San Fransico Raises Min-wage to $15. Results in THIS:

[Brain357]

Link?

You do know how to access GOOGLE, right?

NYC's high school graduation rate jumps to 64 percent

Yes. Show me reason to believe there are lots of good jobs out there.

Your beliefs are irrelevant.

If there were lots of great jobs out there wages would be increasing. They are stagnant, these jobs do not exist.

Bullshit they don't.....Stop complaining.

I'm not sure you know much about economics. If these jobs existed wages would be going up.

 

[Brain357]

I am doing quite well. Think I heard corporate welfare first from ron Paul. You should listen to him. Tell me what I have said that is wrong?

You're doing quite well? Who the **** asked you?...
Ron Paul? He's out there on the lunatic fringe. Nothing that guy says is remotely probable of occurring here in the US. Ron Paul.. These so called Libertarians are nothing but Pseudo Idahoan survivalist wack jobs.
Ya want to get rid of corp. welfare( doesn't really exist) but for the sake of argument let's say it does. Just what do you think these companies, many of which are very large contributors to PAC's, party organizations, etc expect in return for their largess? Nothing?....
As long as the system is what it is, we will see government paying off their benefactors.
Now, I am going to piss you off. But, who cares....This is why Donald Trump is the best candidate for POTUS this country has seen in a very long time. The reason is simple. Trump is beholden to no one. He is not using a dime of anyone else's money to run his campaign. he is spending his own cash....This scares the living shit out of the political establishments on both sides of the aisle. Trump is not playing by their rules. And they can't stand it. Taking a look at polling stats, Trump is very popular among likely GOP voters and somewhat attractive to uncommitted voters. Of course likely democrat voters look upon Trump unfavorably by a wide margin.
Last point.. Don't you tell me to whom I should listen. You want to waste your time with a fringe politician like Ron Paul, go right ahead.

You said do something to help myself. Well I am doing quite well so why do I need help?

Wow you sound like a min wage increase is the only option. Given how corps are in the pockets of everyone as you say.

How does talking about Trump piss me off? You realize I'm an independent right? I don't have any affection for either party anymore. I agree with Trump on a lot of points, but I don't think he is electable.

Independent? Please......
And....Politicians whose only interest is their own careers in Washington are in the pockets of the corporate donors.

Oh and why am I not independent?

LOL....You post lib. You side with liberal issues. Need I go on?....

Oh really? Like when I am posting in defense of the police? Or maybe when I say lets get rid of all the illegals? Or is it maybe when I am saying transsexuals have a mental disorder? I wasn't aware those were all liberal sides.

Is increasing min wage really that liberal? Right now the government keeps growing because of increasing government dependence. Now taxes are collected by the government and then benefits are given to the poor. Increasing min wage would lower the need for welfare and cut out the government.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's horse shit.....And it's lame.
So, let's get this on record....Your notion of a higher wage plain will immediately translate to smaller government?
And is it also safe to say that you think it is in good form for people to go to the election polls with a singular issue in mind that they will vote for the candidate that will offer them the most in free money?
And you think this is acceptable?
No, government should reduce the freebies and have the balls to keep them at low levels. This speaks directly to the entitlement mentality. Once those who believe they are owed something realize that they will be waiting a very long time for Uncle Same to arrive dressed as Santa Claus, they will come to the realization that ion order to have the things they want, they will have to work for them.
Here in our state, the legislature reduced the max weekly unemployment benefit from $505 to $350. That was two years ago. Magically unemployment in the state has tumbled to just under 6% from around 9%.....Now, as a further incentive for the able bodied to get back to work, the new law is that in order to collect that week's benefits, they must show at least 5 legitimate job contacts for the pay period. That is up from 3 contacts. Years ago. in my home state I collected unemployment after my entire department was let go from a data communications company. We lost a very large account. I collected UE benefits for 4 weeks. I had to make SIX verifiable contacts in order to receive my check....SIX...
Watch this everybody....

I am not saying what is right or wrong, I am simply stating facts.

If everyone made enough money to not be on welfare you don't think that would shrink government? Seriously?

Haven't republicans always said people will vote for the free money? I don't see why they wouldn't.

Ah yes so now you are saying SHOULD. Yes the government SHOULD do all those things, sure. But the REALITY is that won't happen because politicians are cowards and there will always be people elected to give away free shit. So while you can think they SHOULD do something, reality is they WILL NOT. At best it will be done for one election cycle and then turned back as pissed off people vote. So your idea of what should happen will not happen.

