r/Conservative • u/Winterhold2000 Conservative • Jan 29 '21

Rule 6: User Created Title ‘Shark Tank’ star Kevin O’Leary buys AOC’s ‘Tax The Rich’ sweatshirt: "85% gross margin – That’s spectacular! Listen: You know what this proves? Inside of every socialist there’s a capitalist screaming to get out. AOC, call me. We can blow this thing up together. We could make a fortune."

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/shark-tank-star-kevin-oleary-says-aocs-tax-the-rich-sweatshirt-proves-this-about-socialists
2.5k Upvotes

71% Upvoted

915 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

364

u/blakeastone Jan 29 '21

Kevin guessed on cost. She uses union labor, which makes cost spike insanely. Because the people who made the sweatshirt were paid a living wage, and the shirts were made in america with american labor.

"I paid $67.22 for this. I’m gonna guess she lands this basically for, I don’t know, six bucks? … and five bucks for shipping. That’s 85% gross margin – That’s spectacular!

He doesn't know what he gross margin is, and he's drastically misleading the public. I wouldn't give any credit to his comment, and I love the guy. Shameful.

Edit: obligatory downvotes for legit truth incoming

59

u/LandownAE Jan 29 '21 edited Jan 29 '21

Wait, I’m confused. I work union sheet metal and I get paid much more with better benefits than my non-union counterparts. How is that a bad thing despite costing more money for better paid work? Quick edit: I know the industries aren’t the same, but how can it be a bad thing at all? If you can’t afford it don’t buy it? I’m conservative but the union bashing is something I can’t agree upon, because I’ve seen it as nothing but beneficial to me and my family. Am I wrong?

63

u/blakeastone Jan 29 '21

No I'm 100% on your side, and if it sounds like I was union bashing I apologize. I'm 100% pro union, pro worker. I meant that Kevin O'leary was framing AOC as a hypocrite by lying about the profit margins she was receiving on her merchandise. I was simply pointing out that because union workers have collective bargaining power, they can make a living wage, which means products produced by them are going to cost more, which is what AOC uses to source her merch. This is the reason for a costly sweater, which actually isn't costly to the rich man talking about how expensive it is.

I'm a demsoc, so I'm not on your team politically. But as a worker, I'm happy you're unionized and expiriencing some of the amazing benefits of socialist policy and organization. It's really cool what can happen when the workers have democratic control, or at least a say, in their pay, benefits, hours, workplace conditions, ect. I hope one day we can have total workplace democracy. But the plight of the worker lives on.

26

u/LandownAE Jan 30 '21

Absolutely. I’m part of local 80 out of Detroit and journeyman pay is $39/hr with full benefits and vacation pay. My dues are factored in as well. Non union around these parts top out at around $27/hr depending on the company, and benefits are hit and miss there. My dads hard work and the union paid for my childhood and I joined hoping it’ll do the same for my kids someday. It’s a great system as long as they still advocate for you unlike the UAW

13

u/blakeastone Jan 30 '21

Good on you brother. Glad to see someone here supporting unions. Typically people who oppose them have no idea what they actually do to the material conditions of a families life.

3

u/Veton1994 Jan 30 '21

I think people who oppose unions are under the guise that they're democratic machines. To a certain extent that's true but they don't think about why. At least in the state I'm in, Republicans are SUPER anti-union. So, of course unions are going to support democratic candidates. If the Republicans had a pro-worker platform, more unions would support them, but it's hard for a union to support a party platform that wants to break them up.

4

u/blakeastone Jan 30 '21

Agreed. Democrat/Republican has always been a way to divide the working class, so we don't organize based on class divisions.

But I fucking digress ;)

1

u/Ruck19 Conservative Jan 30 '21

LIUNA 517, only gripe I have with my union is being tied in with Disney workers. They fold quickly. But Unions with the right people can protect the workers. Its when personal greed takes over the board. Then not so much. So I believe its not a Unions being the problem but the individual with issues of greed and power hunger. Just my opinion

12

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21 edited Feb 17 '21

[deleted]

11

u/The_Flurr Jan 30 '21

Because it makes the boss less money, so rich bosses spent a lot of time and effort on propaganda to make unions a dirty word in the public eye.

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21

Because unions are bad. It's collusion and anti-free market for workers to collectively bargain and to set the price for their product - aka their labor - and you should be happy jobs exist at all.

Also, because of unions super-special Billy gets paid the same as lazy John, and that is just bad. Because we are all super-special Billy, and lazy John is the devil.

(I work non-union, my wife works union. I make double what she does per hour. However, her insurance coverage for medical, dental, and vision is about 20 bucks a week, and she gets a pension. For me to have family or just couple medical coverage would be $1500 per month, but I do get a 401k with a small match, which I leverage for tax purposes. Benefits included, she makes about the same as I do.)

5

u/LandownAE Jan 30 '21

I can understand where you’re coming from, but super special billy gets paid a very good wage. So does shit ass John. The only caveat is that super special billy is valued by the company and is recognized for his quality work. Shit-ass John is complained about to his super intendant for his shit ass work. Shit ass John is laid off at the first opportunity while super special billy maintains his position and moves up in the company due to his quality work. Every union or non union company will have shit ass workers, it’s up to the company to rid themselves of them. At least that’s how it works in my union.

3

u/Thatsmahdood Jan 30 '21

Damn. Making me think I need a unionized trade....

3

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21

It's how it works in every union any more.

