Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

War and Peace theory of shopping.Follow

#52 Mar 14 2013 at 8:46 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
gbaji wrote:
cidbahamut wrote:
gbaji wrote:
cidbahamut wrote:

I also don't buy the whole sob story about how they have to increase prices and sh*t. There's always the option of just going "you know what, we'll just eat that cost because we're still making boatloads of profit and it's the right thing to do". Profit margins becoming slightly less gargantuan is not the same thing as losing money.


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


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?
Answergained 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:lost 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:gained money


Um...

It's ok if you need more time to work it out. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll make it to 2nd grade math one of these days.
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#53 Mar 14 2013 at 8:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Charity is "throwing money away"?
I can see how the Ronald House and the Super Bowl Coin Toss Free Pizza deal would seem similar to you. Smiley: laugh


The argument was about the company having enough profits to give money away, and thus they shouldn't complain about having to spend some of those profits providing health care to their workers.. How they choose to give it away isn't the issue. That they have enough to do so, is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#54 Mar 14 2013 at 8:57 PM Rating: Good
******
44,275 posts
gbaji wrote:
The argument was about the company having enough profits to give money away,
I guess this is the point where you've been completely convinced I'm correct, but feel obligated to continue to play your self imposed role and continue to naysay, so I'll do you a favor and let this be the last post in association with this specific sub-topic and let you simply have the last word you're trying so desperately to achieve.

Good laughs though. No one can be that clueless on how charity works. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#55 Mar 14 2013 at 8:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
BeanX the Irrelevant wrote:
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.


If you made less money because someone else forced you to spend it on something you didn't want to spend it on, yes you can.

Quote:
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 sh*t shows up and he decides to feed it, that's his fault.


That's not how losses are calculated though. If you pick my pocket while I'm in the lunch line at work, and take $10 from me, even though I earned more than $10 that day at work, I still lost $10. WTF?

Quote:
But by the end of the day hes still 10 dollars per hour richer then he was before coming into work.


So it's ok to steal any amount of money from someone as long as he has more money at the end of the day than he had at the beginning? So you've just justified employers paying their employees $1 a day, right? Cause that's not a loss relative to their current pay at all since they still are making money.

Please tell me you understand why what you're arguing is ridiculous.

Quote:
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.


I didn't say "unprofitable". Don't put words in my mouth. I said that the dollars forced to be spent that the business didn't want to spend is a loss to the business. If you make me pay $10 for something I don't want to spend money on, I lost that $10. Period. It does not matter that during the same time period that you did that, I earned more than $10. Again, your logic requires claiming that nothing taken from someone is ever a loss as long as there's some time frame we can say their total dollars still increased.

That's a completely unworkable definition of "loss". And one that even the US government (and the IRS) doesn't try to foist on us. If I earn $100k this year, and I invest $10k of it and lose it all in the market, I get to deduct that $10k loss from my income taxes. Why? Because even though I ended up with more money than I started, it still lost that money. You're trying to invent a new definition here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#56 Mar 15 2013 at 6:54 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,216 posts
gbaji wrote:
[ I said that the dollars forced to be spent that the business didn't want to spend is a loss to the business. If you make me pay $10 for something I don't want to spend money on, I lost that $10.

Your reasoning is getting really convoluted?

I trust you're aware of this.

Desperate measures for desperate times eh? Smiley: clown




Edited, Mar 15th 2013 2:57pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#57 Mar 15 2013 at 7:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This is the same feller who argued that if you don't rob me for $10, I just made $10.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Mar 15 2013 at 3:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
[ I said that the dollars forced to be spent that the business didn't want to spend is a loss to the business. If you make me pay $10 for something I don't want to spend money on, I lost that $10.

Your reasoning is getting really convoluted?


How the **** is this convoluted? I think some people are getting caught up on the semantics here. If your boss comes up to you and says you're going to have to take a pay cut, and you'll earn $50 less a week, you're going to consider that a $50 loss per week. Right?

Similarly. If your boss comes up to you and says that it will cost you $50 more per week for your share of your health benefits, you're also going to consider that a $50/week loss.

