On Rush Limbaugh, Erick Erickson: Minimum Wage Earners are "People Who Failed at Life"

On Rush Limbaugh, Erick Erickson: Minimum Wage Earners are “People Who Failed at Life”

The modern right. Smell the love.

By Click My Icon To Watch This Short French Film.

Wingnuts • September 2014 • Views: 2,391

Conservative blogger Erick Erickson joined the ranks of the Koch Brothers in saying on Thursday that people making minimum wage are “mostly people who failed at life.”

So what we have learned here, is that if you want to be a winner, then either inherit your wealth, or sell your soul to the devil, for money and fame, by becoming a well paid talking head, that propagates lies, half truths, and smears.

Story

Recent Pages by Cankles McCellulite (Click My Icon To Watch This Short French Film.):
CEO of Revlon Believes He Can 'Smell' Blacks When They Walk Into a Room, Lawsuit Claims Shameless Plug For Anyone Interested In Supporting French Cinema Astronomical!: A Visual Of The Distance Between The Earth And The Moon. This Female Game Developer Had to Flee Her Home After Speaking Out About Sexism in Gaming Parents Go To Sons Girlfriends House To Tell Her He Died, Son Answers Door

Jump to bottom

17 comments

lostlakehiker Sep 6, 2014 10:58:22pm

It’s not selling your soul to master some trade or find a niche where you can earn a better living than minimum wage. Well over 80% of the workforce, and maybe over 90%, has got there. The other 10 or 20 percent include a lot of temporarily-minimum-wage types like the younger me who will move up by and by.

Those who fall in the remaining 5 percent or so who just aren’t going to earn more than the minimum wage, well, they may be good people. A few may be saints. Sneering at them for “being losers” is no more fair than it would be for the 1 percent to sneer at all of the rest of us for being losers, nor than for the very few to sneer at the one percent for being losers. Everybody’s a winner just for being in America and in this century, in the grand scheme of things, and everybody’s a loser by comparison to somebody else somewhere and on some scale. But if we line people up by incomes, and limit discussion to the US, and separate everybody into “winners” and “losers”, then most of the “winners” are good old ordinary people with some extra energy or skill or courage or stamina, and most of the “losers” are good old ordinary people with a little less energy or skill or courage or stamina. And most of these still make more than the minimum wage.

I Stand With Big Sodomy! Sep 7, 2014 10:17:06am

The difference is, I was being sarcastic. The Koch brothers were serious.

but you are so right, We are all very lucky to be alive at this time. I have always remembered that. However, that does not mean we shouldn’t always push for better quality of life.

I knew some people that did not become “winners” financially, compared to these men, or many others, but that did not make them any less courageous, less full of energy, skill or stamina. They had more courage, skill and stamina then any of these men ever will. Life happens and throws people for a loop sometimes. Not everyone was born with a safety net. Many brilliant people do end up struggling in life
And just because someone in this country has money or is successful, it does not mean they were particularly courageous, full of energy or skill or stamina.

And a poor person putting down the Koch’s does not equal the same as the Koch’s putting down the poor.

goddamnedfrank Sep 7, 2014 2:30:59pm

re: #1 lostlakehiker

It’s not selling your soul to master some trade or find a niche where you can earn a better living than minimum wage. Well over 80% of the workforce, and maybe over 90%, has got there. The other 10 or 20 percent include a lot of temporarily-minimum-wage types like the younger me who will move up by and by.

Those who fall in the remaining 5 percent or so who just aren’t going to earn more than the minimum wage, well, they may be good people. A few may be saints. Sneering at them for “being losers” is no more fair than it would be for the 1 percent to sneer at all of the rest of us for being losers, nor than for the very few to sneer at the one percent for being losers. Everybody’s a winner just for being in America and in this century, in the grand scheme of things, and everybody’s a loser by comparison to somebody else somewhere and on some scale. But if we line people up by incomes, and limit discussion to the US, and separate everybody into “winners” and “losers”, then most of the “winners” are good old ordinary people with some extra energy or skill or courage or stamina, and most of the “losers” are good old ordinary people with a little less energy or skill or courage or stamina. And most of these still make more than the minimum wage.

Nice straman. Literally nobody sneers at the one percent for “being losers,” they sneer at the classist power structure that the one percent hold massively disproportionate political sway over. They sneer at decisions like Citizens United that allows the wealthy to command infinitely more attention by public servants than the actual public who they serve. They sneer at attempts to minimize the importance and percentage of minimum wage earners, especially by pretending that the huge numbers of workers who make marginally more than the minimum wage won’t benefit from a long overdue correction.

nines09 Sep 7, 2014 2:31:37pm

Seems that there is no shortage of Trust Fund Genius. It’s simple. Just borrow some money from your family. Or, have a fund set up to help you out. Or, be able to access college funds at a respectable rate. Aw, fuck it. Just earn your money the old fashioned way. Steal it.

LoonRadio Sep 7, 2014 3:01:15pm

If you think a person’s wage determines their value as an individual, then you’re wrong.

And an asshole.

FemNaziBitch Sep 7, 2014 3:10:47pm

Thanks so much for that. Nice to know I’m a failure. I’ve chosen to be a stay-at-home-mom who works part-time when necessary to save my sanity or earn needed money.

As I have made the focus of my life my family, I enter and leave the workplace often and usually work jobs that will schedule around my family needs. As a result, I don’t get hired at higher than minimum wage and rarely get much above that before my family needs trump my meager income.

I’m screwed when it comes to Social Security. Luckily I’ve had employers who offer retirement savings to part-time employees so I have a a sheckel more to add to the shilling I’ll get from FICA at 65.

Because I haven’t had to choose family over work, I’ve been lucky enough to raise a child who is a contributor to the economy.

