PureX
Well-known member
Oh, they're both going to do it, alright. But only one of them actually brags about it.All the ones with the "R'"s and "D's" by their names!K:
Fast Food workers protest and demand more money.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
:chuckle: Okay, I can go along with that.
Really? You've devolved to word games to win an argument?
Let's hear your best guess at what that means.
whitestone
Well-known member
All the ones with the "R'"s and "D's" by their names!
And see I do agree with this,,, in my life I would not have hired a manger to run my business and then fire him because he didn't gain me profit. If I hired another manager to run it after him and he also did not show any profit and I let him go,,I would look for another option.
In the U.S. we have 2 managers,,1(R) says he will show me a profit,,he don't so I let him go,,I then hire another(D),because he says he will show me a profit,,he doesn't so after 4 or 8 years I fire him and look at the options,well since there is only 2(Manager R&D)I go back and forth every 4 to 8 years,,first I hire R and then fire him and re-hire D and back and forth,,,
Now Ive been doing this for some time now,lets see,humm,,,1776 to 2014 hmm 238 years these two managers have told me they could run my business and give me a comfortable living,,well at least they said they were qualified.
"there is an art to looking at a resume,,,you are not looking for who is qualified,,,you are looking for who will actually do what he says",,,,it's time to move on to manager(?),,,the others have proved their intent,,,,,,,
The issue was putting riches before God. Not having riches. You haven't addressed Solomon.
You are basically doing what judas did when he condemned the expensive perfume oil a woman was to use on Christ, he was saying to sell it and give to the poor. Read what Christ said there.
The issue is not wealth, its those who make an idol of wealth and place it before God.
What part of "woe unto you, rich" is unclear or ambiguous?
When did he ever praise the rich? Or material goods? When did he ever praise wealth? What did he tell the rich to do with their possessions? Who was the villain of the tale: Lazarus, or Dives?
He said the poor would always be with us...and he should've known, you would think, that Judas was a liar, hypocrite, and thief.
Can you maintain riches and not put them before God?
Seem quite the tough task for us greedy sinful human beings.
I seem to remember something about serving God and mammon.:think:
God blessed solomon with riches well beyond your imagination. Why does He need to 'praise' wealth' for you to get the larger message?
The message was putting them above God.
yes - see duck dynasty - see chik fil a
And I already addressed the "blessings" of the man's life and what he thought of them in his old age.
Funny how whenever I ask about Jesus, you guys keep coming up with somebody else.
It doesnt matter what solomon thought about them later, God is who provided them and it says exactly that.
1 kings 3:13 "I have also given you what you have not asked, both riches and honor, so that there will not be any among the kings like you all your days.
Jesus is God and you came up with ot passages out of context to try to prove God hates wealth, even though He provides it.
When did Jesus encourage his followers to get rich?
When did he praise the wealthy?
How often did he curse the wealthy, or portray them negatively?
The overwhelming message of the gospel is that worldly possessions and the accumulation of wealth leads to rot in the soul. The good news tells you that the poor are praised, and exalted, and that the wealthy and elite are cursed and will one day be cast down. The rich are cursed, derided, taunted, and ignored (to their considerable chagrin) by both Jesus and his cousin throughout the gospels.
And this message, unsurprisingly, seems utterly lost on most of you. You're going out of your way to defend the bad guys your Lord repeatedly condemned and attacked.
When did he praise the wealthy?
How often did he curse the wealthy, or portray them negatively?
The overwhelming message of the gospel is that worldly possessions and the accumulation of wealth leads to rot in the soul. The good news tells you that the poor are praised, and exalted, and that the wealthy and elite are cursed and will one day be cast down. The rich are cursed, derided, taunted, and ignored (to their considerable chagrin) by both Jesus and his cousin throughout the gospels.
And this message, unsurprisingly, seems utterly lost on most of you. You're going out of your way to defend the bad guys your Lord repeatedly condemned and attacked.
All irrelevant to the point, and the point was not to put them before God.
:chuckle: Only in Amoreica! :FrankiE:
If anyone doubts God is who blessed those businesses because of their honor of Him, they are blind.
whitestone
Well-known member
lol,,,when I was 12 I took a job as a dishwasher in a seafood restaurant in Galveston co. Tex.,,two months later I turned 13,,,when I was 20,I joined partners with 3 other select friends(most important part),,when I was 30 I owned 4 convenience stores,7 fast food restaurants.
In the U.S. the system is set up to become rich,,it is not a God,It is nothing more than a screwdriver,or a hammer,it is just a tool. The trick is not to use credit(meaning you must not let it use you),,,,I have seen friends of mine become millionaires,squander it till they were broke ,become millionaires again,squander it again,,and become millionaires again,,,it is really that easy to do,but few understand it is a screwdriver,,,,,,,"they believe it is a God",,,,
In the U.S. the system is set up to become rich,,it is not a God,It is nothing more than a screwdriver,or a hammer,it is just a tool. The trick is not to use credit(meaning you must not let it use you),,,,I have seen friends of mine become millionaires,squander it till they were broke ,become millionaires again,squander it again,,and become millionaires again,,,it is really that easy to do,but few understand it is a screwdriver,,,,,,,"they believe it is a God",,,,
whitestone
Well-known member
4 or more friends,who can put all their money into the same account and (not,steal,cheat,hurt,kill ect.),,,have the ability to finance the first business,,,they are the clerks,cooks(whatever),,divided by 4(or more)depending on how many.
