War and Peace theory of shopping.Follow

.[Chicago pizza superiority (so Papas Johns can go pound sand anyway) remark goes here]

I suppose it beats the Anna Karenina theory of shopping, yeah? You know, where you have buyer's remorse and throw yourself under a train.

Um... Except that they had that choice *before* Ombamacare was passed. There was nothing preventing people from boycotting Papa John's (or any of dozens of other chain restaurants) that did not provide health benefits to their employees if that was something they were really upset about. Yet, they weren't. So is it really about those companies not providing health benefits? Or is it about them cutting their employees hours in order to comply with the new rules in Obamacare while still providing the exact same benefits they were before the law was passed?


I'll give you a hint: It's not really about the health coverage.

Bring what into view? That Papa John's doesn't offer health benefits to their near minimum wage part time mostly student employees, just like pretty much every other fast food restaurant, or chain store, or mall store, or grocery store, convenience store, bagel shop, etc. Or that the CEO of Papa John's made a point of highlighting how Obamacare is going to hurt the employees working in those kinds of jobs. If the problem is people getting their hours cut because of this, then blame Obamacare because it's why that's happening. You can't blame the businesses for responding exactly according to how anyone with a basic understanding of business said they'd respond. Blame the idiots who passed the law knowing that this would happen.



No. It's not what capitalism is about. Capitalism would be where the government doesn't create mandates like Obamacare, and thus Papa John's is free to chose to provide or not provide health care based on the market forces involved. And they're also free to give their employees hours based on the market forces as well. And they can pay them based on the market forces. And they can charge for their goods and services based on market forces.

Do you see how the absence of protest prior to Obamacare shows that it's not the free market choice of not paying his low skill low salary workers health benefits that people got upset at. Thus, the protests aren't the result of capitalism. They are the result of socialism. The government intentionally injected itself into industry to force a choice that would not exist under capitalism: Either pay health benefits *or* reduce the number of full time employees you employ. It's the result of that choice that is upsetting people (because they're making the obvious one). So don't blame capitalism. Blame Obama. Prior to the passage of that law, a part time employee at Papa John's could get 40 hours a week if he wanted. Now he can't (or it's far less likely that he will). Hell. He likely can't even get 30 hours a week now (not sure where the cutoff is). So he's taking home less pay as a direct consequence of Obamacare.

That's not capitalism. It's socialism.

Just a side not, having worked at Papa Johns, part-time over the years, the only associates that currently receive benefits are the full-time management staff. The part-timers, from managers, all the way down to drivers do not receive benefits. I'll also mention that since employees share the cost of their health premiums, the ACA will impact their own pay as well, not just what it costs the employer.

You're only allowed to buy more of a product, not less, and that product has to be fried chicken.

But it's not the lack of health benefits that is the issue. Tons of businesses with similar structures to Papa Johns don't provide health benefits. The point of contention is that Papa John's is choosing to reduce their workers hours in order to avoid being required by Obamacare to provide employees who never received health benefits before with health benefits. It's the choice to reduce hours to avoid the mandate that is the issue.

The point being if Obamacare were not passed, Papa John's would not be reducing their part time workers hours. So the blame likes in the change in the law, not with Papa John's.



Ok. You'll get no argument from me over the reality that people only get outraged over things when someone with a loud enough microphone tells them to get outraged. But that does not change the fact that the selectivity in this case is motivated, not by the absence of health care by Papa John's. but the response of the company to a law that is the darling of the left and should not be questioned or criticized. Do you know how many companies have tons of part time workers and don't provide them with health benefits? Do you know how many are shuffling their employee hours around in order to avoid the mandates in Obamacare? Want to know why Papa John's is being singled out? Not because they're doing this, but because they committed the cardinal sin of actually saying "We're being forced to do this bad thing by Obamcare".