In both cases, you are doing the same work and getting the same benefits, but you're earning less (or spending more depending on how you want to look at it). Regardless of what label you apply to that, it's a negative financial effect on you. In the same way, forcing a business to pay for something they were not required to pay for before represents a direct negative financial effect on the business. Blaming the business for adjusting to that effect is pretty darn stupid. Insisting that there's no cost or loss to the business when there clearly is, is even more stupid.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Mar 15 2013 at 3:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:
This is the same feller who argued that if you don't rob me for $10, I just made $10.


No. That's your argument. More correctly, that's the argument of every liberal who says that failing to pay for health care is taking health care from people. And failing to give them food stamps is taking food from their mouths. Or... <insert liberal rhetoric here>.

I'm saying that if you force someone to give someone else $10, that person losses $10. Cause he had it, and now he doesn't. It's mind boggling that the same people who have no problem assuming that me failing to give you $10 is a $10 loss for you, can't see that forcing me to give you $10 is actually a loss for me. It's like liberals just lose their minds when basic concepts of property ownership come along or something. You guys get it completely backwards. Amazing!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Mar 15 2013 at 3:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
No. That's your argument. More correctly, that's the argument of every liberal who says that failing to pay for health care is taking health care from people. And failing to give them food stamps is taking food from their mouths. Or...

Not paying for wars takes their lives when the terrrrists attack.
Not paying for abstinence only education takes their children's virginity.
Not paying to imprison large amounts of the population takes their safety.
Not subsidizing oil prices takes their ability to travel.
Not paying for border patrol agents takes their jerbs.

Fucking liberals.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#61 Mar 15 2013 at 3:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
No. That's your argument. More correctly, that's the argument of every liberal who says that failing to pay for health care is taking health care from people. And failing to give them food stamps is taking food from their mouths. Or...

Not paying for wars takes their lives when the terrrrists attack.
Not paying for abstinence only education takes their children's virginity.
Not paying to imprison large amounts of the population takes their safety.
Not subsidizing oil prices takes their ability to travel.
Not paying for border patrol agents takes their jerbs.


These are not conservative arguments though. These are liberal arguments applied to conservative positions. Conservatives and liberals are not flip sides of the same coin. We actually arrive at positions via different methodologies. Liberals look at the world through zero-sum eyes. Conservatives do not.

Quote:
Fucking liberals.


Indeed.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#62 Mar 15 2013 at 3:57 PM Rating: Good
I get that you are rock stupid, so try this:

2010: XYZ Inc profits $5million
2011: XYZ Inc profits $5million
2012: XYZ Inc profits $5million
2013: XYZ Inc profits $5million
Health care kicks in
2014: XYZ Inc profits $3million

XYZ Inc did not lose money in 2014.


EDIT: typing is hard

Edited, Mar 15th 2013 4:30pm by Bijou
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#63 Mar 15 2013 at 4:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:

XZY Inc did not lose money in 2014.

Even with all that money spent they on renaming their company, impressive. Smiley: wink
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#64 Mar 15 2013 at 4:28 PM Rating: Good
someproteinguy wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:

XZY Inc did not lose money in 2014.

Even with all that money spent they on renaming their company, impressive. Smiley: wink

Smiley: mad
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#65 Mar 15 2013 at 4:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:

XZY Inc did not lose money in 2014.

Even with all that money spent they on renaming their company, impressive. Smiley: wink

Smiley: mad

Smiley: flowers
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#66 Mar 15 2013 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:

XZY Inc did not lose money in 2014.

Even with all that money spent they on renaming their company, impressive. Smiley: wink

Screenshot
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#67 Mar 15 2013 at 5:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
This is the same feller who argued that if you don't rob me for $10, I just made $10.
No. That's your argument.
Gbaji previously wrote:
you are $100 richer if I choose to not steal (versus stealing), or give you money (versus not giving you money).

Might want to check your Stock GOP Talking Points index cards next time
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Mar 15 2013 at 5:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I get that you are rock stupid, so try this:

2010: XYZ Inc profits $5million
2011: XYZ Inc profits $5million
2012: XYZ Inc profits $5million
2013: XYZ Inc profits $5million
Health care kicks in
2014: XYZ Inc profits $3million

XYZ Inc did not lose money in 2014.