I believe unemployment has been tumbling the last few years for every state. I'm not too impressed by your numbers.

8 years of Reagan should have shrunk government. 8 years of George Bush should have shrunk government. What was the reality? They spent like crazy. Get a clue.

You don't see why people would not vote for 'free money"....Ya know what? That's sad.

Sure it is, but we are still talking about reality right? The reality is that many of the very rich choosing to pay so little inherited their wealth and now they stick it to the poor. Look at the Waltons making billions each year while paying so little their employees are on welfare. Most or maybe all of them don't even have positions in the company. You really blame the poor who have had no opportunities to vote for free stuff? They are sticking it to the rich for once.

That reality and those who live in it should open a history book and take a long hard look at post depression 30's 40's and early 50's...The people of that generation would have done ANYTHING to not become a burden on their neighbors. If that meant working two jobs to support their families, so be it. If that meant selling their home and moving in with relatives, they did it. There was an extreme sense of pride in Americans. Today we have a third of the population who thinks they are owed a living. They think they shouldn't have to work. They have lost their pride, their self respect. And for that you think the businesses that are most likely to be harmed by this nonsense min wage should just cough it up.....Again....that is sad. You are more sad.
Oh, I have to address this quote...
"The reality is that many of the very rich choosing to pay so little inherited their wealth and now they stick it to the poor."....
Choose to pay so little inherited wealth"....Excuse me, what?.....And how are they "sticking it to the poor"?
First question.....What business is it of yours what a private individual does with his or her assets? How does anything they do with their wealth, other than perhaps one day investing in you or one of your competitors, affect you?.....Why do you feel compelled to stick your nose into the business of others?....
And why should anyone seek to hand over to government more of what is theirs?...

That sounds real nice and all, but we aren't going to bring back the 30's and 40's. That just isn't possible. Sorry but this is 2015.

Are you saying people aren't jealous of the wealthy and feel they have it easy? Really? Are you going to change that feeling? Good luck with that.

For a person who claims to be well off or doing well, you are not very sharp....The post depression era was a terrible time. Why would anyone want to go back to THAT?...
And for you to imply that somehow the prideful nature of the typical American is somehow a bad thing and cannot be repeated is just another example of the belief that the entitlement mentality among our fellow citizens is ok, is just a tragedy.

 

[Brain357]

I am not saying what is right or wrong, I am simply stating facts.

If everyone made enough money to not be on welfare you don't think that would shrink government? Seriously?

Haven't republicans always said people will vote for the free money? I don't see why they wouldn't.

Ah yes so now you are saying SHOULD. Yes the government SHOULD do all those things, sure. But the REALITY is that won't happen because politicians are cowards and there will always be people elected to give away free shit. So while you can think they SHOULD do something, reality is they WILL NOT. At best it will be done for one election cycle and then turned back as pissed off people vote. So your idea of what should happen will not happen.

I believe unemployment has been tumbling the last few years for every state. I'm not too impressed by your numbers.

8 years of Reagan should have shrunk government. 8 years of George Bush should have shrunk government. What was the reality? They spent like crazy. Get a clue.

You don't see why people would not vote for 'free money"....Ya know what? That's sad.

Sure it is, but we are still talking about reality right? The reality is that many of the very rich choosing to pay so little inherited their wealth and now they stick it to the poor. Look at the Waltons making billions each year while paying so little their employees are on welfare. Most or maybe all of them don't even have positions in the company. You really blame the poor who have had no opportunities to vote for free stuff? They are sticking it to the rich for once.

That reality and those who live in it should open a history book and take a long hard look at post depression 30's 40's and early 50's...The people of that generation would have done ANYTHING to not become a burden on their neighbors. If that meant working two jobs to support their families, so be it. If that meant selling their home and moving in with relatives, they did it. There was an extreme sense of pride in Americans. Today we have a third of the population who thinks they are owed a living. They think they shouldn't have to work. They have lost their pride, their self respect. And for that you think the businesses that are most likely to be harmed by this nonsense min wage should just cough it up.....Again....that is sad. You are more sad.
Oh, I have to address this quote...
"The reality is that many of the very rich choosing to pay so little inherited their wealth and now they stick it to the poor."....
Choose to pay so little inherited wealth"....Excuse me, what?.....And how are they "sticking it to the poor"?
First question.....What business is it of yours what a private individual does with his or her assets? How does anything they do with their wealth, other than perhaps one day investing in you or one of your competitors, affect you?.....Why do you feel compelled to stick your nose into the business of others?....
And why should anyone seek to hand over to government more of what is theirs?...

