$15 to Flip a Burger

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
To anyone who worked at a fast food place when younger (myself included): you would not have turned down a raise even if it meant prices would have gone up. You also believed you should have been paid more. You may have accepted the conditions but don’t say you liked them.

I don’t know what a fair wage is, for any job, but I can’t fault anyone for trying to get as much as they can or for believing their work is worth more than what they are getting paid. I’m not some communist after all. [/quote]

And what did you do?

You went on to bigger and better things no?

Funny how that works, isn’t it. [/quote]
But that doesn’t change the fact that when I look back I realize I was underpaid for what I did. They took advantage of the fact that a HS kid doesn’t need to make a lot of money. That’s part of the problem though. When I worked there it was people who were not depending on that paycheck to survive. You had kids or adults (you need adults as kids have school) who were mothers, for example, who worked a few hours during the day while their kids were at school. Now you have people for whom a job like that is a “real” job. I don’t judge them. We all can be victims of circumstance. I was someone who was on the way up, you could say, when I worked in fast food. Some are on the way down and are trying their best to stop falling. I can’t begrudged or belittle them. At least they are still in the fight. I look at their motivation for wanting more money and I see it isn’t about greed or feeling an entitlement to be rich (it’s 15 dollars an hour after all). I see it as trying to survive, maybe take care of a family, so how can I look down on them for that?

122

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]CroatianRage wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]CroatianRage wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
Anyone here is welcome to start their own business and pay their employees a “living wage.” I don’t know who said it before, but 31k is well above a fair living wage, my budget is at a little over 15k per year and I don’t want for anything. IMO, I don’t think it’s wise to change your pricing structure due to a sudden massive increase in overhead that isn’t going to result in more profit.

When the time comes for me to hire an assistant in my practice I’ll certainly pour over the books and estimate the increased workload I can take on with an assistant. After that I will hire someone for a wage that results in me profiting off of their work. That’s not riding their back or whatever, that’s being an employer. Don’t spend money if it doesn’t make you money.

I wonder if anything is going to come from this. On one hand I can see McDonalds giving a 50 cent or so raise to appease these people. But, on the other, I could easily see them just firing all the protesters, because at the end of the day their job has little value.[/quote]

[/quote]

What’s the point of this?[/quote]

If you watch it , there are children that that would rather have a less reward for them selves just so they could make more of an award than another child . I am curious how much of especially the Hard core Conservative or Liberal is just psychological
[/quote]

It was the article about how NYC is expensive. Everyone knows NYC is expensive. There’s not some dome around the city that prevents people from leaving it.[/quote]

just curious have you ever moved , it is not cheap. How would you do it with no money ?
[/quote]

You find a job someplace else, and move.

We have all done it…if the only other option is failure, then you make it happen.

Why should able bodied people be coddled?

123

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

Is that number of employees including all employees? Not all employees are making min wage so they would not be among those to get a substantial raise. [/quote]

A fair estimate is that doubling the pay rate of the lowest skilled and lowest paid to $15, would cause the need to double the pay of everyone making between $7.25 and $10, 50-70% increase for everyone making between $10-$17 and at least a 10-20% raise for everyone making between $17-22 or so.

[/quote]

Bingo it is called re-redistribution of wealth :slight_smile: maybe you would see a resurgence of middle class

124

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Adam Smith…

A whole lot of you need to get reading. [/quote]
Did he factor in poor people eating out with money they technically don’t have or Americans’ addiction to crappy food? The assumption that people won’t pay more doesn’t take into account the stupidity of poor people and gluttony of fat people.

125

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
$15 an hour? Okay, let’s crunch some numbers.

McDonalds made 5.5 BILLION dollars profit last year. With that, they can afford to give their employees a raise of:

$5,500,000,000/1,800,000 employees=$3,055/employee-year

$3,500/employee/2080 hr/year = $1.47/hr per employee.

Nowhere near the 2x raise they’re asking for, and that’s assuming McDonalds is willing to drain the entirety of their profit to give their employees raises.

It’s worth mentioning that almost nobody works 40 hours a week as a McDonalds employee and this excludes much of upper management pay and payment to their workers in other countries. I’d factor these in too, but it’s already clear that McDonalds simply doesn’t have the profit margins to double the pay of their employees, even if they’re willing to make ZERO PROFIT.

You can always argue that McDonalds could simply raise the prices of their food in order to pay their employees more, but you’d be a fucking idiot. If Mcdonalds could make more money by charging more, they already would be. If you charge more, people buy less, you make less money, people lose their jobs.

Of course, if all the fast-food places raised their prices it could work (depending on the inelasticity of demand for fast-food, and how one defines “fast food”), but that would require collusion and extensive legislation establishing enough barriers to entry in order to ensure no new firms hit the market looking to undercut our new burger-cartel.

That’s the trade off; double minimum wage for a fast-food oligopoly.

So, which weighs heavier to the leftist; improving the living standards of unskilled labourers, or fighting crony capitalism?

Problem?

[/quote]

Maybe they would need to do away with the crew at night , the only reason they can afford it is cheap labor . Maybe they do not deserve to be in business . Maybe Ma and Pa could afford to run their burger stand and sell real food and hire people that can live on their wages .