Not "in 2014". But you can erase any loss by cherry picking the time frame. If I have $100 stolen from me on Thursday, I've lost $100, right? The fact that Friday is payday and I'll gain more money than I lost on Thursday does not erase the fact that I lost $100. But by your reasoning, I didn't suffer a loss if I include Friday in the equation. But saying "I didn't lose any money during this pay period" purely because I had more money at the end than at the beginning is a pretty useless thing to say.

Similarly, at the moment that the company is forced to pay money for the new mandated health care benefits, they lose the cost of that payment. So they wire X dollars to some health care company, they've "lost" that money. The fact that tomorrow, they'll gain enough revenue to offset that loss is irrelevant to the fact that it's still money they lost.

Thinking of this any other way arrives at completely bizarre results. Revenue gains and losses (or costs) have to be considered separately. Otherwise, you end out concluding that mandated health care only costs something to those who are already non profitable (or nearly so). So if XYC Inc profits $1million in 2013, then health care kicks in costing them $2million, they now lose $1million? That makes the loss from health care variable, not based on the actual cost itself, but other environmental factors. That's an unworkable way to calculate this.

If it costs them $2million more in 2014 for health care, then that's a $2million dollar loss for the company relatively speaking. That's the only sane way to measure this. It is a cost that they didn't incur before. All costs are losses. All revenue is gains. Profit is the result of subtracting losses from gains. Losses are still losses even if they don't exceed the gains. If that were not true, then we wouldn't care about how much we get paid. But we do, don't we?

Edited, Mar 15th 2013 5:40pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#69 Mar 15 2013 at 6:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
This is the same feller who argued that if you don't rob me for $10, I just made $10.
No. That's your argument.
Gbaji previously wrote:
you are $100 richer if I choose to not steal (versus stealing), or give you money (versus not giving you money).

Might want to check your Stock GOP Talking Points index cards next time


You're kidding, right? That was me explaining why that method of calculation was wrong:

gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Me not stealing $100 from you is not the same as me giving you $100. But in both cases, you are $100 richer if I choose to not steal (versus stealing), or give you money (versus not giving you money).
Is this conservative math, or just your not being good at it?


It's liberal math. I'm just pointing it out is all.

Quote:
Because if you don't steal $100 that doesn't mean I'm $100 richer, it just means I'm at the same level of money I had.


Really? So you agree that liberals are flat out wrong when they say that by failing to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest 2% we are making the rich richer? Let me repeat that slower for you: Liberals argue that by failing to take more money from a group of people in the form of taxes, they are making that group of people richer. This is the same thing that you just said is ridiculous, a position I happen to agree with, but most liberals lap it up without question.


You do get that I'm not saying this is good logic. I'm saying that it's bad logic that the left uses to justify their policies. And it's not limited just to tax policies either.


Good try though. I don't agree with that logic. I think it's moronic. I'm trying to show liberals who use it all the time just how stupid it is. You actually thought that's what I was saying?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#70 Mar 15 2013 at 6:17 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,516 posts
Actually, the argument was that it isn't capitalism when I decide I don't like what Papa John's CEO is doing and decide not to eat Papa John's pizza any more.

See, the thing is, instead of switching to yet another chain restaurant, we switched to a locally based franchise and frozen pizza. The locally based guys own all three of the flagship stores here in town, pay their employees decently and let them work full time with benefits, and make a pretty **** tasty flat bread pizza (and charge gourmet prices for it, too...) The CEO doesn't give away two million free pizzas, but does help organize the college town Greek's charity drives.

The frozen pizza is cheap fare from a discount store. It's less expensive than Papa John's was. The difference is that we have to bake it ourselves.

We did not simply switch to another chain store following the same mode as PJs. So your entire argument is moot.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#71 Mar 15 2013 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
So, I don't buy from Coles or Safeway supermarkets in Oz, because they almost have a duopoly, and they lower their prices by forcing their suppliers to eat the price "sale". Many, if not most of their suppliers are now barely breaking even, and some have gone out of business. At the moment they are heavily discounting milk, and there's been a news report of dairy farmers desperately looking elsewhere, even overseas, to sell their milk, so that they can keep their farm.