That sounds real nice and all, but we aren't going to bring back the 30's and 40's. That just isn't possible. Sorry but this is 2015.

Are you saying people aren't jealous of the wealthy and feel they have it easy? Really? Are you going to change that feeling? Good luck with that.

For a person who claims to be well off or doing well, you are not very sharp....The post depression era was a terrible time. Why would anyone want to go back to THAT?...
And for you to imply that somehow the prideful nature of the typical American is somehow a bad thing and cannot be repeated is just another example of the belief that the entitlement mentality among our fellow citizens is ok, is just a tragedy.

I did not at all say it is a bad thing. I said you can't just magically bring that back. A min wage increase would help however. Get people off the government making decent wages, then they will want tax breaks. Keep people dependent on government and well the government will keep growing.

 

[SAYIT]

So that is why the government keeps growing then. It seems high inequality is far more important to you than small government.

Once more for the Brain Dead: My concern is with gov't meddling in the labor market that will negatively impact those least able to adjust. Growth in gov't expenditures (not gov't) is a function of too easily available gov't freebies. Lower the freebies and those part-timers will get a second job.

And again if you lower the freebies they will come right back when new politicians are elected. Get employers to pay well and government will shrink for good.

That's horse shit.....And it's lame.
So, let's get this on record....Your notion of a higher wage plain will immediately translate to smaller government?
And is it also safe to say that you think it is in good form for people to go to the election polls with a singular issue in mind that they will vote for the candidate that will offer them the most in free money?
And you think this is acceptable?
No, government should reduce the freebies and have the balls to keep them at low levels. This speaks directly to the entitlement mentality. Once those who believe they are owed something realize that they will be waiting a very long time for Uncle Same to arrive dressed as Santa Claus, they will come to the realization that ion order to have the things they want, they will have to work for them.
Here in our state, the legislature reduced the max weekly unemployment benefit from $505 to $350. That was two years ago. Magically unemployment in the state has tumbled to just under 6% from around 9%.....Now, as a further incentive for the able bodied to get back to work, the new law is that in order to collect that week's benefits, they must show at least 5 legitimate job contacts for the pay period. That is up from 3 contacts. Years ago. in my home state I collected unemployment after my entire department was let go from a data communications company. We lost a very large account. I collected UE benefits for 4 weeks. I had to make SIX verifiable contacts in order to receive my check....SIX...
Watch this everybody....

I am not saying what is right or wrong, I am simply stating facts.

If everyone made enough money to not be on welfare you don't think that would shrink government? Seriously?

Haven't republicans always said people will vote for the free money? I don't see why they wouldn't.

Ah yes so now you are saying SHOULD. Yes the government SHOULD do all those things, sure. But the REALITY is that won't happen because politicians are cowards and there will always be people elected to give away free shit. So while you can think they SHOULD do something, reality is they WILL NOT. At best it will be done for one election cycle and then turned back as pissed off people vote. So your idea of what should happen will not happen.

I believe unemployment has been tumbling the last few years for every state. I'm not too impressed by your numbers.

8 years of Reagan should have shrunk government. 8 years of George Bush should have shrunk government. What was the reality? They spent like crazy. Get a clue.

You don't see why people would not vote for 'free money"....Ya know what? That's sad.

Some Americans are still driven by what is best for America and their community. Millions have sacrificed much to serve those ends. Then there are gutless slugs who care about neither. BrainDead can't understand the former because he is the latter. Here is where BrainDead's "American Plan" leads:

INEPTOCRACY - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers

 

[Wyatt earp]

Woo ... as often posted (and most adults understand) biz does not exist (nor is it their responsibility) to "take care of employees." Your life is yours ... make of it what you will but please stop the incessant whining.

So that is why the government keeps growing then. It seems high inequality is far more important to you than small government.

Once more for the Brain Dead: My concern is with gov't meddling in the labor market that will negatively impact those least able to adjust. Growth in gov't expenditures (not gov't) is a function of too easily available gov't freebies. Lower the freebies and those part-timers will get a second job.

