This meme omits a pretty key point:
š¹āIn terms of total viewers, āFox News Liveāsā total viewership of 1.106 million slightly outnumbered the total viewership for āInside With Jen Psaki,ā which stands at 1.094 million viewers before the rounded figure.ā
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/jen-psaki-msnbc-show-scores-153537860.html
āŖļøPsakiās show did edge out āFox News Liveā in the 25-54 demo (137K to 123K) at the same time slot. Not too shocking that the vast majority of viewers of both shows are elderly, who watches cable news at noon on a Sunday?
āŖļøBut putting Tuckerās pouty face on the meme is pretty ridiculous considering he dominates the ratings. For example, on Wed Tucker had 3.2M viewers, almost triple Psakiās show, and 460K in the 26-54 demo, a quadrupling. In fact, every Fox show airing after 7 am had more viewers.
https://www.mediaite.com/daily-ratings/cable-news-ratings-wednesday-march-22-tucker-carlson-dominates-cable-news/
āŖļøAs an aside, I was shocked at how low CNNās ratings are. They didnāt have any show crack 1M on Wed, even in prime time. On weekends, most of their shows have less than 500K viewers.
āŖļøThe left keeps using this meme but they donāt actually believe it. If you believe SNAP subsidizes companies to pay below a āliving wageā this implies that if you take food stamps away they would suddenly pay a higher, ālivingā wage. So why not get rid of food stamps, then?!
āŖļøExcept they know, and everyone knows, this isnāt true. Wages are set by supply and demand, not some mythical āliving wageā metric. Absent food stamps there would actually be downward, not upward, pressure on wages, because the reality is food stamps subsidize the poor to not work as much as they might otherwise need to.
āŖļøWithout SNAP, some low income people would need to work more hours to make ends meet, increasing the availability of low-skilled labor and lowering wages (all else being equal).
āŖļøPlus, we all know the left loves and supports food stamps. Which means, by this memeās logic, they love to subsidize corporate profits. But they donāt really, they just think this ...
āŖļøWait, this is the guy libertarians and the new right rave about being a great historian?! This sounds like a clueless meme from The Other 98%, except they wouldnāt add in the bizarre defense of feudal lords. Feudalism didnāt deprive peasants of their livelihoods for abstract goals? This is total fantasy.
āŖļøAmazon employs 1.55M, so this is less than 2% of their workforce, although these cuts will be to corporate, which employs 350k, so 8.5% of that. The CEO says there is an excess of bureaucracy at Amazon, and AI can automate certain repetitive tasks. Also, much of the cuts will be to HR, which is expected shrink by 15%, yay. Managers and HR are peasants now?
āŖļøI donāt know the inner workings of Amazon, and neither does Darryl, but this seems to be normal management practice to keep a company efficient and competitive. Given the immense size of Amazon the numbers look large, but far bigger shakeups happen all the time in the private sector. Apparently, under the new ...
āŖļøThis statistic is just made up. The reality is that there hasnāt been a real study on this since 2013, when Pew did a poll. They found that Democrats were actually more than twice as likely as Republicans to report ever using food stamps (22% vs 10%).
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2013/07/12/the-politics-and-demographics-of-food-stamp-recipients/
āŖļøObviously, those percentages could have changed over the past decade, but itās very likely that Dems still receive more SNAP benefits. Certainly, without an actual study or poll the claim should be thrown out, as it wildly contradicts a previous study.
āŖļøThe meme probably comes from a 2024 analysis by Social Explorer, which found that 78.7% of US counties with the largest increase in SNAP since 2010 voted for Trump in 2020. But that tells us nothing about the actual number of Republicans (or Democrats) who are receiving benefits, just county-wide trends.
...