All things being equal, I buy products in square containers/rectangular containers, not round/oval containers. That saves up to 15% on petrol (gas) used to transport the product, because it packs more closely, and petrol is a finite resource. (of course denser packing makes for heavier loads, so you lose some of the petrol savings if the route is hilly.)
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#72 Mar 15 2013 at 6:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
catwho wrote:
Actually, the argument was that it isn't capitalism when I decide I don't like what Papa John's CEO is doing and decide not to eat Papa John's pizza any more.


Technically, it isn't. That's just making a choice. Why you make the choice can determine if it's driven by capitalistic or socialistic (or some other) kind of thinking. From your point of view, of course. Capitalism in a broader sense applies to whether market forces are driven by free investment choices by private owners of capital. It's hard to directly apply it so a single person's choice of where to go for lunch.

My point was that the conflict was created by a socialistic policy, not a capitalistic one. Obamacare forced companies to choose between decreasing their full time employees *or* paying increased costs in health care. So if you choose not to eat at Papa John's because he cut his workers hours in order to avoid paying the mandated health care costs, then your choice is ultimately driven by socialism, not capitalism. If, on the other hand, you choose not to eat at Papa John's because you don't think it's a good value for the price, then that would be driven by capitalism.

Quote:
We did not simply switch to another chain store following the same mode as PJs. So your entire argument is moot.


That's a different argument than the one you mentioned above though (is it capitalism or socialism?). This second argument is about whether or not you've singled Papa John's out purely because they were more vocal about opposing Obamcare than other chains who are doing the same exact thing. In your case, that's not true, but this hardly invalidate the broader argument that you're action is based on socialism, and not capitalism.

Socialism believes in government control of industry, sold to the public on the idea that government can do it "better", with better usually defined as using industry in ways that promote certain social outcomes that are viewed as positive rather than in actual economic terms. So when you boycott Papa John's because you believe that businesses should choose to provide health care to their low skilled workers rather than cut their hours, you're making that choice based on an assessment of social agenda as it relates to business practices. That's textbook socialism.

Whether you switched to a chain store or not is really a side issue. That issue was mentioned by me only in the context of all the people singling out Papa John's, while ignoring all the other chain stores who make the same business decisions, but are just a bit more quiet about it. If you're not one of those people, that's great for you, but that doesn't invalidate the point one bit.

Edited, Mar 15th 2013 5:59pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#73 Mar 15 2013 at 7:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
gbaji wrote:

Socialism believes in government control of industry, sold to the public on the idea that government can do it "better", with better usually defined as using industry in ways that promote certain social outcomes that are viewed as positive rather than in actual economic terms. So when you boycott Papa John's because you believe that businesses should choose to provide health care to their low skilled workers rather than cut their hours, you're making that choice based on an assessment of social agenda as it relates to business practices. That's textbook socialism.

No. If the government forces you to buy from businesses according to an assessment of social agendas, THAT's socialism. Freely choosing as a consumer where you buy from, for whatever reason, even it's a single lunch meal, THAT's capitalism. It doesn't matter WHY you think one choice of lunch is better than another businesses' offering of lunch. Choosing the lunch that suits you is a pure capitalistic maneuver. The business gets the custom of the customers they serve best. You might decide on your lunch place because:

It's the best quality/tastiest lunch you can get to in the time you have.
It's the cheapest lunch you can get that fills you up.
It's the best lunch you can eat considering all your food sensitivities/allergies.
It's the closest food provider to you right now.
It's what the kids want to eat.
It's the type of food you feel like right now.

Those are all legitimate free choices the consumer makes, but at the same time, there's a bit of arbitrariness going on there too. The same freedom of choice, and arbitrariness, happens to businesses if they provide "Fair Trade" licenses, or non Endocrine Disrupting packaging, or faithful "Made in America" guarantees, or Trans-Fat free products, and that's what particular consumers value in their meals and drinks, and spend accordingly.

Edited, Mar 15th 2013 9:39pm by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#74 Mar 15 2013 at 7:31 PM Rating: Good
***
2,211 posts
See the problem with your, 'I made less money because my costs have gone up', doesn't work in the real world. You see lets say the government says minimum wage is 10 dollars. The company has to factor that price into the final product, so that it is profitable. A few years of said company making 5 mil in profits a year, all is good.

