This will end up being a whole bunch of different stuff. Just tumblring on tumblr. Ooh, I know.

What do you call a delicious and well-shaped tumblr user?

A tumblrone.

... Yeah, I do bad jokes, too.
Reblogged from kawaiideathmatch  16,261 notes
archiaart:

anarcho-queer:

ibetyourphysiquehelps:

WHOA WHOA WHOA. excuse me.But the minimum wage is set for teenagers with first jobs/ college students TO GET EXPERIENCE. Because a higher paying job isn’t going to higher you unless ypu have experience. AND YOU GET THAT EXPERIENCE BY WORKING AT MINIMUM PAYING JOBS. and the higher paying jobs are harder jobs which is why they get more money. If you raise the minimum wage, then companies wont have the money to pay more employees so they look for the people with the most experience…So if companies can only higher people with experience and you dont have any because companies DONT HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY YOU?? well then you are never going to get a job. And when the minimum wage goes up, the price of everything goes up.And then we have the minimum wage earners complaining again.So stop saying that the minimum wage needs to be raised because it doesnt.What needs to happen is we need a better economy and thanks to obama, thats not going to happen for a while because obama doesn’t know what hes doing.So if you want to make more money, get experience and a better paying job.

You’re a shitty economist buddy.
Less than 15% of minimum wage worker’s are teenagers (age 14-19), the rest are adults aged 20 and over (85.7%). So lets stop pretending that these jobs are meant for students. The economy is shit and unfortunately, people have to settle for low wages because the alternative often is unemployment.
Higher paying jobs doesn’t equate to ‘harder jobs’. Often, the higher a position is, the less labor you are required to do.
"And when the minimum wage goes up, the price of everything goes up."
Inflation doesn’t necessarily work that way. Obviously, you’re just regurgitating the bullshit theories conservatives spew out while disregarding the statistics and history that proves otherwise. But since you’re using that argument, why not raise the minimum wage with the rise of inflation? Or productivity even?
If we had raised the minimum wage with the rise of productivity since 1968, it would currently be $21.72. In other words, we are creating far more and producing more profit for corporations, while being paid for a third of what we use to.
What do you have to say about that?
And raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will raise 1.7 million families out of poverty and reduce the need for them to use public assistance, saving the federal government $7.6 billion per year. Would you say you’re you against that?
The current federal minimum wage is $7.25. In none of the 50 states is that enough money to pay the average rent for a 2-bedroom apartment. 
The minimum wage used to be able to keep a family of 3 above the poverty line. Now, the minimum wage can’t even keep a single parent working 40 hours a week, for an entire year without a single day off, above the poverty line.
When you raise the minimum wage, you’re putting more money into the pockets of the lower/working class. Their money is directly put back into the economy when the buy food, pay bills and generally spend their money. As oppose to higher paid people who have the luxury of saving their earnings. That means that businesses will generally make more money because the working class has more money to spend.
That’s my argument for raising the minimum wage, I would love to see your attempt to counter it.

I agree with you anarcho-queer, and I think the people protesting minimum wage increases should take a moment to self-reflect and assess their own values, see if they can feel compassion for the suffering of their fellow humans. There is another angle we can consider too. Some think we should create a maximum wage. To illustrate, here is a nice section from an article posted in 2012 (New Zealand Herald):

Reducing wages to create employment has the potential to work, but not the way the Government is implying. The wages which need to be reduced are those of the CEOs and other high-level management positions.
Former Telecom CEO Paul Reynolds is the often-referenced example of how salaries for those at the top of the pyramid have become obscene. […] Reynolds “earned $30 million in five years with the company”. That figure - made up of base salaries, performance incentives, share incentives, etc. - equates to $6 million a year.
What did Reynolds do to become the $6 million man? It is something of a mystery. Under his leadership, Telecom dropped from top place on the NZSX - a position it had occupied since 1991 - following the XT debacle in 2010. Share prices plummeted. Reynolds’ response was to go fishing. Despite all this, Reynolds was, according to the Herald, earning $34,000 a day during the 2012 financial year.
Supporters of such excesses claim these CEOs add value and help grow their companies. Why, then, do CEOs who do the opposite - such as Reynolds - still receive such engorged salaries? If they were on the factory floor, they would have lost their job by now. Furthermore, such justifications for CEO salaries tend to insult workers whose efforts do add value to, and grow, the company. If this seems far-fetched, consider what would bring Telecom to a halt: a strike by its engineers, or a strike by its CEO?

Workers create value. They just never see it, it is passed on to the CEOs and shareholders. But they have power when they act as a collective. Why else do you think the powerful get so angry whenever their wage slaves go on strike? And their pet media immediately paints the strikers as greedy? It’s because they are afraid of the power we all have. Their jobs are meaningless without the workers on the ground floor.

archiaart:

anarcho-queer:

ibetyourphysiquehelps:

WHOA WHOA WHOA.
excuse me.
But the minimum wage is set for teenagers with first jobs/ college students TO GET EXPERIENCE. Because a higher paying job isn’t going to higher you unless ypu have experience. AND YOU GET THAT EXPERIENCE BY WORKING AT MINIMUM PAYING JOBS. and the higher paying jobs are harder jobs which is why they get more money.
If you raise the minimum wage, then companies wont have the money to pay more employees so they look for the people with the most experience…
So if companies can only higher people with experience and you dont have any because companies DONT HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY YOU??
well then you are never going to get a job.
And when the minimum wage goes up, the price of everything goes up.
And then we have the minimum wage earners complaining again.
So stop saying that the minimum wage needs to be raised because it doesnt.
What needs to happen is we need a better economy and thanks to obama, thats not going to happen for a while because obama doesn’t know what hes doing.
So if you want to make more money, get experience and a better paying job.

