I certainly am not going to make any insensitive references to being bipolar and arguing with self.

Masturbating with Atlas Shrugged must leave pretty nasty paper cuts.

I look forward to his musings on illegal immigrants and their impact on the economy.

Wait, no I don't.

Trick question! Q and A are both douchebags!

@wrongneighborhood: ha!

Gah! Who isn't qualified for a $5 per hour job? What kind of god-awful, mind-numbing and/or back-breaking work is really only worth $3 per hour?

Moreover, I would think that this particular "complex systems" analyst would be a little more sympathetic to the fact that a large number of those who end up digging through the trash for pizza crusts and empty bottles are there because of mental illnesses that are going untreated, thanks to crippling systemic flaws in the way out country treats (or doesn't, as the case may be) its mentally ill.

But no, Mr. Lodwick, you're totally right. We should pay homeless schizophrenics almost nothing for jobs they are mentally unfit to hold! They'll love it, and be totally grateful, I'm sure.

But what about all the parodists he's putting out of work?

blah blah blah...I'm a douche. Blah blah blah. I make money BECAUSE I'm a douche.

It's always disturbing how intellectual this guy really seems to believe he is. Gawker at least points out his insanity, Valleywag seems to think the guy really could be the next Bill Gates (or Stevie J. in Lodwick's own eyes). If memory serves me correctly, he wasn't actually a creator of CH, just someone lucky enough to hop the train in time for the partial buyout.

all the sophistication of a 5 year old mind

I've made plenty of money because I'm good at evaluating complex systems and understanding how they could be made more efficient.

Why not just KILL the poors, Jakob? because have you ever tried to feed a family on $3 an hour? Seriously, go back to JA and have a happy life together in Narcisstic Clueless Land. You deserve each other.

I love Jakob Lodwick because he is the living example of why everyone thinks Ayn Rand devotees are ignorant douches.

all the compassion of a slug

Not only is Lodwick a douche, he is an asshole as well. That being said, his continual musings on 'economics' are quite entertaining in that he obviously has no idea what he is talking about. I just slogged through some of his Tumblr and it is hilarious. Did you know he invented psychotherapy ([jakoblodwick.com])?

In any case, let's analyze his $3/hr suggestion. Note, in order to be short and sweet, this example doesn't take into account all of the complexities involved, so Lodwick may not get it. Assuming the average work day is 8hrs long and that an employee works 50 weeks out of the year, annual income at $3/hr comes to $6000 before taxes. Assuming an income tax of 10% and a payroll tax of 7.65%, annual income at $3/hr comes to $4941. That translates to a budget of $13.50 a day. Now, take into account rent, utilities (rising energy costs), food (rising food costs), and transportation (rising energy costs translate to rising transportation costs), and you are left in DEBT. Living in America on $3/hr is NOT sustainable.

Note, Lodwick doesn't seem to understand the concept of sustainability (see one of his nonsensical arguments here - [jakoblodwick.com]), so can we really blame him?

in his defense, the interview style allows him to be questioned by the one person on earth who's actually interested in anything he has to say.

john mccain thinks americans won't pick lettuce for 200k/year; he said so in a speech

this douche thinks people aren't qualified for 4/hr jobs

and there you have the two poles of the mindset that is keeping working people down

also, i used to feel sorry for this douche due to his treatment at the hands of the one whose name must not be spoken

now, well, ha ha ha ha ha; he deserves nothing but the same

Well, for the average rich dude to even think sympathetically about the homeless isn't a bad thing, right?

I mean, it's not like we expect Lodwick to have complicated systems of national social welfare at his fingertips. But at least he has the right spirit about it.

@if_i_only_had_a_heart: I would pick fleas off an angry monkey for $200k a year.

not just a douche -- this is an evil person.

What does he care how much companies pay actual workers? He's gotten rich on a business model that requires users to provide him with massive amounts of content for free.

You can always count on this turd to provide us all with our daily dose of Vitamin Douche.

I've made plenty of money because I'm good at evaluating complex systems and understanding how they could be made more efficient.
Fuck book jackets, he should just get his self-blurb tattooed on his forehead. (Too bad those moneymakin' evaluatin' skills didn't stop you from getting mixed up with Miss MacAir, hey JLod?)

I dislike him slightly less right now.

A: What about the right to earn a living that, while meager, is better than no living at all?

What the fuck is that? Work for shit pay or die?

What happened to this little nanopustule of entitlement? Did his cleaning lady ask for a raise?

By "What a device," I presume you mean "What a tool."

@Buzz Killington: Your screen name just gave me the biggest laugh of the day.