And again if you lower the freebies they will come right back when new politicians are elected. Get employers to pay well and government will shrink for good.

That's horse shit.....And it's lame.
So, let's get this on record....Your notion of a higher wage plain will immediately translate to smaller government?
And is it also safe to say that you think it is in good form for people to go to the election polls with a singular issue in mind that they will vote for the candidate that will offer them the most in free money?
And you think this is acceptable?
No, government should reduce the freebies and have the balls to keep them at low levels. This speaks directly to the entitlement mentality. Once those who believe they are owed something realize that they will be waiting a very long time for Uncle Same to arrive dressed as Santa Claus, they will come to the realization that ion order to have the things they want, they will have to work for them.
Here in our state, the legislature reduced the max weekly unemployment benefit from $505 to $350. That was two years ago. Magically unemployment in the state has tumbled to just under 6% from around 9%.....Now, as a further incentive for the able bodied to get back to work, the new law is that in order to collect that week's benefits, they must show at least 5 legitimate job contacts for the pay period. That is up from 3 contacts. Years ago. in my home state I collected unemployment after my entire department was let go from a data communications company. We lost a very large account. I collected UE benefits for 4 weeks. I had to make SIX verifiable contacts in order to receive my check....SIX...
Watch this everybody....

I am not saying what is right or wrong, I am simply stating facts.

If everyone made enough money to not be on welfare you don't think that would shrink government? Seriously?

Haven't republicans always said people will vote for the free money? I don't see why they wouldn't.

Ah yes so now you are saying SHOULD. Yes the government SHOULD do all those things, sure. But the REALITY is that won't happen because politicians are cowards and there will always be people elected to give away free shit. So while you can think they SHOULD do something, reality is they WILL NOT. At best it will be done for one election cycle and then turned back as pissed off people vote. So your idea of what should happen will not happen.

I believe unemployment has been tumbling the last few years for every state. I'm not too impressed by your numbers.

8 years of Reagan should have shrunk government. 8 years of George Bush should have shrunk government. What was the reality? They spent like crazy. Get a clue.

That was word salad
.
Please clarify ?

1. If you force a law on company's to pay more, they will just leave....

2. See above..

 

[Brain357]

So that is why the government keeps growing then. It seems high inequality is far more important to you than small government.

Once more for the Brain Dead: My concern is with gov't meddling in the labor market that will negatively impact those least able to adjust. Growth in gov't expenditures (not gov't) is a function of too easily available gov't freebies. Lower the freebies and those part-timers will get a second job.

And again if you lower the freebies they will come right back when new politicians are elected. Get employers to pay well and government will shrink for good.

That's horse shit.....And it's lame.
So, let's get this on record....Your notion of a higher wage plain will immediately translate to smaller government?
And is it also safe to say that you think it is in good form for people to go to the election polls with a singular issue in mind that they will vote for the candidate that will offer them the most in free money?
And you think this is acceptable?
No, government should reduce the freebies and have the balls to keep them at low levels. This speaks directly to the entitlement mentality. Once those who believe they are owed something realize that they will be waiting a very long time for Uncle Same to arrive dressed as Santa Claus, they will come to the realization that ion order to have the things they want, they will have to work for them.
Here in our state, the legislature reduced the max weekly unemployment benefit from $505 to $350. That was two years ago. Magically unemployment in the state has tumbled to just under 6% from around 9%.....Now, as a further incentive for the able bodied to get back to work, the new law is that in order to collect that week's benefits, they must show at least 5 legitimate job contacts for the pay period. That is up from 3 contacts. Years ago. in my home state I collected unemployment after my entire department was let go from a data communications company. We lost a very large account. I collected UE benefits for 4 weeks. I had to make SIX verifiable contacts in order to receive my check....SIX...
Watch this everybody....

I am not saying what is right or wrong, I am simply stating facts.

If everyone made enough money to not be on welfare you don't think that would shrink government? Seriously?

Haven't republicans always said people will vote for the free money? I don't see why they wouldn't.

Ah yes so now you are saying SHOULD. Yes the government SHOULD do all those things, sure. But the REALITY is that won't happen because politicians are cowards and there will always be people elected to give away free shit. So while you can think they SHOULD do something, reality is they WILL NOT. At best it will be done for one election cycle and then turned back as pissed off people vote. So your idea of what should happen will not happen.

