A study released this week found that if the nation’s largest low-wage employer, Walmart, were to pay its 1.4 million U.S. workers a living wage of at least $12 per hour and pass every single pennyof the costs onto consumers, the average Walmart customer would pay just 46 cents more per shopping trip, or around $12 extra dollars each year.
Paying a fair wage would only result in a price hike of around 1 percent for Walmart shoppers. The researchers note that the increase would be “well below Walmart’s estimated savings to consumers” – in other words, the big-box retailer could continue to offer “low prices” without impoverishing their workers. The study’s authors noted that the 1 percent price hike was the “most extreme estimate, as portions of the raise could be absorbed through other mechanisms, including increased productivity or lower profit margins.”
While it would have a very minor impact on shoppers, it would have a profound effect on the economic security of Wal-Mart’s workforce. More than 40 percent of the additional income would go to the working poor. “These poor and low-income workers could expect to earn an additional $1,670 to $6,500 a year in income for each Walmart employee in the family, before taxes,” write the authors. Meanwhile, while Walmart’s customers are not exactly rich, those “who spend the most at the store are somewhat less likely to come from poor and low-income families.” As a result, only 28 percent of the additional costs would be paid by the poor and the near-poor.
…the show itself strikes me as an example of how easily (even unintentionally) autism and other cognitive disabilities can be framed as tragedies to be mourned, and/or conditions that are unacceptable and need to be fixed. I’d rather see more public emphasis on neurodiversity, on changing our society so that we can accommodate and support as many different types of people as possible.
exhibit B: i continue to love my amazing lady-professor-mentors. this makes me so excited to hear more about Alison’s disability studies research.
"Hey asshole!" He looked up. He was about 20. Clean-cut. Like he was on his way to school. He did not look crazy. I think he was surprised. I think he figured the five-foot-tall redhead in the sundress and Mary Janes would have just said "Oh my stars!" and scampered away. He does not know this five-foot-tall redhead.
Sexual assault doesn’t always necessarily mean something as horrible as rape. And too often street harassment is unreported, and douchebags like this think they can get away with it because the girl is gonna be too embarrassed or too meek to do anything about it. Or they think it’s “just a slap on the ass.” And that’s not right, you guys. I don’t know how other women feel about their posteriors, but you don’t very well get to smack the hell out of it willy-nilly because you feel entitled to do so. There will be repercussions.
she rocks, and it’s great that she was in a position to respond in such a way (because not everyone always is.. [insert intersectional analysis of street harassment here]). this reminds me of the time some guy grabbed me on my way home from the train in fucking fort greene, brooklyn, and asked me how much i liked getting fucked in the ass by dudes. ew, gross, and NOT AT ALL, ya jerk. i felt just as violated & shocked by the nerve of him. if there there can be a precedent set, ie: more yelling/Hollaback-ing and much less scampering off, fewer men will feel entitled to ruin so many ladies’ perfectly fine days as they’re walking down the street. or biking. or scooting. or dancing. or sitting. or standing. anywhere in public.
“The more limited our language is, the more limited we are; the more limited the literature we give to our children, the more limited their capacity to respond, and therefore, in their turn, to create. The more our vocabulary is controlled, the less we will be able to think for ourselves. We do think in words, and the fewer words we know, the more restricted our thoughts. As our vocabulary expands, so does our power to think….. If we limit and distort language, we limit and distort personality.”—
Madeline L’Engle, (1988). Two-part invention: The story of a marriage (via thisnik)
“I can say with 100 percent certainty that a mother painting her children’s toe nails pink does not cause transgenderism or homosexuality or anything else that people who are social conservatives would worry about.”—
Dr. Jack Drescher, a New York City psychiatrist
(Drescher, who wrote the 2010 paper, “Queer Diagnoses,” which was published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, serves on the American Psychiatric Association’s committee that is addressing sexual and gender identity disorder for the DSM-V. DSM-V is psychiatry’s encyclopedia of behavioral diagnoses.)
Some choice excerpts from dictatorial literary exploits.
Yesterday a young boy was run over in that street, where he was playing. Last year a speeding vehicle hit a little girl crossing the street, tearing her body apart. They gathered up her limbs in her mother’s dress. Another child was kidnapped by professional criminals. After a few days, they released her in front of her home, after they had stolen one of her kidneys! Another boy was put into a cardboard box by the neighbourhood boys in a game, but was run over accidentally by a car.
-Muammar al-Qaddafi’s children’s book.
Even an animal respects a man’s desire, if it wants to copulate with him. Doesn’t a female bear try to please a herdsman when she drags him into the mountains as it happens in the North of Iraq? She drags him into her den, so that he, obeying her desire, would copulate with her? Doesn’t she bring him nuts, gathering them from the trees or picking them from the bushes? Doesn’t she climb into the houses of farmers in order to steal some cheese, nuts and even raisins, so that she can feed the man and awake in him the desire to have her?
“This is a dramatic example of the way that our culture is being encouraged to abandon all trappings of gender identity,” psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow wrote about the ad in a FoxNews.com Health column.
And a woman from the Media Research Center agrees, calling the ad, “blatant propaganda celebrating transgendered children.”
The Media Research Center woman further argues that Beckett is being exploited as “the façade of liberal, transgendered identity politics,” and that Jenna’s indulgence in allowing Beckett to paint his toenails could “make life hard for [him] in the future.”
"The overall tone of the song is pretty tough and kind of gritty," she says. "I think that it’s also a little subversive. It’s been perceived as a drug addict fighting a drunk to see who comes out on top." She adds, "I think the drug addict comes out on top, ‘cause he’s meaner."