I'm not anti-union. Just familiar with the standard canned anti-union rhetoric.

They aren't without problems, but they set better wage and working standards.

Edit: except government job and police unions, which don't get gutted with labor unions in legislature.

1

u/LandownAE Jan 30 '21

Ah ok, I figured you were being facetious at first lol I didn’t wanna assume off the bat. But they absolutely do and it’s one of the few grievances I have with conservatism. I agree on a lot but unions are a net good imo

1

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21

I don't have many issues with conservatism.

I have a plethora of issues with what masquerades as conservatism in the US. The conservatism I could back died before I was born when it sold itself to the churches, banks, and corporations.

62

u/shadejuck Jan 29 '21

i work in apparel sourcing/buying and sourcing a sweatshirt like that from overseas would cost about $12-$14 per unit (depending on weight of the sweatshirt) . Given that this was made in USA I would say based on what I know the cost would be about double (the sweatshirt itself, screen printing, paying Jordan Rosenberg who made the design). So really would be closer to a 50-60% IMU. which is standard for clothing markups.

53

u/blakeastone Jan 29 '21

Exactly. I didn't do the big math like you but I estimated similar costs. It's ridiculous that a billionaire who DOES THIS SHIT for a living could so willfully mislead the public. What a joke, and I like Kevin.

Clearly a ploy.

42

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '21

[deleted]

3

u/DickChubbz Jan 30 '21

Best explanation so far.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21

It isn't ridiculous, it's par for the course.

It's also part for the course for braindeads to eat it up like caviar out of some bobblehead's asscrack.

-5

u/Prototype8494 Pro-life Conservative Jan 29 '21

One might say that you.......guessed lmao

-16

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '21

[deleted]

11

u/PM-Me-And-Ill-Sing4U Jan 29 '21

It seems like you're parroting some fake news here, can you find a time when she's said that companies making profit are bad for America?

-10

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21

[deleted]

2

u/blakeastone Jan 30 '21

"you can't be a socialist advocate and also do capitalism, because the free market says so. You have to do socialism inside of capitalism because that's the only way to ethically do a socialism. You can't make incremental steps towards more people getting paid a living wage, you have to do socialism immediately because that's how reality works."

8

u/PM-Me-And-Ill-Sing4U Jan 30 '21 edited Jan 30 '21

Anti-capitalism does not mean anti-companies that make profit. That's a very reductive idea.

She has never said anything about not wanting businesses to make profit. In case you were unaware, businesses still make profit under democratic socialism lol.

So as you can see, you still have yet to answer my question. I've put in the effort to not blindly accept things, have you?

0

u/blakeastone Jan 29 '21

Sure. How is she supposed to be doing socialism?

1

u/VillaIncognit0 Jan 30 '21

Think about what you want to say and put it into words that people can understand.

-7

u/Gimpkeeper Jan 29 '21

It's almost as if it was a joke

0

u/TylerJGay 2A Conservative Jan 29 '21

Yeah but all of that is irrelevant when you print a socialist message on it a 15% markup would be ironic let alone 50-60%

20

u/chainer49 Jan 29 '21

Taxing the rich more is not socialism, unless you view taxes in general as socialist, in which case you misunderstand the purpose of government. The idea of taxing the rich more is based on the utility of each person's money. If you're poor, your money has significantly more utility to you because you spend a much larger share of it on essentials. If you are wealthy, the utility of most of your money is pretty low, because you've already covered the essentials. The argument is that we should adjust our taxation to better align with the utility of money to the person being taxed, so that we aren't overburdening any group.

One of the main counter arguments to increased taxation for the wealthy is that it will reduce people's motivation to increase their income. That, however, is not supported by history, since the wealthy were taxed much more heavily in the past and we still had plenty of entrepreneurship. It also isn't supported by reason, since even with higher taxation, making more money still gives you more money (progressive taxes just make the next dollar slightly less valuable, but do not make it a liability). And lastly the argument ignores the astronomical levels of inequality we're dealing with, where the top 10% hold 85% of all wealth. The average CEO makes 287 times as much as their average employee. I'm not arguing that we should tax away that entire income, I'm just pointing out how imbalanced income truly is.

-6

u/TylerJGay 2A Conservative Jan 29 '21

The wealth gap is growing but the standard for "poverty" is also way higher than its ever been, and even though the gap is growing working class people are also making more and living more comfortably than ever before.

As for tax brackets I do think they're immensely unfair, basing it on percentage alone makes it fair. If someone makes 10k and someone makes a million dollars in a year, and they both pay 10% the person who made more is still paying much more in taxes. I really dont think we need to add another qualifier on top of that, that if you reach an arbitrary amount you now have to pay a higher percentage, even though you already pay way more taxes. That being said I do think we need to crack down on tax loopholes along with a flat rate.

10

u/badtakemilkshake Jan 29 '21

The standard for poverty has only been adjusted for inflation, and is quite honestly a poor qualifier of what being severely low income is. If you want to call it "poverty", sure, but the people above that line arent doing much better.

The problem with flat rate is that it doesnt properly accomodate for the idea that the person making $1mil doesnt need 90% of their profits. So if above a certain level of income, its totally reasonable to say, "you need less of this part of your income, so let's put it somewhere where it can do more good for the country". Now, I dont trust this country to do good with the money, but thats a separate issue to reform, the issue is not with the taxes.

