Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Age: 29
Date Signed Up:11/13/2009
Last Login:8/24/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#4682
Comment Ranking:#7231
Highest Content Rank:#1163
Highest Comment Rank:#242
Content Thumbs: 2732 total,  3024 ,  292
Comment Thumbs: 19660 total,  21129 ,  1469
Content Level Progress: 19% (19/100)
Level 127 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 128 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 18.7% (187/1000)
Level 316 Comments: Wizard → Level 317 Comments: Wizard
Content Views:33069
Times Content Favorited:208 times
Total Comments Made:2664
FJ Points:1437

latest user's comments

#3 - Yes she is. 10/29/2015 on Missing the point +172
#214 - It's even worse for kids who have any kind of disability or di… 10/29/2015 on Anon makes fast cash +2
#65 - "The first attempt at establishing a national m…  [+] (2 new replies) 10/29/2015 on back on +11
User avatar
#169 - averagewhitekid (10/29/2015) [-]
That still doesn't mean it was intended to live on
It just meant it was the first reasonable amount of money for a reasonable amount of work that they figured
This was also during the Great Depression, so there's that
User avatar
#199 - Daeiros (10/29/2015) [-]
"No business which depends for existence on paying less than LIVING WAGES to its workers has any right to continue in this country." - President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933
That seems pretty straightforward to me. If you are working a full time job, you should be able to live off of that job.

"In 2012, there were 3.6 million hourly paid workers in the United States with wages at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. These workers made up 4.7 percent of the 75.3 million workers age 16 and over who were paid at hourly rates."

But that is hardly an accurate account because most minimum wage jobs will give you a raise after 90 days, and then again each year you are with the company.

"According to the Economic Policy Institute’s State of Working America, a stunning 35 million Americans – 26 percent of our workforce – earn less than $10.55 an hour"

"When you are living in the United States, you will likely want to budget approximately $1000 – $1500 per month for housing and utilities."

That's for a basic one bedroom apartment, depending on where you live, not including food or transportation or anything else. At 10.55 an hour, times 40 hours, times 52 weeks, that gives us just under $22,000 per year before taxes, so take 15% off and you are left with $18,700, and just to have a place to live, without even eating, you need between $12,000 and $18,000 depending on what area you live in, so that leaves you with between 6,700 and $700 per year for food and travel to and from work, along with anything else you might need like clothes, toilet paper, soap, etc.

That all works out to mean that more than a quarter of the American population is living on less than $13.46-$128.00 per week to pay for everything other than living indoors with power and plumbing. That's the ones earning 45% more than the minimum wage, mind you, at minimum wage, you'd have either $57.69 in you pocket per week, or you'd be $57.69 in debt per week before you have even bought groceries.

This a a quarter of the population we are talking about here, a quarter of the population has less than $130 per week to survive on after paying rent and utilities. Oh but wait, we almost forgot! Health insurance is now required by law and not having it will land you with a hefty fine at the end of the year, and that will probably run you at least another $30 per week, so that's $100 dollars per week to survive on, at best, for 1/4 of the people in the US.
#62 - I'm sure a link between LCD screens and cancer will be discove…  [+] (4 new replies) 10/29/2015 on back on +1
User avatar
#204 - spinthatrecord (10/30/2015) [-]
I for one look forward to the freak out when they say chlorine leads to cancer.
#95 - mattyl (10/29/2015) [-]
Imagine the title "Breaking news: Touching wooden doors does not cause cancer" followed by a 3 page text, discussing how wooden doors have nothing to do with cancer. No one would want to read that.

