/dev/null Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 What the F are you doing? And, why? Please tell us why. Poking fun at EII Because he's a lazy government worker with an unhealthy obsession of a particular fish. I know that's about 10,000 words short of what you would consider to be an acceptable response, but I think you get the gist of it
IDBillzFan Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 Latest dining fad — labor-cost surcharges Wait, so what you're saying is that companies forced to pay an unreasonable minimum wage for a bus boy are having customers pick up the tab by increasing their prices? Weird. You'd have thought someone would have predicted that or something.
Maury Ballstein Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 Papa John's charges a 2.75 delivery fee and gives the driver .96 cents of it The other 1.80 pays for his 345th Ferrari while the drivers make less.
IDBillzFan Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 Papa John's charges a 2.75 delivery fee and gives the driver .96 cents of it The other 1.80 pays for his 345th Ferrari while the drivers make less. If only the driver could find a way to broaden and elevate his employment options.
/dev/null Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 Papa John's charges a 2.75 delivery fee and gives the driver .96 cents of it The other 1.80 pays for his 345th Ferrari while the drivers make less. If paying a $2.75 delivery fee doesn't bother you but the fact that only $0.96 of that fee does bother you, I suggest getting off your fat lazy arse and driving to the store to pick up your pizza. This solves 3 problems -The driver is no longer oppressed -The greedy capitalist is no longer making money -You just saved $2.76 that could have been better invested
Maury Ballstein Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 (edited) If only the driver could find a way to broaden and elevate his employment options.ive worked there over the winters as I'm free 3 months a year and I feel bad for the 10 people in the store busting their asses for nothing. What paid 100 plus a night in tips as a high schooler now pays 50-80 They also skirted the minimum wage by paying less while not in store. Edited March 12, 2017 by Ryan L Billz
Rob's House Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 Does anyone else ever read through an old thread and think "I made a great point there" and then cringe at the next post thinking "did I really say that"? Papa John's charges a 2.75 delivery fee and gives the driver .96 cents of it The other 1.80 pays for his 345th Ferrari while the drivers make less. That's some damn good pizza, especially after a 12 pack.
boyst Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 Does anyone else ever read through an old thread and think "I made a great point there" and then cringe at the next post thinking "did I really say that"? That's some damn good pizza, especially after a 12 pack. I've done similar... sort of. Those look back threads saying what we were thinking. I had said something and it turned out to be right. I didn't even look but quoted myself saying he gets it. Another time I almost argued against myself. Reading older comments I was a lot more polite.
KD in CA Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 Despite $15/hour wage, adult just can't get enough hours at McDonalds to support her disabled husband, daughter and grandchildren...and it's not fair. The article is literally titled "The Tyranny of a Fast-Food Schedule." I got this far in the article before I decided I needed some help with the math. When I came to the United States 18 years ago, my American Dream was to get a good job and give my kids opportunities that I never had. I started working in McDonald’s in Manhattan in 2013. So she showed up in the US in 1999 ready to work hard and put her American Dream to work. And somehow managed -- in only 14 years -- to land a job an entry level job at McDonald's?
Drunkard Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 Wait, so what you're saying is that companies forced to pay an unreasonable minimum wage for a bus boy are having customers pick up the tab by increasing their prices? Weird. You'd have thought someone would have predicted that or something. Is it better to let the welfare system subsidize the people who work for an artificially low minimum wage? That's what happens now. The minimum wage should be set at such a level that people who work 40 hours a week earn enough to support themselves and not be eligible for government assistance. The best way to trim welfare budgets is to mke it so the people who work for Walmart, McDonalds, etc earn enough to stay off public assistance. Higher wages would also mean increased tax revenue by widening the tax base.
IDBillzFan Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 Is it better to let the welfare system subsidize the people who work for an artificially low minimum wage? That's what happens now. No. We need to do away with our welfare system. To paraphrase Dennis Miller, I'm happy to help the helpless, not the clueless.
The_Dude Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 I know that you are not one of the recent refugees but you haven't posted here until recently (as far as I know). My impression of you is that you are a good poster and I am glad that you are here at PPP. I've posted here for many years (don't let my post count fool you, I have 14 or 15000 posts under the 3rdnlng name) and wondered why newbees jumped right in with both feet and more than likely made assumptions about other posters that were off base. LA pointed out above that Rob was being sarcastic. Anyone who has been around PPP for awhile would instantly know that. I guess we have had a couple refugees banned already. This message isn't necessarily meant for you but for those refugees. I'm not saying that they should just lurk, but a lot of sarcasm gets thrown around here, and they should at least tread a little lightly until they get to know the lay of the land. I didn't discover the political forum till just recently. Glad to be here. He was being sarcastic. Yes, even back in 2014. I caught that after I posted that, but I decided to leave it as it illustrates the point he was conveying.