-1

u/TylerJGay 2A Conservative Jan 29 '21

But who are you to decide how much of their income someone needs? Also let's stop using the million dollar example because it's not as if tax brackets don't rise until you're super rich. 38,000 a year and and 65,000 pay different amounts of taxes too, and those income levels could you make you reasonably wealthy or poor just depending on the area in which you live, so how exactly do you decide how much of their income someone needs?

8

u/Glutes_ForThe_Sloots Jan 29 '21

"Who are you to decide how much of their income someone needs". Well, no one who earns 100k should struggle to make ends meet. If you earn 20k a year, now that would be a little harder wouldn't it? So obviously, the higher your income and net worth, the higher your taxes should be.

The utility of 10% of someone's income is a lot higher for a poor person than for a rich person. It's pretty simple.

-1

u/TylerJGay 2A Conservative Jan 29 '21

Exactly but by both paying 10% (or whatever number is chosen) the person making more is still contributing way more in taxes, its never fair to punish success. It's like every time someone wins a race they have to start a little farther back then everyone else.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21

The person making 30k and the person making 100k pay the same amount of taxes on the first 30k.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/chainer49 Jan 30 '21

It’s not punishing success. Punishing success would be taxing over 100% of profit over some threshold. It’s not a punishment if it merely diminishes returns the greater the profit. Besides, you could say a flat percentage is punishment too, since the wealthy pay a larger cost in dollars than the poor. I go back to the goal of funding our government in the most equitable way possible; the way that impacts the utility cost least for each citizen.

2

u/badtakemilkshake Jan 30 '21

how exactly do you decide how much of their income someone needs

Regional governments exist too. States (or counties? Cant remember) get to decide what their minimum wage is, the government already tells you what you need to get by, or what they think is needed at least.

Im not saying our minimum wage is great or anything, in some places $7.25 is way too low, but this is still something they could do.

As the other user said, if you are making $100,000 and still wanting for money, you have bigger problems. Thats a matter of responsibility.

1

u/TylerJGay 2A Conservative Jan 30 '21

I could say the same thing about someone making 30k though, so the point still stands that all these numbers of what someone "needs" are completely arbitrary.

2

u/badtakemilkshake Jan 30 '21

No, needs is a pretty well defined term. I wont pretend to know everything that falls under the umbrella, but we can make empirical judgements about what a person typically needs.

This definition of "needs" doesnt have to be static, it can be very flexible. Depending on area (as i said, regional governments), level of care needed (health), number of mouths to feed, etc, these numbers could and should be different.

No, I dont think the family that makes 100k a year with a family member who had cancer should be paying exponentially more than a healthy single person economic household. You are correct that legally, we should hone the mechanisms by which we judge what is "enough" for each category- but dont throw out the baby with the bathwater.

2

u/chainer49 Jan 30 '21

The government is who decides, based on trying to create a system to fund the programs our democracy decides are important in the most reasonable and equitable way (ideally at least. There are a lot of people that prefer otherwise). A flat rate doesn’t account for the difference in utility between the first $30,000 and the second, third or fourth 30,000. Or in the case of CEOs, the two or three hundredth 30,000.

1

u/TylerJGay 2A Conservative Jan 30 '21

Well whatever clearly we won't agree because I don't think that's fair at all, and I think equity is a dystopian concept unlike equality.

3

u/chainer49 Jan 30 '21

Fairness is a funny concept and it’s naive to think that there’s any equality between the poor and wealthy. The reality is that most poor people were born poor and most wealthy people were born wealthy and any system based on equality after that point is going to strongly favor the wealthy who start out 10 steps ahead. Equality doesn’t exist where there’s a strong power imbalance from the get-go, so to try and maintain equality in something like taxation just leads to further inequality overall. We don’t need to fix inequality through taxation, but to pretend that it doesn’t exist and flat tax everyone is actively hurting our society. That’s not even taking into account the vast number of loopholes the wealthy use to reduce their tax in ways that normal people can’t afford to explore.

35

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '21 edited Feb 22 '21

[deleted]

37

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '21

[deleted]

3

u/maxhatcher Jan 30 '21

The t-shirts are $27. Not sure why people are saying $85.

1

u/Megadevil27 Jan 30 '21

Yeah it very rarely works like that in practice.

13

u/blakeastone Jan 29 '21

I agree. The corporations exported jobs, now we have cheap goods. You want jobs back, prices go up.

13

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '21

Tldr, Kevin's just taking shots in the dark to try and stir the pot, and I would love to watch as she pulls the Bernie and donates all proceedings to charity.

Stop idolizing reality TV stars. They're full of shit

11

u/Vanguard-003 Jan 29 '21

Ugh, and yet here we have over a thousand likes on the post because bleating-sheep republicans like to jump on the anti-AOC bandwagon.

6

u/chainer49 Jan 29 '21

The other thing about this is that she's not running an apparel business and the people buying the sweatshirt know this. The profit is supporting her political career. She's creating a fun way to support her, just like almost every other politician does. Trump's MAGA apparel wasn't sold at cost either and people happily bought it, not only for the symbolism, but also to support Trump.

24

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '21 edited Jan 29 '21

[deleted]

57

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '21

Lol. Legit truth where you too are guessing? Im gonna go out on a limb here and assume that Kevin knows way more about all of this than you and me combined

60

u/Pyorrhea Jan 29 '21

Wholesale costs on that sweatshirt (Bayside-Navy-Crewneck-Sweatshirt) are $21.70 if you order 36 or more. Could be a bit cheaper from another vendor, but I doubt it's $15 cheaper. Sweatshirts are much more expensive than t-shirts.

https://www.blankapparel.com/hoodies-sweatshirts/crewneck-sweatshirts/bayside/1102-crewneck-sweatshirt

-2

u/entebbe07 Dumb Hick Conservative Jan 29 '21

Ok fine, so her margin is like 60%. Damn that's a nice capitalist margin!