I don't know anyone boycotting Papa John's who isn't a fan of Obamacare. Not health benefits. But the law itself. That's the problem with this. It's so obviously not about the benefits, but about circling the wagons around the law, and by extension, the president. Is a boycott at its most basic a capitalist behavior? Absolutely. But the motivation for this isn't about consumers not liking the product or business practices in question, or they'd be boycotting about 80 percent of the retail/restaurant industry. The motivation is protection of what absolutely is a socialist policy.


So while we could suggest that the individual *might* be employing a tool of capitalism in the form of a boycott, the motivation for doing so is socialist. The reason for targeting that company is about making other companies afraid to speak out against the law. This is about intimidation. Nothing more.



When those decisions have to do with market choices, yes. But that's not really the case here.



They're not making "informed decisions" though. They're making a decision based on incredibly skewed and biased information. They're being told "boycott this company because of X", while magically not being told to boycott the 500 other companies also doing X. So they're not really doing it because of X, but because of some other reason. And that reason goes to why those calling for the boycott did so. And that's absolutely not about benefits or hours or wages. It's because Papa John's was one of the few companies that has actually publicly criticized Obamacare.

Lying to people about what's going on is not really informing them, and people making decisions based on that are not making "informed decisions". They're being used as ideological tools.

Them and every other chain store businesses which doesn't give benefits to part time workers (which is nearly all of them). So why single out Papa John's? Seriously. Think about that.



Er? Yes. It's exactly the same thing. WTF?

Edited, Mar 14th 2013 11:28am by gbaji

So the CEO incompetently marketed his company and that somehow invalidates the principles of capitalism. Interesting theory.

Hahahah... so now it's up to you to decide when people are making informed enough decisions and when their purchase decisions count as capitalism?

Look, there's no mystery here: Schnatter is buds with your failed presidential candidate and so now you need to tortuously try to turn consumer decisions into "not-capitalism" because God forbid you admit that the system isn't working the way you'd like on an emotional level. So it goes and all but one day you might want to wake up.

Let's try an experiment here.

If I start the day with $10 and by the end of the day I have $20, have I lost money or gained money?
AnswerSpoilergained money

If I start the day with $10 and by the end of the day I have $5, have I lost money or gained money?
Answer:Spoilerlost money

If I start the day with $10 and by the end of the day I have $15, have I lost money or gained money?
Answer:Spoilergained money

Edited, Mar 14th 2013 3:29pm by cidbahamut

Every other one? No. But Papa John's is not the only one. Do the kids working the Fryolater or grill at McDonalds get health benefits? They spend probably a hell of a lot more money on various charitable things though, don't they? Point being that tons of chain style businesses are facing this dilemma, and many of them are choosing the same path as Papa John's. How about Wendy's? AppleBees? Red Lobster? Taco Bell? That's just a short list that came up on a quick google search. And those are the ones that there's been some public discussion over because of this issue. Papa John's just made a more public deal of blaming Obamacare for this.



Charity is "throwing money away"? Perhaps the complaint is that the business should get to decide how to give its money away, not the government. Cause you know: freedom!

Edited, Mar 14th 2013 7:06pm by gbaji

Um... It costs me $10 per hour to employ someone, and now it costs me $15 per hour. As a result, my yearly profits are $5M lower this year than last year. Have I gained or lost money?

Answer:Spoilerlost money

See how that works? By your logic, no one's who's employed can ever lose money as long as they're losing it slower than they gain it. So if I get paid $20/hour, and I drop $10 every hour on the ground and it's eaten by a grue, I didn't really lose that $10, cause I'm still $10 ahead at the end of the hour, right? Lol!

WTF did I just read... Gbaji you need your head examined.

Seriously a profit is a profit, you cant say I made less money this year then last year therefore I lost money.

Yes the worker is still making a 'profit' every hour hes 20 dollars richer, if he stupidly 'invests' or loses that 10 of money, or some random money eating bug or some weird **** shows up and he decides to feed it, that's his fault. But by the end of the day hes still 10 dollars per hour richer then he was before coming into work.

As for your I made less money this year, then last year, therefore unprofitable. Umm not If you make more then it costs to produce you are still making a profit. Just less of a profit then previous years.