But the problem comes up is: the company, to cut costs and make a profit, didn't include a healthcare package, and with cost of living their employees can't afford to have private health insurance and pay other everyday necessities. The government can't just turn away the sick, to offset this, they need to give money to pay the hospitals to stay open for the people that can't pay. So they increase taxes, which upsets everyone including those struggling to get by at minimum wage, because now they have less money to work with overall.

Now the government says wait, lets make the companies offer health insurance to all employees. Because it lowers taxes all around, because the government no longer has to subsidize the healthcare. The companies on the other hand are complaining because now they have to pay more to keep their workers. But now they only make 3 million a year.

It's the Walmart scandal all over again. The company in the name of "profit" skimps in any way they can, even if that means offering uncompetitive wages. By letting a company make more profit, shoving what should be their responsibility onto the government, which in turn taxes for other people, even if said people have nothing to with the company in question.

I remember a few months back I heard a story about a man with a landscaping business, he offered his employees competitive wages for a fair workload, so they "could live the American dream". But to stay profitable he had to charge his clients more. He complained though that other landscaping companies stole his work because they didn't offer competitive wages therefore he could charge his clients less which gave him more business while making a profit, but at the cost of his employees pay and QoL.

The small point being here is the company could have "resisted" the loss of profit if they offered competitive wages/health in the first place, instead they choose to value their profit margin above the needs of their employees. If they had offered the better wages/benefits from the start, they would still be making the same profit as they would be after the government stepped in to force the company to pay the extra.

So in this scenario its less of the company losing money and more of them being forced to cover their own greed instead of shoving it onto the people (taxes), for the almighty profit margin. In the end though they are still making a profit, just less of a profit than before. They aren't losing money, as so much as no longer getting chance to push part of their costs off onto other people.

The Papa Johns thing, on the other hand, is complete BS. Hes saying he has remain profitable. But if he went from 4 million a year in profits to 3 million a year, because he can no longer push healthcare onto the government to fit the bill, is wrong.



Edited, Mar 15th 2013 8:44pm by BeanX
____________________________
What I Play
Recently Played
#75 Mar 15 2013 at 7:41 PM Rating: Good
***
2,211 posts
If papa Johns CEO said "Hey The new Healthcare is bad because in order to stay profitable I need to charge more for my pizzas" I for one wouldn't be upset. But this is a standard policy with the new healthcare, everyone has to do it. So Why is Papa Johns complaining but Pizza hut isn't?

Maybe they arent being vocal and are complaining but at the end of the day they are still making money. They are just being forced to allow their employees to have a less hellish lifestyle. Yeah most of the labor is non skilled, but they have just as much right to healthcare and a good living as someone making 1 mil a year, and not pushing the well being of their employees onto someone else.



Edited, Mar 15th 2013 8:42pm by BeanX
____________________________
What I Play
Recently Played
#76 Mar 15 2013 at 8:48 PM Rating: Excellent
****
7,817 posts
BeanX the Irrelevant wrote:
If papa Johns CEO said "Hey The new Healthcare is bad because in order to stay profitable I need to charge more for my pizzas" I for one wouldn't be upset. But this is a standard policy with the new healthcare, everyone has to do it. So Why is Papa Johns complaining but Pizza hut isn't?

Maybe they arent being vocal and are complaining but at the end of the day they are still making money. They are just being forced to allow their employees to have a less hellish lifestyle. Yeah most of the labor is non skilled, but they have just as much right to healthcare and a good living as someone making 1 mil a year, and not pushing the well being of their employees onto someone else.



Edited, Mar 15th 2013 8:42pm by BeanX


BeanX the Irrelevant wrote:
If papa Johns CEO said "Hey The new Healthcare is bad because in order to stay profitable I need to charge more for my pizzas" I for one wouldn't be upset. But this is a standard policy with the new healthcare, everyone has to do it. So Why is Papa Johns complaining but Pizza hut isn't?

Maybe they arent being vocal and are complaining but at the end of the day they are still making money. They are just being forced to allow their employees to have a less hellish lifestyle. Yeah most of the labor is non skilled, but they have just as much right to healthcare and a good living as someone making 1 mil a year, and not pushing the well being of their employees onto someone else.