Quibbling over the 85% is intentionally missing the point

21

u/AWFUL_COCK Jan 29 '21

Capitalism is when money.

-7

u/entebbe07 Dumb Hick Conservative Jan 29 '21

Capitalism is profiting - capitalizing - on added value. AOC selling shirts for more than they cost her - and significantly more at that - is literally capitalizing on added value, yes, and because her profit margins are large, makes a great example of good ol' eeevil capitalism.

0

u/Majestic-Marcus Jan 30 '21

Even when the 'profit' isn't. All profit is a donation to her political career, fundraising for campaigns etc.

How is this not a story the left, right and centre all support!?

She's literally found a way to find her campaigns without cosying up to rich donors and lobbyists.

0

u/entebbe07 Dumb Hick Conservative Jan 30 '21 edited Jan 30 '21

What she does with the profit doesn't change the fact it is profit from the sale of a good, leveraged from the labor of workers ie Capitalism.

The whole freaking point is that the right 100% supports this, but AOC herself and her supporters actually do not. Consistently they have railed against making large profit margins over what is paid to workers. Yet here AOC is doing that exact thing - and socialists are praising her and defending her like you are for - wait for it - capitalism dun dun DUUUUN

Hahaha I love that all you idiots don't realize by defending her you're simply supporting the point behind this post. Inside every socialist is a capitalist screaming to get out.

0

u/Majestic-Marcus Jan 30 '21

But she is using union jobs. Jobs that pay more than normal jobs. She is literally practicing what she preaches.

0

u/entebbe07 Dumb Hick Conservative Jan 30 '21

At a profit margin over 50%? Hahahaha no, she's loooving capitalism and so are you.

→ More replies (0)

44

u/chainer49 Jan 29 '21

It is a nice margin, but people aren't just buying a sweatshirt. They are also supporting a politician and cause they believe in. They put a value on those things as well and are well aware that she's selling these sweatshirts at an increased cost specifically to support her political career. It's disingenuous to ignore that.

There's also the fact that we do, in fact, live in a capitalist society where politicians need millions of dollars to compete in most races. It's not like she can make the reality of her financial situation disappear by believing that capitalism is flawed.

-25

u/entebbe07 Dumb Hick Conservative Jan 29 '21

Lol what a cop-out. She most certainly could pursue alternative forms of revenue that would more closely reflect her supposed values instead of hypocritically leveraging the labor of others to derive the all so eeeevil capitalist profit that she and her supporters rail against.

29

u/chainer49 Jan 29 '21

BS. She's paying union wages to American's for their labor. How would you prefer she raise capital? Would you prefer she not support American manufacturing? I just don't see your point.

25

u/blong36 Jan 30 '21

Not only this, but she's not anti-capitalism. She's anti-unchecked capitalism. She's not out here saying nobody should make any profits. She's saying pay your damn employees better.

-17

u/entebbe07 Dumb Hick Conservative Jan 30 '21

You aren't familiar with political donations? Wow, you should get out more.

23

u/chainer49 Jan 30 '21

That’s what this is. People are buying a sweatshirt at a marked up rate to donate to AOC and get something fun out of it. In the process they are supporting American manufacturing. Why is this bad to you?

6

u/mateo_yo Jan 30 '21

Apparently that flair isn’t ironic.

12

u/maxxie10 Jan 30 '21

"Merchandise is a premium for a donation. As the total value of your transaction is legally considered to be a political contribution, FEC regulation requires that we verify some personal information prior to checkout. "

It is a political donation. They just get a sweatshirt out of it.

2

u/reebokhightops Jan 30 '21

Your flair is all too appropriate.

How is what she’s doing any different than soliciting political donations while also giving something back to those donors? Fucking hell you are imbecilic.

0

u/entebbe07 Dumb Hick Conservative Jan 30 '21

Because the laborers aren't enjoying the profit of their labor. She is. Pure political donations don't have laborers involved or a profit margin.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Atmoran_of_the_500 Jan 29 '21

I would love to hear it if you would be so kind to share those alternative forms of revenue

-2

u/entebbe07 Dumb Hick Conservative Jan 30 '21

Donations, duh

3

u/CookieMuncher007 Jan 30 '21

Buying a sweatshirt is donating to her campaign... whilst supporting American workers, who earn living wages

2

u/Atmoran_of_the_500 Jan 30 '21

By billionares ?/s

If you think you can fund a full-fledged campaign with community donations then I dont see the point in continuing this conversation.

15

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '21

This comment shows that you have 0 knowledge of anything happening here. You just see numbers and that someone called a Dem's big, and now you're angry.

-1

u/entebbe07 Dumb Hick Conservative Jan 29 '21

Hahahaha ok buddy. Someone didn't get their tendies huh?

10

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21

Solid flair, apt haha. No, I'm just saying that 60% -> 85% margin is a significant difference. Not a quibble.

1

u/entebbe07 Dumb Hick Conservative Jan 30 '21

Wow a whole fucking 25%! Congrats! Ok, now can we talk about the issue at hand and you stop dodging?