I realize this isn't the place for this argument and there's an even chance I'll regret posting this, but whatever you think of Mr. Lodwick (I have no opinion myself), the contention that the minimum wage does keep some people unemployed cannot be laughed off.

To argue otherwise requires some fairly novel economic theory to replace the simple yet tremendously powerful explanations we use that rely on supply and demand.

I suspect the argument for the minimum wage is that setting a wage floor accomplishes the maximum social good, even if it means that some folks are being paid above market wages at the expense of those who could work for less. For those not even qualified to work for minimum wage, ideally a social safety net would help them meet their needs, which could include helping them get qualified to compete for min-wage jobs. Thus the social good realized from a minimum-wage policy is maximized.

My sense of US politics, though, is that increasing competition at that end of the wage scale is a political loser (see: immigration reform), and thus the necessary safety net never gets properly constructed.

So I think it's fair game to wonder whether the minimum wage really does maximize social good, in the current political climate.

- If you believe the theory articulated just above here is sound, you'll conclude that the optimum course of action is to change the political climate, and in the meantime admit that the good that the minimum wage does offsets the impact on certain folks who can't get any type of job as a result.

- On the other hand, if you think the political climate is an unchangeable given, then you might seek to make the minimum wage more flexible. It's not a crazy idea on its face.

Oh god, is that his O face? No problem, I wasn't planning on sleep without nightmares tonight anyway...

You know, for someone who is self aggrandizing at taking complex systems to task, he totally fucks this one to shreds by oversimplifying.

Last time I checked, the crazies were unemployed because they were crazy and raised by incompetent parents. It's sort of a health/education/social issue in the U.S., not a minimum wage issue.

And the chicks who follow his Tumblr do it because they're making a "What To Look For In Your Guy So That You Know When To Dump Him" list.

All the money in the world won't change the fact that he's ugly.

He's a card-carrying cunt.

Jakob, you made a ton of money because you hit the jackpot. There a billion stupid ideas floating around cyberspace and yours turned out to be commercially viable. Period.

As per your ideas about minimum wage, your ignorance of Economics is of oceanic proportions. Hasn't it occured to you that if ending poverty was as easy as abolishing minimum wages laws it would have been done already, you little imbecile?

All the fluids from Julia's pussy got to your brain and killed all your functioning braincells. I guess stupidity can be a sexually transmitted disease.

@Unfun: I know, that comment is lame, but I was rendered momentarily speechless by his sheer idiocy. Also, he is goddamn ugly.

I went to an Ivy, work at a corporate law firm, and find nothing more irritating than people who think they get to where they are simply because they somehow deserve it. I witness that shit everyday. Without knowing anything about him, I can bet Lodwick had a shitload of privileges that most people who have to pick out of garbage cans can't even imagine. You got lucky scumbag. Karma's a bitch.

I submit, Counselor Unfun, that even if Mr. Lodwick had no meaningful privileges or advantages in his background, the fact that an idea of his hit the jackpot could still be 100% a result of blind luck and 0% a product of skillfully "evaluating complex systems."

But don't let me be obscure: I agree with you in general. I just think his idea about the minimum wage, if separated entirely from the person advocating it, does have some substance to it. It deserves a thought-out rejoinder, at least.

It's a Cylon!

@skahammer: I don't think the minimum wage is keeping many people unemployed. If someone really wants to work for less than $5.85 an hour and an employer really wants to not pay them that much, you're not talking about a 40-hour-a-week situation. You're talking about a couple of twenties getting handed over under the table every once in a while. It's not out of the ordinary.

In any case, if Lodwick can point to a real case (with, as he puts it, "facts derived from reality") where there's any reason outside of sheer inhumane greed to employ someone on a long-term basis at $3 an hour instead of $5.85 an hour, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, Jakob, you're just presenting, y'know, an "implausible hypothetical."

@CaptainHangNail: ya me 2 d00d; that's the point with mcbush, mcsame ...

@moff: What? Facts? I thought we were talking about economics here!

@Pope John Peeps II:

This is pretty typical logic by someone of his socio-economic status: weak and completely lacking perspective.

First, no one, but no one, is saying to themselves "if only I could employ the homeless for $3 a day the homeless would be able to afford rent." Companies do, however, think to themselves "if I could be employing people for less money I'd be making more money." They do that in other countries you know. Let's ask those folks how living without a minimum wage is working out for them.

Second, this is not an attempt on the authors part to by sympathetic to the homeless and find a solution to their ills.

