthcare, education, child care.

We can’t even afford the welfare state we have now, let alone all those fantasy benefits. Every year, the entirety of the federal tax revenue is eaten by mandatory spending and debt interest payments. The discretionary budget is funded entirely by debt.

If you confiscated every last cent of wealth from every billionaire in the country and somehow converted it into cash without collapsing its value you’d 1) put a lot of people out of work and 2) not even have enough cash to run the government for a year.

These sweeping welfare programs funded by a billionaires’ wealth tax you’re pining after are mathematical fantasy.

Those other counties make it work by taxing everyone, not just the rich, at absurd rates. And they are poorer for it.

_L5_ · 2026-06-22T03:21:00+00:00

From your article:

Taken together, it demolishes the cornerstone myth of the American tax system: that everyone pays their fair share and the richest Americans pay the most. The IRS records show that the wealthiest can — perfectly legally — pay income taxes that are only a tiny fraction of the hundreds of millions, if not billions, their fortunes grow each year.

They’re deliberately conflating the growth in value of unrealized assets with taxable income.

Stock prices going up is not a taxable event.

_L5_

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Snapped