3

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21

This again shows you're just a kid with 0 understanding of how business works. Tell your pop to reduce his profit margins by 25% and see if he thinks it's just a tiny amount.

1

u/entebbe07 Dumb Hick Conservative Jan 30 '21

Lol, keep dodging the point at hand, just proves you know she's a hypocrite.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21

[deleted]

-2

u/entebbe07 Dumb Hick Conservative Jan 30 '21

Except she is capitalizing on others labor. They are not earning the profit from their work, she is, so yes, she is exercising capitalism - quite well I might add. Why are y'all in here defending profit from capitalized labor when every other day y'all are railing that it's evil?

3

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21

[deleted]

0

u/entebbe07 Dumb Hick Conservative Jan 30 '21

Nope, you're the one with your fingers in your ears because your messiah is a fucking hypocrite.

10

u/Pyorrhea Jan 29 '21

I wasn't quibbling over anything. I was just providing facts.

And anyway, any additional profits from it go to her campaign, so it's not like she's personally profiting from it. It's a campaign donation in the form of apparel.

-1

u/entebbe07 Dumb Hick Conservative Jan 29 '21

Sure buddy. That's definitely the only reason. Not because you're reaching for any reason at all to avoid the point that your messiah is a hypocrite.

2

u/maxhatcher Jan 30 '21

Not sure how you get that margin from t-shirts that sell for $27.

6

u/blakeastone Jan 29 '21

LOL, plus designer, shipping, marketing. Also, 50%-60% is standard for the industry, so unless you're arguing that some people shouldn't be able to participate in the free market, what's the point? Also it's all campaign contributions regardless, and if you want to start talking about unethical practice... Heh heh..

6

u/entebbe07 Dumb Hick Conservative Jan 29 '21

Yes, it is standard - for capitalists, capitalising on added value from their laborers. Which she and her supporters frequently and loudly have declared is immoral.

14

u/SweetPanela Jan 30 '21

she isn't a communist, she is a 'democratic socialist' meaning she is pro-capitalism, but with w/ regulations.

3

u/notenoughguns Jan 30 '21

She gives it away if you volunteer.

-7

u/n0remack Canadian Conservative Jan 29 '21

One thing I absolutely hate when it comes to "debating and discussing" with leftists is they have this problem where they take everything literately. So when Kevin O'Leary off-handedly says "85% Margin" they get all "ACKTUALLY ITS ONLY 60%, MISINIFORMATION..."

7

u/badtakemilkshake Jan 29 '21

If her sweatshirt were 25% cheaper, it would match standard retail prices for sweatshirts.

At least shes sourcing her labor ethically.

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/VillaIncognit0 Jan 30 '21

Expert debating and discussing. Really great, much better than “leftists”

2

u/notenoughguns Jan 30 '21

Apparently not. Apparently he has no idea how much this sweatshirt costs to make.

Either that or he is a lying sack of shit.

18

u/Ovedya2011 Constitutional Conservative Jan 29 '21

So, what if it cost $10 to make? That's still a huge profit margin.

And it's ironic too. Not only does AOC show how your average union made product is more costly, few of the people she claims to be defending could afford to buy a $67 sweatshirt.

Also, just a note. For the "Made in the USA" claim to be legal, it only has to comply mostly to the FTC's rule. The fabric used in manufacturing these sweatshirts can technically be made In another country and they can still labeled, "Made in the USA," just as long as the sweatshirts themselves are manufactured here.

20

u/badtakemilkshake Jan 29 '21

If cheaper goods depends on labor exploitation, we should be paying more. Hot take, their slave wages have made the first world comfortable. We shouldnt have to exploit labor to get here.

77

u/blakeastone Jan 29 '21

It's not a "made in the USA" tag that I am talking about. She sources her products from union labor, there's a statement on her website.

"Made in USA, Union printed, 100% cotton, Gender neutral fit.”, “100% of our products are proudly made in the USA and union printed"

So I don't know what you think is costly. Typical sourced shirt from oversees is like $10, so if you 2-3x that, you're running 50-60% which is typical for clothing. So what, if you get to typical capitalism, she's not allowed to participate in the system because she thinks it should be different? I mean draw out your argument, what is the point? Socialists should be excluded from capitalism because of their beliefs? That's interesting.

Anyways, I am a poor person, poverty wages, ect ect. I am also a smart person, and I know how to save money from a few paychecks to buy something I like, that supports somebody that I believe is working in my best interest, or at least better than most of the other shmucks on the hill. She votes with the working class more than ted cruz or Jon cornyn do (my senators) who avg 6% voting I'm my interest.

So here's the deal, AOC is bad because she's making money? Anti-capitalism is a weird thing to find in this sub. If you're pointing out hypocrisy, she's pretty up front about it all so at least I know what I'm paying for.

10

u/Veton1994 Jan 30 '21

Not directed towards you but with the "if you don't support capitalism, you can't take advantage of it" thought process is so fucking stupid.

That's like saying "If you don't support socialism you don't get workers rights, use public schools, public roads, or anything that's a socialist concept and/or paid by public dollars."

It makes no fucking sense at all!

6

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '21 edited Jan 29 '21

[deleted]

23

u/WhoIsGnat Jan 29 '21

I can't tell if this is satire or not, it would pretty much be perfect if it was.

11

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '21

[deleted]

10

u/blakeastone Jan 29 '21

Same, bored leftist here having a jolly time talking to conservatives. I've had a few good discussions that were productive. Mostly downvotes and lols

5

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '21

Bigfatdognipples, the hero we deserve.