Drunkard Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 No. We need to do away with our welfare system. To paraphrase Dennis Miller, I'm happy to help the helpless, not the clueless. I'd be ok with that for everyone who isn't disabled as long as minimum wage was set to a level that every job paid enough to live without poverty. Hell, I'd even be okay with eliminating corporate taxes altogether if that was the case. What I don't like is allowing companies like Walmart and countless other companies to pay their employees so little that most of their employees (even full time ones) qualify for government assistance. Why should the rest of us have to subsidize their employees when they make billions in profits? If you work 40 hours per week, whether it's from one full time job or multiple part time ones you should make enough money not to need government assistance. I'd like to see Trump negotiate that deal. Raise the minimum wage over the poverty line in exchange for the elimination of all corporate income taxes. Unfortunately it won't happen because too many businesses already have it both ways. They shirk their tax burdens with loop holes while getting the government to subsidize their low wages with welfare, food stamps, heating oil subsidies, and medicaid.
Nanker Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 I'd be ok with that for everyone who isn't disabled as long as minimum wage was set to a level that every job paid enough to live without poverty. Hell, I'd even be okay with eliminating corporate taxes altogether if that was the case. What I don't like is allowing companies like Walmart and countless other companies to pay their employees so little that most of their employees (even full time ones) qualify for government assistance. Why should the rest of us have to subsidize their employees when they make billions in profits? If you work 40 hours per week, whether it's from one full time job or multiple part time ones you should make enough money not to need government assistance. I'd like to see Trump negotiate that deal. Raise the minimum wage over the poverty line in exchange for the elimination of all corporate income taxes. Unfortunately it won't happen because too many businesses already have it both ways. They shirk their tax burdens with loop holes while getting the government to subsidize their low wages with welfare, food stamps, heating oil subsidies, and medicaid. This is old data - circa 2007, but it blows a hole in some mistaken ideas about Walmart and its employees healthcare. Of course you shouldn't believe it because the article comes from the AltRight Fascist Leaning WaPo. "According to the report, 22 percent of employees receive health benefits under a spouse's plan. Nearly 5 percent are on Medicare. Four percent are insured through their parents, school or college. About 2 percent are covered by Medicaid, and another 1 percent use an alternate state program." The 5 percent on Medicare are near, at or over age 65.
unbillievable Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 Is it better to let the welfare system subsidize the people who work for an artificially low minimum wage? That's what happens now. The minimum wage should be set at such a level that people who work 40 hours a week earn enough to support themselves and not be eligible for government assistance. The best way to trim welfare budgets is to mke it so the people who work for Walmart, McDonalds, etc earn enough to stay off public assistance. Higher wages would also mean increased tax revenue by widening the tax base. Every time they raise the minimum wage, the poverty line for welfare is also increased. After decades of liberals using this argument, it still hasn't sunk in that it doesn't work like that. People don't come off welfare. People don't even lose their jobs (like conservatives argue). The end result is ALWAYS a noticeable increase in the inflation rate. The market adjusts. There is a reason why the costs are ridiculously high in areas where social programs have artificially pumped unearned capital into the market; The housing market, healthcare, education... booms caused by government programs. "poverty" is an arbitrary term like "fair" or "liberal." The definition changes, even if you don't compare Americans against the rest of the world. In just one decade, cell phones have become a bare necessity; while my grandmother grew up without a refrigerator. Even within this thread, people consider themselves "poor" because AFTER paying all their monthly bills, they don't have much left for going out to the movies, or restaurants; while admitting to having multiple vehicles, cellphones, tv's, ...living in houses, etc.
