marcuskane2

The disconnected between rhetoric and action in American political groups is fascinating.

Republicans tell pollsters that violence is legitimate and then go sit inside their houses watching Fox News and whining on Facebook.

Democrats tell pollsters that violence is illegitimate and then go out into the streets to protest, which then regularly includes violence against people trying to get past road blockages, looting of businesses, damage to cars and buildings in the area, etc.

Somehow the multiple months of widespread violence across America under the banners of "Antifa" or BLM or "Occupy X" or whatever leftwing banner doesn't count as violence, but some law-abiding citizen ranting on social media under a rightwing philosophy is treated as if they're a huge threat. It's the most mindboggling double-standard gaslighting.

The luxury product, materialistic worship influencer segment is only a tiny percent of the influencer economy.

For every one influencer posing with a sports car in Dubai, there are a thousand other influencers whose content can be produced at very low cost. Video games, parenting, fitness, beauty/make-up/skincare, cooking, woodworking, gardening, backpacking, dancing, DIY, personal finance, etc all have tons of content creators working from home (or the gym, park, shop, whatever).

I know a woman who started posting videos that were just her holding her cell phone recording a selfie video talking about being a mom. She now has brands paying her tens of thousands of dollars to promote their products, and her videos are still just phone selfies sitting on her couch.

That's only part of the equation though.

If lower income means you qualify for subsidized housing, subsidized childcare, etc then that can be a big incentive.

I have two sisters with very similar lifestyles despite grossly different incomes. My low-income sister gets her housing, groceries, utilities, childcare and even phone paid for by government programs. My other sister (near median income) lives in an apartment of similar size and quality, buys similar groceries, etc but pays for all of it from her wages.

My low-income sister has no real incentive to increase her official income (although she does value informal economy "hustles" and side-gigs which directly give her disposable income).

It's so weird to me that legally companies can't defend themselves against employees working against them, if it's under the guise of a union.

If an employee is disruptive, hostile, negative and harmful to the environment for any other reason, of course they'd be fired, but if they're agitating for a union then it all becomes protected activity.

If an employee was working against the financial interests of the company in favor of the interests of a competitor, a supplier or a favored customer of course they'd be fired, but if it's a union then it becomes protected activity.

To be clear, I'm not making any judgement on unions or at-will employment or anything as being good or bad, or appropriate/inappropriate in any given situation, industry, etc. I just think it's super weird that from the perspective of the employer, you have an obviously cancerous group inside your organization which is actively working to harm you, but you're not allowed to defend against. It's weird.