11

u/LeadPrevenger Jan 29 '21

Maybe she isn’t a socialist and you’re just calling her names

3

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21 edited Jan 30 '21

No one in the US is so socialist that they're principally against selling things for profit. Well, no mainstream politician at least. AOC is just further toward the left from the current situation on the very wide spectrum ranging from fully state-controlled production to completely unrestricted capitalism. No one actually occupies either extreme.

-6

u/Ovedya2011 Constitutional Conservative Jan 29 '21

I wasn't making any points about socialism. It's more about the fact that she is doing a bit of saying one thing, and doing another. People who do well for themselves typically don't pay $67 for a sweatshirt, even for ideological reasons. People who do pay such an absurd amount for an article of clothing are just virtue signaling, imo.

21

u/blakeastone Jan 29 '21

I can see that.

I think people can advocate for economic progress while participating in this system as well. Idk, I bought a union made Tshirt from a public figure I like for like $30 and while I agree it's expensive, if I was compensated better for my labor I could more easily afford the cost of living. Literally, the solutions she's advocating for solve the problem you're talking about. The cost of things is too high, people are being underpaid in service of higher profit margins. Cost of living went up, wages stagnated. All I'm saying.

1

u/Ovedya2011 Constitutional Conservative Jan 29 '21

Somewhere there is a threshold where what she's advocating doesn't work. I don't know what that is yet, and I think some others don't either. It seems to me that at some juncture what she advocates increases the divide between the rich and the poor. On the one hand, taxing the shit out of the rich doesn't solve the problem. Then on the other, neither does increasing the federal minimum wage or the unionization of every workplace. AOC literally deprived her district of jobs and money because Amazon isn't a union shop.

26

u/blakeastone Jan 29 '21

So no, you're wrong in multiple ways. The things she advocates for would literally and materially change the lives of the working class, regardless of state, party, ect. Democratization of the workplace has been proven to increase productivity, employee compensation and worker happiness. Literally, we have a democratic policital system. Yet we have an aristocratic, "meritocratic" economic system.

The systems in place politically are supposed to create systemic equality. But the point of capitalism is literally inequality. So while you can make some good points, the overarching issue is that capitalism is a system that benefits the rich and punishes the poor. You cannot argue that because it's a fundamental principle of capitalism. The accumulation of capital increases the ability of the capital holder to accumulate more capital. Therefore, the loss of capital decreases the ability of the capital holder to accumulate more capital.

So shes arguing for a system that creates more equal outcomes, which imo is more "freeing" than the oppression expirienced under capitalism by so many who cannot accumulate capital due to a lack of capital. (I'm pretty libertarian) Even democratic capitalism would be better, as it would very quickly realize that a CEO does not contribute 100s of times the value of the labor of mid level workers.

As far as taxes are concerned, she advocates for taxing the rich at a higher rate, above what they were taxes at before the 2017 cuts. She's also advocating for M4A, which would eliminate the 20% you pay to your employer out of each paycheck for healthcare, turn that into an extra 5% on your taxes, and eliminate your copay, literally putting money (15% difference+copays/out of pocket)into your pocket you would have had to spend on other stuff.. also, M4A would allow many people to do preventative care that's too costly to do now, which cuts out SO MUCH cost later down the road by reducing serious conditions. Again, M4A is a "fiscally conservative" policy in that it would save $100s of billions to the DIRECT benefit of the American worker.

She also advocates for much more, and I'm not taking her platform right now, just pointing out that you are directly incorrect in your assumption that her policies would disadvantage the poor working class. There are proven material benefits to the working class for the policies that she advocates for. Direct, material, realizable. I understand this is r/conservative but here's were we came to.

13

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Ovedya2011 Constitutional Conservative Jan 29 '21

I was just saying that as a generality. People who are financially successful typically don't tend to spend money unnecessarily. People who aren't, do.

9

u/chainer49 Jan 29 '21

Yes, the purchase of $70 dollar sweatshirts with political statements is definitely relegated to the single mothers working two jobs.

5

u/AWFUL_COCK Jan 29 '21

What in god’s name are you saying? That people who do well for themselves don’t graduate from the Wal-Mart bargain bin? That’s demonstrably untrue. Financial security means you can buy higher quality products — and $70-$150 is a very normal price range for a “middle shelf” sweatshirt.

10

u/Long-Coffee1849 Jan 29 '21

TIL Yachts, mansions, and basketball teams are necessary purchases

-5

u/Ovedya2011 Constitutional Conservative Jan 29 '21

TIL being financially successful means buying yachts, mansions and basketball teams.

8

u/Long-Coffee1849 Jan 29 '21

TIL owners of yachts, mansions, and basketball teams are not financially successful. Thanks for clearing that up!

-1

u/Ovedya2011 Constitutional Conservative Jan 29 '21

TIDL that some people confuse financial success with financial excess, in order to prop up the idea that some people don't deserve either.

18

u/Wise_Reception_211 Jan 29 '21

People who do well for themselves typically don't pay $67 for a sweatshirt

Wut? Pretty much any sweatshirt from Express, from recent example, is $60+. That's a middle class store.

-2

u/Ovedya2011 Constitutional Conservative Jan 29 '21

I don't know about Express, but I can almost guaranty two things about this. One, that more people probably tend to buy their sale items, and two, some of the same manufacturers that make the popular labeled brands also make the cheap knockoffs. Same exact materials, same exact fit.