Drunkard Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 This is old data - circa 2007, but it blows a hole in some mistaken ideas about Walmart and its employees healthcare. Of course you shouldn't believe it because the article comes from the AltRight Fascist Leaning WaPo. "According to the report, 22 percent of employees receive health benefits under a spouse's plan. Nearly 5 percent are on Medicare. Four percent are insured through their parents, school or college. About 2 percent are covered by Medicaid, and another 1 percent use an alternate state program." The 5 percent on Medicare are near, at or over age 65. Point made. Not nearly as any of their employees are on medicaid as I suspected, but that still doesn't mean we (taxpayers) aren't subsizing them. The article is about health insurance and doesn't include other subsidies sych as welfare, food stamps, wic, hud, or things like heati g oil subsidies. The threshold for an adult to receive medicaid is significantly higher than for a child. How many of those employees have child sponging off the medicaid system because walmart sets their wages so low? I imagine that's significantly higher but the article doesn't say.
unbillievable Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 Point made. Not nearly as any of their employees are on medicaid as I suspected, but that still doesn't mean we (taxpayers) aren't subsizing them. The article is about health insurance and doesn't include other subsidies sych as welfare, food stamps, wic, hud, or things like heati g oil subsidies. The threshold for an adult to receive medicaid is significantly higher than for a child. How many of those employees have child sponging off the medicaid system because walmart sets their wages so low? I imagine that's significantly higher but the article doesn't say. easy fix: Lower the welfare line to equal minimum wage. No one with a job working 40hrs a week receives assistance.
Drunkard Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 (edited) Every time they raise the minimum wage, the poverty line for welfare is also increased. After decades of liberals using this argument, it still hasn't sunk in that it doesn't work like that. People don't come off welfare. People don't even lose their jobs (like conservatives argue). The end result is ALWAYS a noticeable increase in the inflation rate. The market adjusts. There is a reason why the costs are ridiculously high in areas where social programs have artificially pumped unearned capital into the market; The housing market, healthcare, education... booms caused by government programs. "poverty" is an arbitrary term like "fair" or "liberal." The definition changes, even if you don't compare Americans against the rest of the world. In just one decade, cell phones have become a bare necessity; while my grandmother grew up without a refrigerator. Even within this thread, people consider themselves "poor" because AFTER paying all their monthly bills, they don't have much left for going out to the movies, or restaurants; while admitting to having multiple vehicles, cellphones, tv's, ...living in houses, etc. You've made some good points. For it to have any shot of working there would definitely need to be a complete overhaul to the welfare system, even more so than the deal in the 90's between Clinton and Gingrich. I think it would be worth a shot though because the path we're currently on is leading no where. Inflation would definitely occur but not as much as conservatives tend to say. Hell, even when the Papa John's guy was crying poor during the Obamacare roll out he estimated that he would only need to increase the price of each pizza 10 to 14 cents in order to provide his full time employees with healthcare. I'd say that's worth it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/11/12/breaking-down-centi-millionaire-papa-john-schnatters-obamacare-math/amp/ Edited March 12, 2017 by Drunkard
unbillievable Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 (edited) You've made some good points. For it to have any shot of working there would definitely need to be a complete overhaul to the welfare system, even more so than the deal in the 90's between Clinton and Gingrich. I think it would be worth a shot though because the path we're currently on is leading no where. Inflation would definitely occur but not as much as conservatives tend to say. Hell, even when the Papa John's guy was crying poor during the Obamacare roll out he estimated that he would only need to increase the price of each pizza 10 to 14 cents in order to provide his full time employees with healthcare. I'd say that's worth it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/11/12/breaking-down-centi-millionaire-papa-john-schnatters-obamacare-math/amp/ What the Papa John's guy didn't factor in, is that those are what his costs will be if the market remained the same and only his company participated. A system wide increase in wages affects the costs of everything, and he would no longer be given that original price. (So how much more would he have to raise his pizza prices if healthcare also doubled in price overnight? It won't be 14 cents.) If Walmart decides to increase their wages, their employees would benefit in the current marketplace. If every company did the same, then there would be a flood of capital vying for the same finite amount of products prompting a rise in prices. So Walmart gives it's employess 10$ more, but suddenly the cost of a Happy Meal is also 10$ more. What exactly changed? It's simple economics. Easy math. The problem is that people will ignore the numbers because they want to feel good about themselves. That's all the minimum wage argument really is. Decades of examples show us that it changes practically NOTHING locally, -until outside communities start preying on the imbalance (like moving manufacturing to satellite cities; or mexico). Edited March 12, 2017 by unbillievable
Beef Jerky Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 If paying a $2.75 delivery fee doesn't bother you but the fact that only $0.96 of that fee does bother you, I suggest getting off your fat lazy arse and driving to the store to pick up your pizza. This solves 3 problems -The driver is no longer oppressed -The greedy capitalist is no longer making money -You just saved $2.76 that could have been better invested You don't save the money since you spent it on the gas + car wear and tear.
Recommended Posts