Nice to know I’ve failed at life.

palomino Sep 7, 2014 4:04:02pm

re: #1 lostlakehiker

It’s not selling your soul to master some trade or find a niche where you can earn a better living than minimum wage. Well over 80% of the workforce, and maybe over 90%, has got there. The other 10 or 20 percent include a lot of temporarily-minimum-wage types like the younger me who will move up by and by.

Those who fall in the remaining 5 percent or so who just aren’t going to earn more than the minimum wage, well, they may be good people. A few may be saints. Sneering at them for “being losers” is no more fair than it would be for the 1 percent to sneer at all of the rest of us for being losers, nor than for the very few to sneer at the one percent for being losers. Everybody’s a winner just for being in America and in this century, in the grand scheme of things, and everybody’s a loser by comparison to somebody else somewhere and on some scale. But if we line people up by incomes, and limit discussion to the US, and separate everybody into “winners” and “losers”, then most of the “winners” are good old ordinary people with some extra energy or skill or courage or stamina, and most of the “losers” are good old ordinary people with a little less energy or skill or courage or stamina. And most of these still make more than the minimum wage.

Go to McDonalds or Wal-Mart and look around at the employees. They’re not all young, far from it. But most are earning minimum wage, or just a little above. Calling them failures at life is just taking the condescending “maker vs. taker” crap mentality and ratcheting it up with even more contempt for the poor.

A lot of people simply don’t have the skills to rise up much farther on the job ladder. Fact is, many millions of Americans (as in every society) have relatively low IQ’s and simply will never be able to master the more complex tasks needed for higher earning power. But they aren’t just abject losers… they work, they’re not criminals, and they do contribute to society doing crappy jobs that have to be done, and spending money and paying at least some taxes. They deserve dignity and at least a modicum of respect from the rest of us (and especially from an alleged Christian like Erickson).

If you read the post with just a tiny bit of care, you’ll see that the “selling your soul” comment is a reference to charlatans and liars and false pious religious fuckwads like Erickson.

StephenMeansMe Sep 7, 2014 4:33:53pm

re: #3 goddamnedfrank

Literally nobody sneers at the one percent for “being losers,”

Exactly. They sneer at losers for being in the one percent and having undue influence.

funky chicken Sep 7, 2014 4:56:24pm

re: #6 FemNaziBitch

That makes two of us here! And I currently work in upscale retail with quite a few bright, hardworking people who make double the minimum wage, and it’s honestly not what I would call a living wage even in Oklahoma.

Skip Intro Sep 7, 2014 5:03:51pm

re: #7 palomino

Some of these Walmart “failures” are men and women who, in their early 50s, lost their good paying job, the job they went to college or trained for, because corporations discovered that there’s always someone, somewhere willing to work for less with no benefits.

These people aren’t failures; they’re trying to survive in a world where all the rules changed. Not only are they attacked by talk radio assholes, but politicians love to dump on them too.

I’d love to see how someone like Limbaugh, a man born into a well off, politically connected family, would make it as an hourly worker. But Limbaugh doesn’t have to worry about that, because he’s the recipient of wingnut welfare, with RW think tanks funneling money to his program even as he loses advertisers and market share. In the “free market”, Limbaugh is out on his ass. Because he willingly takes handouts from the RW money machine, he’s still making millions of dollars a year peddling a failed product.

LoonRadio Sep 7, 2014 5:18:37pm

I seem to remember stories about m/billionaire CEOs paying themselves an annual salary of $1.00. Must have been a fairy tale.

RadicalModerate Sep 7, 2014 5:29:42pm

re: #1 lostlakehiker

But if we line people up by incomes, and limit discussion to the US, and separate everybody into “winners” and “losers”, then most of the “winners” are good old ordinary people with some extra energy or skill or courage or stamina, and most of the “losers” are good old ordinary people with a little less energy or skill or courage or stamina.

This is absolute bullcrap and you know it, and I am pretty sure that I detect a bit of a dog whistle in there as well.
The demographics of full-time minimum and low-wage earners is HEAVILY weighted toward minorities. Saying that those people just have a little less energy, courage, or stamina? A significant portion of these same people are holding down two jobs at a time just to make ends meet. That sure fits into your “dumb lazy [racial epithet]” worldview, now doesn’t it?
Unskilled? Not surprising since the lion’s share of education resources go to the most affluent neighborhoods - those individuals living in poorer neighborhoods get bare bones funding for education and training to get them out of those areas, and getting federal/state assistance these days is next to non-existent - and typically require a person to be unemployed to even qualify.

RadicalModerate Sep 7, 2014 5:32:53pm

re: #11 LoonRadio

I seem to remember stories about m/billionaire CEOs paying themselves an annual salary of $1.00. Must have been a fairy tale.

They were doing that as a tax dodge.
They made their income from stock grants, which are taxed at a much lower capital gains (thanks to Ronald Reagan) tax rate.

missliberties Sep 7, 2014 5:43:10pm

I stand with Big Sodomy!

Poor shaming. It’s what’s for breakfast at Rush Limbaugh’s nicely decorated French style house on the beach.

goddamnedfrank Sep 7, 2014 6:02:43pm

re: #11 LoonRadio

I seem to remember stories about m/billionaire CEOs paying themselves an annual salary of $1.00. Must have been a fairy tale.

No, it happens, but as a tax dodge. They pay themselves $1 because at their levels earned income is taxed at higher rates than unearned income. Basically if they’re wealthy enough to exercise (purchase) all their stock options and then wait at least a year before selling it advantages them to arrange for all of their compensation to come go through this route, where it will be taxed at the much lower long term capital gains rate.

LoonRadio Sep 7, 2014 6:31:20pm

re: #13 RadicalModerate

But… but… but they’re LOSERS for making less than the minimum wage! I’m so confused. Who is John Galt again?