His argument starts from a perspective that seeks to make himself and companies richer. From there he opines that if we could remove worker protections, like the minimum wage, he could make more money. To sell this line of reasoning he needs a draw. Therefore, he then argues that without worker protections those living in extreme poverty will be able to escape extreme poverty.

While this logic is flawed, let's assume for a second that it would work. Even under that scenario those living in extreme poverty would only be able to pull themselves up to the level of poverty. All the while, we we knock the bottom out of the market for those who are able to make rent because the government mandates that people like him abide by government protections and pay there workers at least the minimum wage.

@thedecider: all kinds of typos, but you get the idea.

@skahammer: Heh. But Lodwick did bring up facts in the first place in his post.

Seriously, though, if he wants a counter to his stupid, stupid, poorly thought-out argument, it's that (1) Again, people do work for less than minimum wage sometimes -- the drunk guy who hangs out on my stoop gets paid a few bucks by the fried chicken place down the street to pick up trash once in a while. Of course, he can't count on regular work any more than they can count on him showing up on a set schedule.

Which leads us to (2) If you, as an employer, want some realistic assurance that your employee is going to show up for work and be fit to do the job, it's to your benefit that they're not sleeping on the street, where they're at risk of getting kicked out of the area by cops or having something worse happen. Granted, the $936 a month you can earn working forty hours a week at minimum wage doesn't do much in, say, Manhattan (although it goes much further in, say, Osseo, Wisconsin, where it's at least enough to rent living space), but it's almost twice as much as the $480 you'll get in Jakob Lodwick's oh-so-brilliant scenario.

He should really shut his evil cunting mouth.

"Why do you insist that the ladder have no bottom rung?"

Minimum wage IS the bottom rung, Mr. Economic Genius. And your idea that being paid $3/hr is a magic pass out of bottle collecting and scavaging for food ... are you really that niave? $24 dollars for 8 hours of work? Omg. The humanity.

You know what's cool? The shark post underneath this one makes it look like the shark is jumping out of the water to eat Jakob's ugly head.

@Unfun:

Wages will be utterly irrelevant as our ability to match skills with discrete tasks improve. Then, the parties will be free to negotiate payment mechanisms more freely, much as freelancers and consultants do today. A major factor in this model is the reduction of fixed overhead (such as the need to gather people in expensive real estate), which is directly related to the advances in communications technologies that are a primary distinguishing feature of the past five or so generations.

The whole concept of a corporate employer with a salaried workforce is tired, industrial revolution stuff.

@vulturesquadron: Haha, just kidding. This kind of crap really makes the blogs ZING!

I like the part where he dodges the question about his supposed female followers.

@thedecider: Well, I didn't say it wasn't a monumentally stupid plan. I just said at least he cares.

Although I guess caring in that awful, destructive form is sort of worse than not caring at all.

@SeaBassTian: I believe he's referring to me. I schooled him with some pithy Ayn Rand reference and then we had an e-mail exchange. Since I took the time to insult him, I guess his interpretation is that I'm secretly ~* in love *~ with him.

This guy is just an idiot. Why does he get so much undeserved attention on this site?

@Pope John Peeps II: @Pope John Peeps II:

You think what really drives his opinion on this subject is CARING about poor people? Are you really that naive?

I'm sure he may have rationalized it to himself that way — and that's he's been rationalizing it long enough now that he now believes his own rationalization.

But the reality is probably much more simple: He needs to hire a bunch of cheap labor, and resents having to pay them more than $5 an hour. He wants to hire them for less money so he can stuff it back into his own priviliged, greedy pockets. I will bet you a million dollars that's the real source of his interest in this subject.

I hate people like him. And I hate Gawker for fawning all over him. it makes me sick.

@VirusWithShoes: I think we deserve a joint commie for that visual alone.

@Unfun: I'd settle just for a joint.

@MisterHippity:Okay Mister. You can fuck right off. You're going a little crazy right now, and I don't think I'm going to let you call me naive.

I'm glad that you have the subtle telepathic connection to online text that allows you to delve into the past and dredge up Lodwick's real motives. But for the rest of us normal humans, we don't automatically assume that every person's offhand retarded comments hide a complex Machiavellian scheme to hire 3$ an hour homeless gardeners, or whatever the good jesus you think is happening here.

Most evil in the world can be explained through incompetence. I'm not sure who said it originally but it's a very good axiom.

So calm down and have a drink. Drinks help the pills go down.

@Buzz Killington: Me too, though I still get the "being libertarian means I get to smoke pot? Well OK THEN" vibe off of him.

@MisterHippity: "Why does he get so much undeserved attention on this site?"

Because he has an upcoming cameo in It Girls.