I believe unemployment has been tumbling the last few years for every state. I'm not too impressed by your numbers.

8 years of Reagan should have shrunk government. 8 years of George Bush should have shrunk government. What was the reality? They spent like crazy. Get a clue.

That was word salad
.
Please clarify ?

1. If you force a law on company's to pay more, they will just leave....

2. See above..

Leave the largest economy in the world? Really?

 

[Brain357]

Once more for the Brain Dead: My concern is with gov't meddling in the labor market that will negatively impact those least able to adjust. Growth in gov't expenditures (not gov't) is a function of too easily available gov't freebies. Lower the freebies and those part-timers will get a second job.

And again if you lower the freebies they will come right back when new politicians are elected. Get employers to pay well and government will shrink for good.

That's horse shit.....And it's lame.
So, let's get this on record....Your notion of a higher wage plain will immediately translate to smaller government?
And is it also safe to say that you think it is in good form for people to go to the election polls with a singular issue in mind that they will vote for the candidate that will offer them the most in free money?
And you think this is acceptable?
No, government should reduce the freebies and have the balls to keep them at low levels. This speaks directly to the entitlement mentality. Once those who believe they are owed something realize that they will be waiting a very long time for Uncle Same to arrive dressed as Santa Claus, they will come to the realization that ion order to have the things they want, they will have to work for them.
Here in our state, the legislature reduced the max weekly unemployment benefit from $505 to $350. That was two years ago. Magically unemployment in the state has tumbled to just under 6% from around 9%.....Now, as a further incentive for the able bodied to get back to work, the new law is that in order to collect that week's benefits, they must show at least 5 legitimate job contacts for the pay period. That is up from 3 contacts. Years ago. in my home state I collected unemployment after my entire department was let go from a data communications company. We lost a very large account. I collected UE benefits for 4 weeks. I had to make SIX verifiable contacts in order to receive my check....SIX...
Watch this everybody....

I am not saying what is right or wrong, I am simply stating facts.

If everyone made enough money to not be on welfare you don't think that would shrink government? Seriously?

Haven't republicans always said people will vote for the free money? I don't see why they wouldn't.

Ah yes so now you are saying SHOULD. Yes the government SHOULD do all those things, sure. But the REALITY is that won't happen because politicians are cowards and there will always be people elected to give away free shit. So while you can think they SHOULD do something, reality is they WILL NOT. At best it will be done for one election cycle and then turned back as pissed off people vote. So your idea of what should happen will not happen.

I believe unemployment has been tumbling the last few years for every state. I'm not too impressed by your numbers.

8 years of Reagan should have shrunk government. 8 years of George Bush should have shrunk government. What was the reality? They spent like crazy. Get a clue.

You don't see why people would not vote for 'free money"....Ya know what? That's sad.

Some Americans are still driven by what is best for America and their community. Millions have sacrificed much to serve those ends. Then there are gutless slugs who care about neither. BrainDead can't understand the former because he is the latter. Here is where BrainDead's "American Plan" leads:

INEPTOCRACY - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers

Are you still here? Are you still in denial of reality?

 

[SAYIT]

Some Americans are still driven by what is best for America and their community. Millions have sacrificed much to serve those ends. Then there are gutless slugs who care about neither. BrainDead can't understand the former because he is the latter. Here is where BrainDead's "American Plan" leads:

INEPTOCRACY - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers

Are you still here? Are you still in denial of reality?

You mean your reality? You seem to think you have a good grasp of things.

 

[Brain357]

Some Americans are still driven by what is best for America and their community. Millions have sacrificed much to serve those ends. Then there are gutless slugs who care about neither. BrainDead can't understand the former because he is the latter. Here is where BrainDead's "American Plan" leads:

INEPTOCRACY - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers

Are you still here? Are you still in denial of reality?

You mean your reality? You seem to think you have a good grasp of things.

Yes it is quite clear I do. Your republicans don't exactly have a good record of making government smaller. You have not been able to show I am wrong on anything so far. While you have shown you don't know a lot. Shall we discuss corporate boards again?

 

[SAYIT]

Some Americans are still driven by what is best for America and their community. Millions have sacrificed much to serve those ends. Then there are gutless slugs who care about neither. BrainDead can't understand the former because he is the latter. Here is where BrainDead's "American Plan" leads:

INEPTOCRACY - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers

Are you still here? Are you still in denial of reality?