All the money goes into the businesses account and all 4(or more) are paid the same salary,,,,after about (depends on the effort),,2 or so years,you buy friend # 2 a store,,a year later,friend #3,,then # 4,,,,,,,,,,,
Then you all have a business of your own and take a determined amount and all (4 or more) open another account and grow from there,,,,,,
It was fun for us we were open 24hrs and so we (the 4) worked 1 week 12on 12off,,,,"and the other 2 were off that week"lol,,,,,,,so we in all actuality only worked 6 months of each year,,as we grew we worked less and less,,,eventually it was only my job to go to the stores/restaurants and do the bank deposits once every 6 months for 1 month,,,by the time I was 30 my share of this venture 1/4th was 4 stores,7 restaurants,,,,,,it's just a screwdriver,,,,
All the money goes into the businesses account and all 4(or more) are paid the same salary,,,,after about (depends on the effort),,2 or so years,you buy friend # 2 a store,,a year later,friend #3,,then # 4,,,,,,,,,,,
Then you all have a business of your own and take a determined amount and all (4 or more) open another account and grow from there,,,,,,
It was fun for us we were open 24hrs and so we (the 4) worked 1 week 12on 12off,,,,"and the other 2 were off that week"lol,,,,,,,so we in all actuality only worked 6 months of each year,,as we grew we worked less and less,,,eventually it was only my job to go to the stores/restaurants and do the bank deposits once every 6 months for 1 month,,,by the time I was 30 my share of this venture 1/4th was 4 stores,7 restaurants,,,,,,it's just a screwdriver,,,,
If the people fail to be worse off in general then the government should disallow people to make contracts freely? Sounds reasonable.
If said another way: if a bigger government, or a government with more control, or as a government displaces freedom (all the same thing) made peoples' lives better then I'd be all for it. But in every case, and by general theory, and in this particular case, that's not true. We know that they are, in general, worse off in this case because you are asking the government to increase it's control over possible free contracts more than it already is. If your claim worked, then as the government increased it's control over private contracts peoples' lives would get better and better. But as you admit, and the reason for further loss of freedom, is because you perceive things are getting worse.
It's only true if my morals are correct. If you want to see between us who's morals are correct, you tell us your objective standard for your morals and we'll compare them to mine.
But, yeah, if it turns out my morals are correct then I'll always be right and you'll always be wrong.
In the end what we find is that not having an objective standard for morals means you can never be sure if any policy you support is right or wrong.
Really. Objectively mistaken? By math? Does increasing costs make a product more expensive or cheaper?
Then you've just given away the farm. If marginal costs increase, then they will have to respond somehow. In a highly competitive market, that doesn't include reduced profits enough to ignore the increase in costs.
No, I'm stating business reality. In a highly competitive market, the only advantage one has over their competition is to control costs.
If the government raises costs by force, then, yeah, businesses can't control that. If there are other costs that can't be controlled apart from that, it means the business is failing... according to math.
I wasn't clear. I meant all business would have their costs go up across the industry.
This is only true in industries with little or no competition. In highly competitive markets, very profitable means "able to not change what we are doing and stay in business for the foreseeable future" (and it's not too easy to see very far into the future).
And don't forget, all monopolies exist by government protection. So don't be too quick to desire that businesses have low or no competition just so they can have profits to spread around sans a change in the way they do business.
Superfluous profit is profit made that can be spent on higher costs without changing the way one does business.
You failed the math portion of this conversation. The problem of employing people that cost more without a corresponding increase in productivity will have to be mitigated.
And when we look at the employment numbers, we see it means entry level workers get less work. Just as it always has.
It's the general case. If you are this far out of touch with reality then you have no business addressing this subject.
Or is this just a debate tactic you are using?
You think McDonald's and Burger King don't compete? What do you think it means to compete?
And don't forget what companies have to do to be successful. They have to worry less about the competition and more about customers. But customers will choose the competition if costs are not controlled because that imbalance in costs will be shown in the value of the product. Whether costs are controlled to attract enough customers to put the competition out of business, or controlled enough to get more customers in general is irrelevant.
Why not?
Of course. Which is why mitigating a forced increase in cost will be responded to with any tool available. One of those tools, as math shows, will be higher unemployment for entry level workers.
Then your previous claim is wrong.
The way I suggest business act toward competition is the only way a business can stay in business.
Your arguments are of such low quality that I'm amazed you still think you are qualified to discuss the this topic.
That you thought I said something like this is indicative of your poor understanding of the subject. You should be more skeptical of what you were taught because someone really took you for a ride.
PAYING A DECENT, MINIMUM WAGE....
Paying fast-food workers $15 an hour is not going to mean layoffs because these jobs cannot and will not be outsourced overseas. Or taken over by robots or automation.
Truth be told, in June McDonald's CEO Don Thompson said the company would support a bill, proposed by President Barack Obama, to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 from $7.25.
But, of course, the workers will have to fend for themselves, as the bill has struggled to make it through a politically gridlocked Congress.
Imagine that.
Robots are not going to replace fast food workers, even though such a notion has been a pipe dream for employers for years.
The reason you will always need a person is because employers require the kind of flexibility that a computer or machine can't deliver.
The sheer numbers of underpaid fast food workers give those employees a lot of power in deciding how they will be paid and treated on the job.
Paying fast-food workers $15 an hour is not going to mean layoffs because these jobs cannot and will not be outsourced overseas. Or taken over by robots or automation.
Truth be told, in June McDonald's CEO Don Thompson said the company would support a bill, proposed by President Barack Obama, to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 from $7.25.
But, of course, the workers will have to fend for themselves, as the bill has struggled to make it through a politically gridlocked Congress.
Imagine that.
Robots are not going to replace fast food workers, even though such a notion has been a pipe dream for employers for years.
The reason you will always need a person is because employers require the kind of flexibility that a computer or machine can't deliver.
The sheer numbers of underpaid fast food workers give those employees a lot of power in deciding how they will be paid and treated on the job.