Because Pizza Hut already provides healthcare for their employees? At least the one I worked at years ago did.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#77 Mar 16 2013 at 4:17 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
The government can't just turn away the sick

Of course they could? The government could let hungry people starve to death if they felt like it.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#78 Mar 16 2013 at 4:19 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,516 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
The government can't just turn away the sick

Of course they could? The government could let hungry people starve to death if they felt like it.


Yeah, but then we couldn't call ourselves the greatest country on earth, could we?

Governments that let their population starve to death often end up the way of the French monarchy.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#79 Mar 16 2013 at 9:12 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
Governments that let their population starve to death often end up the way of the French monarchy.

Nah, that's a fairly rare sort of event, really. People starve to death in stable governments all the time. China's a good example. People starve to death by the thousands in India, the worlds largest Democracy, every day.

Yeah, but then we couldn't call ourselves the greatest country on earth, could we?

Haha, nothing would prevent that of any nation state. Everyone on Earth lives in the greatest nation on Earth.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#80 Mar 16 2013 at 9:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"Western Sahara is Best-ern Sahara! Wooooooo!!!!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Mar 17 2013 at 5:03 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,742 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I have no clue, or interest in researching, what level of control the corporate level has over its franchisees in terms of health benefits, etc.
My experience with franchises would put it at zilch.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#82 Mar 17 2013 at 5:38 AM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
catwho wrote:
Yeah, but then we couldn't call ourselves the greatest country on earth, could we?



#83 Mar 17 2013 at 11:54 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
catwho wrote:
Yeah, but then we couldn't call ourselves the greatest country on earth, could we?
Sure we could, just as easily as we do now.

Quote:
Governments that let their population starve to death often end up the way of the French monarchy.
Not if the vast majority can feed themselves on their own. Our society doesn't care if homeless people starve to death. Many are even happy about it, since they don't have to be inconvenienced by them anymore.

Edited, Mar 17th 2013 1:55pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#84 Mar 18 2013 at 7:37 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,275 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"Western Sahara is Best-ern Sahara! Wooooooo!!!!"
Kazakhstan greatest country in the world.
All other countries are run by little girls.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#85 Mar 18 2013 at 11:56 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
"Newsroom" is such a hackneyed parody of liberal thought, it's sort of amazing it wasn't written by Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson. It's fucking AWFUL.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#86 Mar 19 2013 at 4:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Socialism believes in government control of industry, sold to the public on the idea that government can do it "better", with better usually defined as using industry in ways that promote certain social outcomes that are viewed as positive rather than in actual economic terms. So when you boycott Papa John's because you believe that businesses should choose to provide health care to their low skilled workers rather than cut their hours, you're making that choice based on an assessment of social agenda as it relates to business practices. That's textbook socialism.

No. If the government forces you to buy from businesses according to an assessment of social agendas, THAT's socialism.


Sure. But when the government forces a business to provide health insurance for its employees, that's socialism as well, right?

Quote:
Freely choosing as a consumer where you buy from, for whatever reason, even it's a single lunch meal, THAT's capitalism.


If the motivation is based on cost versus reward, yes. So you choosing to work at an establishment that provides health insurance, or making that a criteria of your employment choice, is capitalism in action. Obviously, there's a gray area in terms of choosing to buy goods at a store based on their practices, but in this case, the entire conflict exists only because of a government mandate.

If you'd decided not to buy Papa John's pizza prior to the mandate because you believed that companies should provide health care to their workers, then that's your own free choice. But if you're doing it only right now because of the government mandate, and because you believe the company should have reacted a specific way to that mandate, then your boycott is not fueled by your own positions innately, but by a support of what can only be called as socialist action by the government. I suppose you could call the choice itself capitalism, but you're making that choice in support of a socialist action by the government.


I just think that in this case, we have to consider the larger picture here. Most people who are boycotting Papa John's are doing it only because of their response to the mandates in Obamcare. Hence, I consider their actions to be socialist in nature because they're effectively attempting to apply pressure to companies to comply with a socialist measure. That's the goal here. And that goal is not capitalistic in nature.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#87 Mar 19 2013 at 5:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Making a consumer decision is capitalism. The fact that you're trying to argue its not because you don't think the reasons are "pure" enough is hilarious and a little sad but ultimately just wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 Mar 19 2013 at 5:16 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts

If the motivation is based on cost versus reward, yes.