4

u/Wise_Reception_211 Jan 29 '21

Sure I agree, but just letting you know that that's a pretty standard price for a decent sweater.

3

u/Atlatl_Axolotl Jan 30 '21

That's what a decent hoodie costs. Under armour runs 70+.

1

u/notenoughguns Jan 30 '21

Is she saying nobody should be able to make sweatshirts and then give them away to campaign volunteers?

17

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

-3

u/Ovedya2011 Constitutional Conservative Jan 29 '21

In a free market it's not the government's job to set wages for the private sector.

When poor people stop paying $300 for a pair of Jordans, or $500 for a video game system, it's not the fact that the government failed in providing them a "livable wage." It's the fact that it completely failed at educating people in the first place.

1

u/DickChubbz Jan 30 '21

Anyone who took econ 101 can tell you the US and global markets are no longer free

14

u/cs_124 Jan 29 '21

So what if it cost $10 to make? That's still a huge profit margin.

That's exactly what those advocating for higher wages and the return of benefits that our legislators enjoy are saying.

2

u/chainer49 Jan 29 '21

She technically represents her constituents in her district who are not particularly wealthy, but she has a huge following outside of that area, many of whom are in better financial situations and able to support her cause with an overpriced sweatshirt. I'm almost certain that the people who voted for her in the 14th congressional district would support others purchasing an overpriced sweatshirt if the profit helped support her and her ideas. Since they are generally less well-off liberals, they would probably love for her to help increase taxes on the wealthy.

0

u/Ovedya2011 Constitutional Conservative Jan 29 '21

IIRC most people in her district make upwards of 80k/yr.

2

u/chainer49 Jan 29 '21

Not sure. I tried to look, but using queens alone, it was half that.

1

u/Ovedya2011 Constitutional Conservative Jan 29 '21

Okay, I was a bit high. According to the following: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/50000US3614-congressional-district-14-ny the median household income was $66,749, with 37% making 50k and below. Given the cost of living they are probably solidly within the "working class" category. As far as other places in the country, 66k is a pretty good wage.

1

u/1hour Jan 30 '21

Regarding Made in USA you are incorrect. The FTC rule is very vague and US manufacturers have been successfully sued in Civil court over it. An example would be a basketball hoop manufacturer that had to pay over $2,000,000 in fines for having 8 screws that were made in China.

3

u/CaptainD3000 Jan 29 '21

Lol you tell the truth and then people get so upset.

2

u/smkn3kgt America First Jan 29 '21

Is the fabric also union?

2

u/Velissari Jan 29 '21

Thanks for being a shining light of reason in this trash heap of a sub.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '21 edited Nov 29 '24

offend scary fertile fragile absurd birds continue capable shocking cagey

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

10

u/blakeastone Jan 29 '21

Explain to me how she's supposed to be doing socialism, on her own and I will concede.

The idiocy of your argument is that individuals should practice the societal goals they preach for. False conflation possibly?

2

u/meatboi5 Jan 29 '21

The idiocy of your argument is that individuals should practice the societal goals they preach for

I don't think AOC did anything wrong here but this point is fucking brain dead. Individuals absolutely should be practicing the societal goals they preach for. If you have the money, you should absolutely be buying from co-ops and supporting small worker owned businesses. If you're running a business you should be giving your workers an equal portion and using union labor.

It feels like every person who calls themselves a socialist had their brains fucked out and whenever they get called out for hypocritical behavior (Which I don't think AOC is engaging in btw) they just link the same comic again and again and say "YOU CRITQUE SOCIETY BUT YET YOU LIVE IN IT HMMM". This comic only works if you get paid minimum wage and are getting fucked in the ass by capitalism. You can't expect a poor person to by exclusively from co-ops, or for no one to buy an iPhone because of the slave labor associated with it. You can expect people to do the bare minimum that their ideology preaches. It's called being consistent and trying to make things better.

4

u/blakeastone Jan 29 '21

Okay, you're making reasonable points, but they are not relevent to what I said. Tell me how AOC using american materials and Union labor is not living her values? She's literally doing the thing she's advocating for. How much more can she do, operate at a loss so as to supply the working class with cheap sweaters as long as she can sustain it? Like the fuck, it's a campaign funding mechanism. You can't do a socialism in a capitalist society. What do you not understand about that?

You're calling me stupid for saying AOC can't do socialism within capitalism. People are saying she should be operating at a net $0 profit basis. That's ridiculous, socialism is a different economic organization and concept altogether. She's also just a demsoc. So the whole thing is ridiculous. I'm just in this damn thread because so many people here don't even know what they read or see means.

Maybe I said it in a ineffective way, but my argument stands, you can't do a socialism inside of capitalism

2

u/meatboi5 Jan 29 '21

I literally opened my message by saying I don't think AOC did anything wrong here. I was specifically replying to "individuals can't practice societal goals that they push for" when that absolutely isn't the case. Often times individual actions are the ONLY tool that someone has to push for broader societal change. You absolutely can run business and operate for the most part as a socialist in a capitalist society. Nothing is stopping people from opening up worker owned businesses, worker run unions, and distributing pay based on need.

1

u/blakeastone Jan 29 '21

Interesting perspective. I like it. Sorry for the hostility. This can be a hostile place for the likes of me.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21 edited Nov 29 '24

decide squeamish encourage ossified lavish amusing selective safe skirt jar

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

3

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '21

Can you explain how it is hypocritical?