Perfect plan ? no but it is better than the Corporate Fascist program we are presently running
[/quote]

Maybe ma and pa could take down Mcdicks.

We’d need a freer market to find out.

126

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
$15 an hour? Okay, let’s crunch some numbers.

McDonalds made 5.5 BILLION dollars profit last year. With that, they can afford to give their employees a raise of:

$5,500,000,000/1,800,000 employees=$3,055/employee-year

$3,500/employee/2080 hr/year = $1.47/hr per employee.

Nowhere near the 2x raise they’re asking for, and that’s assuming McDonalds is willing to drain the entirety of their profit to give their employees raises.

It’s worth mentioning that almost nobody works 40 hours a week as a McDonalds employee and this excludes much of upper management pay and payment to their workers in other countries. I’d factor these in too, but it’s already clear that McDonalds simply doesn’t have the profit margins to double the pay of their employees, even if they’re willing to make ZERO PROFIT.

You can always argue that McDonalds could simply raise the prices of their food in order to pay their employees more, but you’d be a fucking idiot. If Mcdonalds could make more money by charging more, they already would be. If you charge more, people buy less, you make less money, people lose their jobs.

Of course, if all the fast-food places raised their prices it could work (depending on the inelasticity of demand for fast-food, and how one defines “fast food”), but that would require collusion and extensive legislation establishing enough barriers to entry in order to ensure no new firms hit the market looking to undercut our new burger-cartel.

That’s the trade off; double minimum wage for a fast-food oligopoly.

So, which weighs heavier to the leftist; improving the living standards of unskilled labourers, or fighting crony capitalism?

Problem?

[/quote]

Maybe they would need to do away with the crew at night , the only reason they can afford it is cheap labor . Maybe they do not deserve to be in business . Maybe Ma and Pa could afford to run their burger stand and sell real food and hire people that can live on their wages .

Perfect plan ? no but it is better than the Corporate Fascist program we are presently running
[/quote]

Ma and Pa are free to open their burger stand and pay employees whatever they want. What does McDonalds have to do with them being able to afford their own business?

You’re awful arrogant giving advice on how McDonalds should run their business. Whoever is in charge seems to be doing a pretty good job.

127

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
$15 an hour? Okay, let’s crunch some numbers.

McDonalds made 5.5 BILLION dollars profit last year. With that, they can afford to give their employees a raise of:

$5,500,000,000/1,800,000 employees=$3,055/employee-year

$3,500/employee/2080 hr/year = $1.47/hr per employee.

Nowhere near the 2x raise they’re asking for, and that’s assuming McDonalds is willing to drain the entirety of their profit to give their employees raises.

It’s worth mentioning that almost nobody works 40 hours a week as a McDonalds employee and this excludes much of upper management pay and payment to their workers in other countries. I’d factor these in too, but it’s already clear that McDonalds simply doesn’t have the profit margins to double the pay of their employees, even if they’re willing to make ZERO PROFIT.

You can always argue that McDonalds could simply raise the prices of their food in order to pay their employees more, but you’d be a fucking idiot. If Mcdonalds could make more money by charging more, they already would be. If you charge more, people buy less, you make less money, people lose their jobs.

Of course, if all the fast-food places raised their prices it could work (depending on the inelasticity of demand for fast-food, and how one defines “fast food”), but that would require collusion and extensive legislation establishing enough barriers to entry in order to ensure no new firms hit the market looking to undercut our new burger-cartel.

That’s the trade off; double minimum wage for a fast-food oligopoly.

So, which weighs heavier to the leftist; improving the living standards of unskilled labourers, or fighting crony capitalism?

Problem?

[/quote]

Maybe they would need to do away with the crew at night , the only reason they can afford it is cheap labor . Maybe they do not deserve to be in business . Maybe Ma and Pa could afford to run their burger stand and sell real food and hire people that can live on their wages .

Perfect plan ? no but it is better than the Corporate Fascist program we are presently running
[/quote]

Maybe ma and pa could take down Mcdicks.

We’d need a freer market to find out.[/quote]

They have us tricked into thinking the node of business is the only way we can go and if it wasn’t for them , no one would fill their shoes .

With out one super Walmart there would probably be 3 grocery stores , Every McDicks propbably 1/2 to 3/4 ma and pa burger joint . I would throw most other mega sized corp chain in with McDick and Walmart .I am surprised you actually see we are far from a free market :slight_smile:

128

As much as I sympathize with those who struggle at the bottom, as thats all I’ve known or seen most of my life, raising the minimum wage will accomplish nothing.

While providing a raise to an individual need not necessarily be provided for by an increase in product price, a universal increase in minimum wage will result in a universal raise in most prices to compensate. This is what has happened in the past and it would be foolish to assume it would not happen again.

So what would happen? Everything costs more, while the lowest rung has a bit more money to spend. The somewhat comfortable life style of whats left of the middle class shrinks as their goods cost more while their income remains unchanged. The lifestyles of the poor resemble that of those who were formerly a little better off than they, but virtually their life isn’t all that much different: more money, more expense. Perhaps it will be gratifying to feel as though they have stepped up a little by comparison, but in truth the comparison they are using was merely knocked down a rung, and the middle class dissolves further.