You’re a shitty economist buddy.

Less than 15% of minimum wage worker’s are teenagers (age 14-19), the rest are adults aged 20 and over (85.7%). So lets stop pretending that these jobs are meant for students. The economy is shit and unfortunately, people have to settle for low wages because the alternative often is unemployment.

Higher paying jobs doesn’t equate to ‘harder jobs’. Often, the higher a position is, the less labor you are required to do.

"And when the minimum wage goes up, the price of everything goes up."

Inflation doesn’t necessarily work that way. Obviously, you’re just regurgitating the bullshit theories conservatives spew out while disregarding the statistics and history that proves otherwise. But since you’re using that argument, why not raise the minimum wage with the rise of inflation? Or productivity even?

If we had raised the minimum wage with the rise of productivity since 1968, it would currently be $21.72. In other words, we are creating far more and producing more profit for corporations, while being paid for a third of what we use to.

What do you have to say about that?

And raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will raise 1.7 million families out of poverty and reduce the need for them to use public assistance, saving the federal government $7.6 billion per year. Would you say you’re you against that?

The current federal minimum wage is $7.25. In none of the 50 states is that enough money to pay the average rent for a 2-bedroom apartment.

The minimum wage used to be able to keep a family of 3 above the poverty line. Now, the minimum wage can’t even keep a single parent working 40 hours a week, for an entire year without a single day off, above the poverty line.

When you raise the minimum wage, you’re putting more money into the pockets of the lower/working class. Their money is directly put back into the economy when the buy food, pay bills and generally spend their money. As oppose to higher paid people who have the luxury of saving their earnings. That means that businesses will generally make more money because the working class has more money to spend.

That’s my argument for raising the minimum wage, I would love to see your attempt to counter it.

I agree with you anarcho-queer, and I think the people protesting minimum wage increases should take a moment to self-reflect and assess their own values, see if they can feel compassion for the suffering of their fellow humans. There is another angle we can consider too. Some think we should create a maximum wage. To illustrate, here is a nice section from an article posted in 2012 (New Zealand Herald):

Reducing wages to create employment has the potential to work, but not the way the Government is implying. The wages which need to be reduced are those of the CEOs and other high-level management positions.

Former Telecom CEO Paul Reynolds is the often-referenced example of how salaries for those at the top of the pyramid have become obscene. […] Reynolds “earned $30 million in five years with the company”. That figure - made up of base salaries, performance incentives, share incentives, etc. - equates to $6 million a year.

What did Reynolds do to become the $6 million man? It is something of a mystery. Under his leadership, Telecom dropped from top place on the NZSX - a position it had occupied since 1991 - following the XT debacle in 2010. Share prices plummeted. Reynolds’ response was to go fishing. Despite all this, Reynolds was, according to the Herald, earning $34,000 a day during the 2012 financial year.

Supporters of such excesses claim these CEOs add value and help grow their companies. Why, then, do CEOs who do the opposite - such as Reynolds - still receive such engorged salaries? If they were on the factory floor, they would have lost their job by now. Furthermore, such justifications for CEO salaries tend to insult workers whose efforts do add value to, and grow, the company. If this seems far-fetched, consider what would bring Telecom to a halt: a strike by its engineers, or a strike by its CEO?

Workers create value. They just never see it, it is passed on to the CEOs and shareholders. But they have power when they act as a collective. Why else do you think the powerful get so angry whenever their wage slaves go on strike? And their pet media immediately paints the strikers as greedy? It’s because they are afraid of the power we all have. Their jobs are meaningless without the workers on the ground floor.

Reblogged from kawaiideathmatch  26 notes

kawaiideathmatch:

captadella:

fionna8pumpkincake:

More pics from AAC (another anime convention)
The last few are of one of my favorite people/cosplayers. He was at cosplay chess and danced to the pokemon theme song. It was glorious.
As always tell me who you are and I’ll tag you!

kawaiideathmatch

Oh look is me

If you look into my eyes you see I realize walking on the chairs was wrong

Reblogged from tenaciouscorpse  17,998 notes

She removes her wig, her eyelashes, her makeup, never breaking eye contact with the reflection of her natural self. It’s an intimate, powerful moment television doesn’t often show: A black woman removing all the elements white supremacy tells her she has to wear to be beautiful, successful, powerful. And let’s not forget that that wasn’t just Annalise taking it off: It was Davis, too—Davis, who remains brave in a world where a New York Times critic can get away with calling her ‘less classically beautiful.’x

Reblogged from pull-of-a-trigger  185,950 notes
thisisurheichouspeaking:

Art dump part 4
okay story time
so my art teacher assigned us to do a chalk pastel still life of fruits n shit and I was like “no”
so I drew a banana instead.
and my teacher came by like “you need to have more than one fruit in your still life”
so I was like “k”
and so I put that cherry on top of the banana and titled it “Banana Split Without The Ice Cream Because Life Is Full Of Disappointments: By Fall Out Boy" and I turned that shit in.
My art teacher just started laughing out loud in the middle of class

thisisurheichouspeaking:

Art dump part 4

okay story time

so my art teacher assigned us to do a chalk pastel still life of fruits n shit and I was like “no”

so I drew a banana instead.

and my teacher came by like “you need to have more than one fruit in your still life”

so I was like “k”

and so I put that cherry on top of the banana and titled it “Banana Split Without The Ice Cream Because Life Is Full Of Disappointments: By Fall Out Boy" and I turned that shit in.

My art teacher just started laughing out loud in the middle of class