Originally Posted By: sini
Originally Posted By: Derid


Um, no. And no. Your refusal to think anything through prevents you from getting a clear picture of how this works.


More magical thinking on your part. If only I though about it more, I'd find despicable conservative point of view more agreeable? Don't think so. It takes a special kind of a character flaw to tell people they don't deserve to eat/shelter/clothing for an honest day of work.

Quote:
You see a macro report and make assumptions that fit your predjudice, you obviously have no idea how things work on the store level.


So you think these reports were cooked? Because they show profitable corporations that (often) pay healthy dividends. I have been holding stocks of a number of these companies, and they have been nothing but stellar though this recession and largely shielded that portion of my assets from the effects of the market downturn.

How it works on the store level DOES NOT MATTER outside of store level. Sure, some franchise lease holder could be squeezed by corp along with employees, but that does not change fundamental math of profits - there is plenty out there and fast food corps are not in any danger of going out of business.

Quote:
As to the taxpayer picking up the bill - you seem to think twice as many people picking up full govt ride is better as opposed to fewer people picking up a partial govt ride. I find that silly.


I find it silly that such 'small government'/'market force' advocate as you would not admit that if we were to remove government subsidies via social nets, then almost nobody would work at these jobs, because you can't meet life needs with what you get paid.

Have you considered that these below-poverty paying jobs creating vicious cycle? You pay less, people have less to spend, it puts pressure to lower prices on everything and results in more outsourcing and more low paying jobs. On top of that, next generation grows up in poverty and with parents working full time, have opportunities greatly reduced and are going to go back into feeding this vicious cycle.

Even Ford understood that you have to pay enough your workers so they can afford one of your cars. Why have this knowledge was lost?


No, no magical thinking here - only you digging deeper and deeper by showing how inadequate your knowledge of the subject is.

Your non sequitur regarding falsified reports further reinforces this.

As I said, you see a report and make an *assumption*. A very poor one at that. You seem to have no comprehension on how that money was actually made. A quick example for you:

Store chain A has 1000 stores and they are all profitable. Each store returns 20k/yr profit - chain profits 20mil a year. Something happens that makes each store UN-profitable. Suddenly chain is losing money. Expand or condense numbers involved to match scenario. What happens on the store level is EVERYTHING. A chain without healthy individual stores is no longer a healthy or profitable chain.

Also, if govt subsidies were removed - people would still work at those jobs. Because believe it or not, you actually can meet life needs working those jobs. You do not seem to want to believe it, but mine own two eyes have seen it countless times. You just do not know what you are talking about. I did it myself when I was younger, and no - no govt or welfare etc involved.

BTW - workers at fast food joints do in fact make enough money to buy fast food. Not sure where you are finding relevance in the Ford comparison.

All the real world evidence is against you here. Unlike you apparently, most of us have seen it or lived it first hand at one point or another.

All this without even getting into inflation, and relative value mess that would be created.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)