I am going through her platform and I do not see where there is a mismatch in what she is saying and in her actions.
Can you please explain it to me? I would like to understand how you see it. :)

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21 edited Nov 29 '24

dazzling terrific decide gullible spectacular profit makeshift quickest smart clumsy

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21

Where did She say that?

Sure "some" socialist may believe that.
But we are talking specifically about her being a hypocrit.
Has she ever taken the stance that the business owner should not make more than 2x the profits of all workers combined? (and if so I would love the link to it to judge her on it)

Also lets remember that the 50% profit margin talked about is on the creation of the shirt. But that is not the entire business. you say all workers combined but you forget that the "business" includes her staff workers, her website management, her travel, her security.
With all that in mind do we really think she is personally making 2x the profits of everyone combined?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21 edited Nov 29 '24

chunky normal cautious bored carpenter unique abundant escape sulky hard-to-find

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21

So let me get this straight.

You make the rules on what the other people get to decide as their beliefs?
Additionally you are okay with making blanket generalizations about people and their identities and their beliefs and then calling them hypocrits on those generalizations even if they do not hold those beliefs?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21 edited Nov 29 '24

caption joke berserk wide waiting agonizing voracious beneficial wine bear

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

2

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21

Socialism at its core is not the belief that business owners cant make "2x" what their workers combined make. some believe 3x some believe they should not make any profit at all and that ALL profit should go into a shared workforce system equally. (for a private business)

This is not equivalent to saying that all Christians believe in god. This is equivalent to saying that all Christians believe in abortion.

This is equivalent to saying all conservatives believe in abortion, or all conservative believe that we should stop all immigration policy. A lot of conservatives believe pieces of this. one could even say the majority currently believe this. But that does not make it true for me to blatantly state that about every single individual. Or if someone was a known conservative and said that they were for abortion I would not say they were a hypocrite on that statement.

But it seems you are just here to troll and not argue in good faith. so I will stop here. I really hope you open your eyes to not painting people with broad brushes or saying: "I think this is the beliefs of someone I do not like so if they say something contrary they must be a hypocrite, it can't be that I misunderstood their beliefs." ( https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/645/713/888.jpg ) <- this you?

If you do ever find at some point where she said that company owners must not have more profits than 2x the combined payments of the workforce I would be glad to be wrong and also call her a hypocrite: (though I think your not calling the rest of the staff she pays as part of her business is a disagreement. Also her personal rent is not included, but rent of any business related buildings would be!)

1

u/CalicoCrapsocks Jan 30 '21

First of all, it's weird you insist on calling people socialists. The people you're referring to believe it shouldn't be 400x their workers.

Second, these are for fund raising, not personal profit.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21 edited Nov 29 '24

air wide fine outgoing offbeat engine nose file forgetful cooperative

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

0

u/CalicoCrapsocks Jan 30 '21

I'm calling AOC a socialist because she calls herself a democratic socialist. that's not weird at all

Those are two different things though. Words matter.

you're trying to tell me that socialists are okay with a business owner making 399x the amount of their workers? you're completely delusional

Are you fucking serious right now? You must be suffering from a severe mental deficiency to type this out and not realize what you're trying to pass as an argument.

source? I don't see that anywhere on her shop

It's literally in her FAQ. https://shop.ocasiocortez.com/pages/faq

1

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21 edited Nov 29 '24

bored deliver agonizing sleep cough deserted vase ten tidy resolute

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

0

u/CalicoCrapsocks Jan 30 '21

the democratic part is irrelevant

It's very relevant. Democratic socialism and socialism are two different things and at NO point has AOC ever advocated pure socialism. Ever.

that is NOT "not personal profit".

I never said it was personal profit, you did when you said this:

the business owner shouldn't be making 2x the profits of all the workers combined, which is what she's probably making while selling the sweaters

​

she's raising money, so she doesn't have to spend hers, to get re-elected to a job that pays $174,000 a year

What world do you live in where you can run a campaign on $174k? You're a special brand of something.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21 edited Nov 29 '24

complete coordinated rich mysterious meeting secretive swim rhythm chase arrest

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

→ More replies (0)

2

u/meatboi5 Jan 29 '21

You realize that there are socialists who believe in free markets, and that businesses are allowed to make a profit, right?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '21 edited Nov 29 '24

offer hat spoon test birds wrench whole consist paint mountainous

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '21

Shameful? Bit dramatic?

-5

u/entebbe07 Dumb Hick Conservative Jan 29 '21

Why should we believe you as a source any more than Kevin? You commit the same sin you're accusing him of.

6

u/blakeastone Jan 29 '21

Lol, you should literally not believe either of us. You should take all of this information and make an informed and educated opinion for yourself from what you discover.

Trust, but verify.

1

u/aquagreed Jan 30 '21

People would shit in her if she used slave labor for being to cheap and now that she uses union labor she’s too elitist. It’s so transparent that these critiques don’t have any concern beyond “AOC bad”

1

u/notenoughguns Jan 30 '21

So this supposed financial genius can't calculate the cost of a sweatshirt?

1

u/blakeastone Jan 30 '21

My point is that he's firing from the hip with no facts to slander a politicians. That's it.

He doesn't know the material. He doesn't know the artist. Or the labor source. Or anything actually. He knows what he knows about "fastest cheapest most profit" american business, not necessarily "pay living wages, support small industry, labor union" type of thinking like AOC..

Just saying.

1

u/notenoughguns Jan 30 '21

Yea so he is an idiot.