Vaush / @VaushV / VaushVidya / IrishLaddie / Ian Anthony Kochinski - Horse Cock Enthusiast, Larpy Violent Revolutionary, Sex Pest, in his 100th pedo scandal

So fresh day with many new Vaush videos, one commenting on the federal minimum wage.
This retard needs to start citing his sources cause a simple google search refutes his numbers. Vaush claims that the minimum wage can not exceed 60% of the median wage, his explanation of what 60% of a median is awful and confusing, but there are search results for this value. Its technically the relative poverty line. Now this is where he goes off the deep end, while arguing for a 15$/hr minimum wage he claims that the minimum wage should be as high as possible without exceeding this 60% of the median wage, which he claims is 14.89$ (one off from the golden number, timestamp is 25:12).
The issue with this, is as always, this communist can't cite anything nor give a single piece of evidence towards his numbers, but there are reports, such as: https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2019/, which give a median wage of 19.33$/hr. But what is 60% of 19.33? It's 11.60$ not 14.89$, so by his own logic the federal minimum wage should be limited to a lower number. If he was consistent (we all know the only thing he is consistent on is defending child porn), he would argue against the minimum wage being raised to 15$/hr, as "he follows the science."
Imagine thinking that what makes a good limit on the minimum wage is just an arbitrary percentage of the median wage. The idea that such a heated topic of discussion in economics - the study of human interaction - can be summarised so easily is just fucking dumb. Like as if all these highly intelligent economists never noticed it was such a simple relationship to understand the issue!!!

The low pay commission in the UK basically reviews the best data globally to come to a recommendation on how to raise minimum wages.

Their recommendations amount to this:
You should raise minimum wage rates, but do so slowly. This is because whilst for the most part minimum wages don't have a noticeble negative effect on unemployment, there is a "biting point" wherein if you go above, it will begin to have more drastic effects on employment. Additionally, even if there is some negative effects from the rise prior to this "biting point" they are largely outweighed by the benefits of there being less in-work poverty.

There is no magic formula, it's test and adjust. Raising the wage is generally better, as it has a beneficial effects on those poor fucks stuck at the bottom. Equally, the lolberts who think it should be acceptable to pay people 20¢ an hour because it's an agreement are out of their fucking minds.

As for people moving for a higher minimum wage - oh sure, I'll move somewhere with a higher cost of living to take advantage of the higher minimum wage. Except it won't work, because the increased cost of living will negate any benefit.
 
Last edited:
Voosh moment
IMG_20210130_085023.jpg
IMG_20210130_085025.jpg
 
I wonder if Tommy has enough material for his own thread. Dude can be quite a disgusting retard sometimes. Especially with his whole "I'm from the ghetto" schtick .

Dunno how to archive Twitch clips, sorry.
I have no clue who this person is the face just made me laugh and think "Vooooosh"
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Effluvium
It's sad when a situation is so fucked up even Vaush has the right take
View attachment 1878022
lol what a fucking hypocrite.

Twitter banned a litany of ‘pro-Trump, alt right’ accounts because “muh TOS”, and he argued against people getting mad at Twitter because “durrr, Twitter is a private company and can ban who they want.”

Now, Robinhood is restricting certain shares per their TOS and SEC, all of a sudden there should be unspoken rules private companies should follow and Vaush believes they’re in the wrong.

The difference between the two situations is the first had the general public split on Twitter’s decision. With Robinhood, people from all political persuasions are saying it’s a bad thing.

Fuck that. If you stand for something, you gotta stand for it all the way. Vaush’s take is as good as Hitler’s if he were to rise from the dead and speak against white supremacy.
 
It's sad when a situation is so fucked up even Vaush has the right take
View attachment 1878022
That "free market" let Silicon Valley deperson Trump and his goons like what the ChiComs do to dissidents, and wasn't this neckbearded soyblob defending the boot? So now it's not ok if they act accordingly to the ToS that everyone who signs up to an account agrees to. This pig has no principles, he can pretend to all he wants.
 
That "free market" let Silicon Valley deperson Trump and his goons like what the ChiComs do to dissidents, and wasn't this neckbearded soyblob defending the boot? So now it's not ok if they act accordingly to the ToS that everyone who signs up to an account agrees to. This pig has no principles, he can pretend to all he wants.
I've been saying for over a year, if the left uses the "free companies" argument then they have no arguments for civil rights or trans rights because the entire point of these concepts is to force white people (really WASPs) to platform and serve groups they dislike. The truth is most people want to discriminate against they dislike but wants to give civil rights to groups they like. Most people have no problem censoring speech they dislike (including not platforming/interviewing a person they dislike) but cry fowl when other people infringe upon their speech. In politics, the idea of principles are dumb. The ends always justify the means.
 

I've been saying for over a year, if the left uses the "free companies" argument then they have no arguments for civil rights or trans rights because the entire point of these concepts is to force white people (really WASPs) to platform and serve groups they dislike. The truth is most people want to discriminate against they dislike but wants to give civil rights to groups they like. Most people have no problem censoring speech they dislike (including not platforming/interviewing a person they dislike) but cry fowl when other people infringe upon their speech. In politics, the idea of principles are dumb. The ends always justify the means.
That's why constitutionally-backed rights are supposed to be an unwavering guarantee that equal much more than just vague principles. It's what makes shills like Vaush such huge pieces of shit, when they contribute to eroding the protections those rights provide individuals from the state, while also misinforming and dumbing-down some of those same individuals
 
That's why constitutionally-backed rights are supposed to be an unwavering guarantee that equal much more than just vague principles. It's what makes shills like Vaush such huge pieces of shit, when they contribute to eroding the protections those rights provide individuals from the state, while also misinforming and dumbing-down some of those same individuals
That was an interesting concept but it doesn't work. Who determines what rights exist? Is freedom of association a right? Should it be a right? Rights are a substitute for power. People without power want people with power to treat them a certain way, a right. But obviously that's not a stable Nash Equilibrium. If the people with power want to defect, they'll defect and infringe upon your rights like we're seeing now. The era of Constitutions protecting your rights is over.
 
Back