You're confusing objectivism and capitalism. Not the same, FYI.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#89 Mar 19 2013 at 5:18 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Kastigir wrote:
Because Pizza Hut already provides healthcare for their employees? At least the one I worked at years ago did.


Provides, or makes available? There's a difference. The mandate requires that employers not just make benefits available, but actually pay for the benefits directly where they were free to have a variety of shared pay options prior to Obamacare. My understanding is that the benefits for part time employees at both restaurants are (and have been) pretty much identical. The only difference is that Papa John's has been more vocal about the issue. Pizza hut is also putting hard 29 hour limits on their part time employees for the exact same reason Papa John's is. They're just doing it quietly.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#90 Mar 19 2013 at 5:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
ITT: Pizza Hut is better at marketing than Papa John's; Gbaji blames liberals.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#91 Mar 19 2013 at 5:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

If the motivation is based on cost versus reward, yes.


You're confusing objectivism and capitalism. Not the same, FYI.


To the degree that a term like capitalism applies to an individuals purchasing choice (which I already brought up btw), capitalism applies less to the choice in question (boycotting Papa John's because they chose to avoid the health care mandate in Obamacare) than socialism.

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

I agree that neither term directly applies here, because both refer to a system, not individual actions within the system. However, by supporting the boycott in question, one is supporting a socialist action. Certainly, to proclaim that choice to boycott as an example of capitalism in action is erroneous.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#92 Mar 19 2013 at 5:29 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
they were free to have a variety of shared pay options prior to Obamacare

Yeah, first of all, the penalty is 2 grand per employee. Secondly, the employer doesn't have to pay anything, they have to offer a plan that costs less than 9.5% of an employee's family income. I'm sure in many cases that's not possible without the employer paying some of the costs of their under-payed employee's coverage.

Let me reiterate, to avoid having to actually offer the people you don't pay a living wage some sort of health coverage, you'd have to pay a penalty that is less than $1 per FTE hour. Free coffee costs more.

This leaves out the many exemptions for smaller companies, etc. There's a fairly compelling economic argument that the cost is offset by productivity gains made by not having employees working while sick and not getting treated, but while there's a large body of research about this, I'll assume you'll hand waive it all because, socialism!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#93 Mar 19 2013 at 5:30 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

I agree that neither term directly applies here, because both refer to a system, not individual actions within the system. However, by supporting the boycott in question, one is supporting a socialist action. Certainly, to proclaim that choice to boycott as an example of capitalism in action is erroneous.


No, the issue is that capitalism relies on enlightened self interest. The enlightened part includes not buying the house of the guy who raped your mother even though it's 50% less than the equivalent house.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#94 Mar 19 2013 at 5:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:
ITT: Pizza Hut is better at marketing than Papa John's; Gbaji blames liberals.


Sometimes standing up for principle is more valuable than making a profit. Also, I doubt if Papa John's is really going to lose much if anything from this. They're as likely to gain customers who agree with their position as lose them over this. Internet boycotts rarely have much of an effect. It's easy to click on a button to say you agree with the idea of a boycott, but how that translates into actual sales loss is usually not remotely the same.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#95 Mar 19 2013 at 5:34 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
Sometimes standing up for principle is more valuable than making a profit.

Apparently not in capitalism, if we take your 10 previous posts seriously.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#96 Mar 19 2013 at 5:35 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,275 posts
gbaji wrote:
They're as likely to gain customers who agree with their position as lose them over this.
They're certainly not going to gain customers because of their pizza.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#97 Mar 19 2013 at 5:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Certainly, to proclaim that choice to boycott as an example of capitalism in action is erroneous.

There's probably no greater indicator of when Gbaji is about to say something silly than when he feels the need to Gingrich it up with some authoritative language.
Smasharoo wrote:
Sometimes standing up for principle is more valuable than making a profit.

Apparently not in capitalism, if we take your 10 previous posts seriously.