You haven't heard about studies not finding a connection between cancer and something else because they're not making the news if they are not interesting. There is an ocean of studies on all sorts of topics out there, never having had any attention because the results yielded nothing of significance and were boring.
User avatar
#71 - cuntism (10/29/2015) [-]
We are fully aware how LCD screens work, the science of it is completely understood, so you're actually safe on that front
#73 - anon (10/29/2015) [-]
Yea but most of these researchers just look for a link, so e.g. people that stare at LCD screens have more sedentary life style and somehow that is linked to cancer, and the media would have a headline LCDs cause cancer
#85 - Women are already treated better than men in nearly every sens… 10/29/2015 on You rage you lose/effects... +1
#196 - Literally the first result when you google "mice and… 10/29/2015 on Anon makes fast cash +1
#170 - You have the right to face your accuser when you are accused o… 10/29/2015 on Anon makes fast cash +1
#168 - In addition to what Haentar said about him not knowing at the … 10/29/2015 on Anon makes fast cash +3
#163 - correlation =/= causation perhaps they are failing school …  [+] (5 new replies) 10/29/2015 on Anon makes fast cash +25
User avatar
#212 - eatwaffles (10/29/2015) [-]
This strikes close to home when it comes to the school system. My kid is seven and has a sensory disorder. I managed to put her in a school for kids with disabilities, which lowered the class size enough for her to cope and gave her a Para teacher for the days when she can't.

I STILL get told, daily, that she's too difficult redirect when upset or enjoying the activity. I actually have a meeting to go to today, upon which I hope to educate these teachers about sensory issues. Yes, her difficult redirection is mainly sensory related, but she's also seven! She likes to hum and rock when she starts to get overwhelmed, but it's also a sign that she needs a break and a moment to get the excess energy out. At home when doing homework, she gets to stand up, do jumping jacks, run around 'like a crazy chicken', and then sits back down, just to get rid of that kid energy.

By the way, when she does hum or cry, they take away five minutes of her recess. What kind of crap is that? She very much needs the physical outlet, and no one seems to think so now a days.

....sorry, I realized I went on a rant. The whole point is I agree with your statement one hundred percent, and that one bit hit closer than I wanted it to.
User avatar
#214 - Daeiros (10/29/2015) [-]
It's even worse for kids who have any kind of disability or disorder. Even the teachers who are specifically supposed to be able to handle that kind of stuff still seem to expect good little robots instead of energetic, rambunctious children.

My little sister, my little brother, and myself, were all diagnosed with ADHD. My mom never medicated me because she didn't trust the zombie pills, but after all the shit she went through with my schooling, she finally broke down and drugged my sister and brother, and all that really did was take the edge off some of the time. Both of them were put on some of the highest doses available, put on experimental shit, you name it, they pumped those poor kids full of it in a desperate attempt to get them to sit down and shut up for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. It never fully worked, and it did more harm than good. One of the pills they put my sister on hospitalized her several times for heart and blood pressure issues. One of the pills they put my brother on gave him ticks like he has fucking turrets syndrome, they took him off of it, but several years later, the ticks have still not gone away. I've heard there is an extremely effective treatment for ADHD that has minimal side effects, but unfortunately, medical marijuana is far too dangerous, and even if it weren't a federal crime, it would certainly be unthinkable to give it to children. Better to give them the pills that make them twitch uncontrollably, lose consciousness, and have heart attack like events at the age of 9 and still have little to no effect, than the ones that make them giggle a lot and crave junk food, and actually work.

All these kids really need though is to get up and move, but sadly, even when they are allowed a little bit of physical activity, they have these overprotective tyrants hovering over them and making sure that they don't ever dare to do anything that could potentially result in a wittle boo boo because as we all know, children are made of glass and even the tiniest nick or scrap will simply destroy them for life, so it's much better to instill them with absolute terror until they don't even want to play anymore because they think everything is too dangerous.

I heard there was some school that tried out desks with exercise bikes built into them so the kids could just sit there and pedal all day while they learned, and it worked fantastically. Unfortunately, I don't think they will be rolling that out large scale any time soon, despite the resounding success.

We spend so much time and effort discouraging children from being active, then wonder why we have an obesity epidemic.
User avatar
#195 - grandautisimo (10/29/2015) [-]
No source, no credibility. Sound a lot like the wage gap
User avatar
#196 - Daeiros (10/29/2015) [-]
Literally the first result when you google "mice and drugs study"
#175 - migueldecervantes (10/29/2015) [-]
Wow. That's an amazing comment. And I'm not being sarcastic. Very insightful, clear and concise. I applaud you.
#157 - Or, ya know, if weed wasn't against the law for no justifiable… 10/29/2015 on Anon makes fast cash +4