You mean your reality? You seem to think you have a good grasp of things.

Yes it is quite clear I do. Your republicans don't exactly have a good record of making government smaller. You have not been able to show I am wrong on anything so far. While you have shown you don't know a lot. Shall we discuss corporate boards again?

You mean you are unable to admit to being wrong about everything so far. As already stated: Brain-Dead and delusional.

 

[Brain357]

Some Americans are still driven by what is best for America and their community. Millions have sacrificed much to serve those ends. Then there are gutless slugs who care about neither. BrainDead can't understand the former because he is the latter. Here is where BrainDead's "American Plan" leads:

INEPTOCRACY - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers

Are you still here? Are you still in denial of reality?

You mean your reality? You seem to think you have a good grasp of things.

Yes it is quite clear I do. Your republicans don't exactly have a good record of making government smaller. You have not been able to show I am wrong on anything so far. While you have shown you don't know a lot. Shall we discuss corporate boards again?

You mean you are unable to admit to being wrong about everything so far. As already stated: Brain-Dead and delusional.

Anyone can go back and read all the times you have been wrong. If I've been wrong please mention what I have been wrong about.

 

[SAYIT]

Some Americans are still driven by what is best for America and their community. Millions have sacrificed much to serve those ends. Then there are gutless slugs who care about neither. BrainDead can't understand the former because he is the latter. Here is where BrainDead's "American Plan" leads:

INEPTOCRACY - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded - in exchange for their votes - with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers

Are you still here? Are you still in denial of reality?

You mean your reality? You seem to think you have a good grasp of things.

Yes it is quite clear I do. Your republicans don't exactly have a good record of making government smaller. You have not been able to show I am wrong on anything so far. While you have shown you don't know a lot. Shall we discuss corporate boards again?

You mean you are unable to admit to being wrong about everything so far. As already stated: Brain-Dead and delusional.

Anyone can go back and read all the times you have been wrong. If I've been wrong please mention what I have been wrong about.

I'm not going to re-do you, BrainDead ... despite your massively inflated view of yourself, all you ever exhibit here is your idiotology and your inability to modify your twisted views in the face of real facts. If you really wanted to know just how wrong you have been you would go back and read the useful retorts to your silliness but we both know you aren't really here for that. Frankly, you try hard but just aren't smart enough.
Sorry, but that's just the facts.

 

[Brain357]

Are you still here? Are you still in denial of reality?

You mean your reality? You seem to think you have a good grasp of things.

Yes it is quite clear I do. Your republicans don't exactly have a good record of making government smaller. You have not been able to show I am wrong on anything so far. While you have shown you don't know a lot. Shall we discuss corporate boards again?

You mean you are unable to admit to being wrong about everything so far. As already stated: Brain-Dead and delusional.

Anyone can go back and read all the times you have been wrong. If I've been wrong please mention what I have been wrong about.

I'm not going to re-do you, BrainDead ... despite your massively inflated view of yourself, all you ever exhibit here is your idiotology and your inability to modify your twisted views in the face of real facts. If you really wanted to know just how wrong you have been you would go back and read the useful retorts to your silliness but we both know you aren't really here for that. Frankly, you try hard but just aren't smart enough.
Sorry, but that's just the facts.

I didn't think you could mention anything specific. You better keep being vague so you don't get another bear down.

 

[danielpalos]

right wing logic is funnier; and the right usually cannot blame it on drugs.

Labor costs have no effect on prices?

all costs, not just labor have an effect on price.

So.....Where's the problem?
BTW, labor accounts for the largest percentage of the cost of doing business. It is also the one cost that can be controlled in the event of a downturn in business.
Labor is thus, a commodity.

some of your cost inputs seem arbitrary and capricious and could result in special pleading.

In English please...?

right wing logic is funnier; and the right usually cannot blame it on drugs.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

right wing logic is funnier; and the right usually cannot blame it on drugs.

Could ya boil that down to an actual example?

I ask purely as a means to demonstrate to the Readers, that ya can't. So take your time and do the best ya can, such as it is.

 

[danielpalos]

right wing logic is funnier; and the right usually cannot blame it on drugs.

Could ya boil that down to an actual example?

I ask purely as a means to demonstrate to the Readers, that ya can't. So take your time and do the best ya can, such as it is.

They were not your cost inputs but another poster's. Sorry about that.