Papa John's sounds pretty socialist to me with all their "principles over profits" talk. Freedom loving Americans should boycott them.

Edited, Mar 19th 2013 6:39pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#98 Mar 19 2013 at 5:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
No, the issue is that capitalism relies on enlightened self interest.


No, it doesn't. You're free to make up definitions as you wish, but that's not what capitalism is about.

Quote:
The enlightened part includes not buying the house of the guy who raped your mother even though it's 50% less than the equivalent house.


Which, at the risk of repeating myself, would be a decision, but not one based on capitalistic principles. By that argument all purchasing/selling choices would be some expression of capitalism, making it a useless definition by any measure. At the end of the day, what matters is *why* one might choose to boycott Papa John's. And if you're doing that in support of Obamacare, then your choice is based on support of socialism. Saying it's somehow capitalism in action is either absurd or useless depending on how you interpret capitalism in this context.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#99 Mar 19 2013 at 5:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Sometimes standing up for principle is more valuable than making a profit.

Apparently not in capitalism, if we take your 10 previous posts seriously.


I never said that Papa John's decision to vocally oppose Obama care was a capitalistic act though. So I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You're the one who keeps trying to define this within the context of capitalism, while carefully avoiding mentioning the 800lb socialist gorilla in the room.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#100 Mar 19 2013 at 6:35 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
43 posts
It doesn't matter why or how Papa John's made a decision, just that they did. Choosing to purchase from Papa John's or choosing not to do so is capitalism. Being told by the government that you must by from Papa John's is socialist.

It wouldn't matter if John Schnatter was personally bent over a barrel and raped by Obama himself. If thinking of that disgusted me, and that I therefore decided not to order a Papa John's pizza, that's still capitalism. Is it fair? Meh, chose what I wanted to do with my money. Is it socialism? Nope, even if socialism is what bent ol' Johnny over the barrel, I got to choose where to purchase my food. He also got to choose whether or not to sell to me. Hi capitalism!
#101 Mar 19 2013 at 7:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Zandter wrote:
It doesn't matter why or how Papa John's made a decision, just that they did. Choosing to purchase from Papa John's or choosing not to do so is capitalism.


Neither is "capitalism". It's a choice. Capitalism and socialism refer to economic systems, and (in this context) usually refer to the degree or lack of government intervention in the market. Your use of the term is far too broad. By that usage, we could say that a person living in Communist Russia's choice to stand in line to get their government issued shoes or to not do so is capitalism. I mean, the choice does affect their personal well being and "wealth", but it would be moronic to say that they were engaging in capitalism simply because they were making a choice that affected their own personal financial condition.

If you choose to not purchase pizza from Papa John's because it opposes a socialist policy you support, it means that your choice isn't about Papa John's pizza, but about supporting the socialist policy. Your decision isn't "socialism" just as it isn't "capitalism". But your choice is in support of a socialist policy.

Quote:
Being told by the government that you must by from Papa John's is socialist.


And the government creating a mandate designed to force Papa John's to pay for health care for their employees is socialist as well. And if you boycott Papa John's for taking an action designed to avoid the intent of the mandate, then you are supporting socialism. Get it yet? To say that the boycott is capitalism at work is absurd.

Quote:
It wouldn't matter if John Schnatter was personally bent over a barrel and raped by Obama himself. If thinking of that disgusted me, and that I therefore decided not to order a Papa John's pizza, that's still capitalism.


No, it's not. Not by any actual definition of capitalism. You're confusing "free choice" with "capitalism". There are lots of cases where you have a choice, but there's no capitalism involved. We can't say that the choice is capitalism. But in that example, we absolutely could say that your choice reflected a support of Obama raping John Schnatter. Right?

Quote:
Is it fair? Meh, chose what I wanted to do with my money. Is it socialism? Nope, even if socialism is what bent ol' Johnny over the barrel, I got to choose where to purchase my food. He also got to choose whether or not to sell to me. Hi capitalism!


Again, that's not what capitalism is. I don't know how much more clearly to state this. No amount of calling a bird a dog makes it true. But that's what you're basically trying to do here.

Edited, Mar 19th 2013 6:50pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 44 All times are in CST
Almalieque, Demea, Kavekkk, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (40)