So effectively what has happened is the lesser limit of the wealth spectrum was pushed inward, accumulating more amongst the ranks of poor while placating the poorest. The disparity between the bottom and top will inevitably widen, perhaps regardless of what happen, money goes up not down.

129

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
$15 an hour? Okay, let’s crunch some numbers.

McDonalds made 5.5 BILLION dollars profit last year. With that, they can afford to give their employees a raise of:

$5,500,000,000/1,800,000 employees=$3,055/employee-year

$3,500/employee/2080 hr/year = $1.47/hr per employee.

Nowhere near the 2x raise they’re asking for, and that’s assuming McDonalds is willing to drain the entirety of their profit to give their employees raises.

It’s worth mentioning that almost nobody works 40 hours a week as a McDonalds employee and this excludes much of upper management pay and payment to their workers in other countries. I’d factor these in too, but it’s already clear that McDonalds simply doesn’t have the profit margins to double the pay of their employees, even if they’re willing to make ZERO PROFIT.

You can always argue that McDonalds could simply raise the prices of their food in order to pay their employees more, but you’d be a fucking idiot. If Mcdonalds could make more money by charging more, they already would be. If you charge more, people buy less, you make less money, people lose their jobs.

Of course, if all the fast-food places raised their prices it could work (depending on the inelasticity of demand for fast-food, and how one defines “fast food”), but that would require collusion and extensive legislation establishing enough barriers to entry in order to ensure no new firms hit the market looking to undercut our new burger-cartel.

That’s the trade off; double minimum wage for a fast-food oligopoly.

So, which weighs heavier to the leftist; improving the living standards of unskilled labourers, or fighting crony capitalism?

Problem?

[/quote]

Maybe they would need to do away with the crew at night , the only reason they can afford it is cheap labor . Maybe they do not deserve to be in business . Maybe Ma and Pa could afford to run their burger stand and sell real food and hire people that can live on their wages .

Perfect plan ? no but it is better than the Corporate Fascist program we are presently running
[/quote]

Maybe ma and pa could take down Mcdicks.

We’d need a freer market to find out.[/quote]

They have us tricked into thinking the node of business is the only way we can go and if it wasn’t for them , no one would fill their shoes .

With out one super Walmart there would probably be 3 grocery stores , Every McDicks propbably 1/2 to 3/4 ma and pa burger joint . I would throw most other mega sized corp chain in with McDick and Walmart .I am surprised you actually see we are far from a free market :slight_smile:
[/quote]

How much growth are ma and pa allowed to have before you start outing them as greedy corporate scum?

130

[quote]CroatianRage wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
$15 an hour? Okay, let’s crunch some numbers.

McDonalds made 5.5 BILLION dollars profit last year. With that, they can afford to give their employees a raise of:

$5,500,000,000/1,800,000 employees=$3,055/employee-year

$3,500/employee/2080 hr/year = $1.47/hr per employee.

Nowhere near the 2x raise they’re asking for, and that’s assuming McDonalds is willing to drain the entirety of their profit to give their employees raises.

It’s worth mentioning that almost nobody works 40 hours a week as a McDonalds employee and this excludes much of upper management pay and payment to their workers in other countries. I’d factor these in too, but it’s already clear that McDonalds simply doesn’t have the profit margins to double the pay of their employees, even if they’re willing to make ZERO PROFIT.

You can always argue that McDonalds could simply raise the prices of their food in order to pay their employees more, but you’d be a fucking idiot. If Mcdonalds could make more money by charging more, they already would be. If you charge more, people buy less, you make less money, people lose their jobs.

Of course, if all the fast-food places raised their prices it could work (depending on the inelasticity of demand for fast-food, and how one defines “fast food”), but that would require collusion and extensive legislation establishing enough barriers to entry in order to ensure no new firms hit the market looking to undercut our new burger-cartel.

That’s the trade off; double minimum wage for a fast-food oligopoly.

So, which weighs heavier to the leftist; improving the living standards of unskilled labourers, or fighting crony capitalism?

Problem?

[/quote]

Maybe they would need to do away with the crew at night , the only reason they can afford it is cheap labor . Maybe they do not deserve to be in business . Maybe Ma and Pa could afford to run their burger stand and sell real food and hire people that can live on their wages .

Perfect plan ? no but it is better than the Corporate Fascist program we are presently running
[/quote]

Maybe ma and pa could take down Mcdicks.

We’d need a freer market to find out.[/quote]

They have us tricked into thinking the node of business is the only way we can go and if it wasn’t for them , no one would fill their shoes .

With out one super Walmart there would probably be 3 grocery stores , Every McDicks propbably 1/2 to 3/4 ma and pa burger joint . I would throw most other mega sized corp chain in with McDick and Walmart .I am surprised you actually see we are far from a free market :slight_smile:
[/quote]

How much growth are ma and pa allowed to have before you start outing them as greedy corporate scum?[/quote]
I would think every small business owner would be aspiring to that.

131

[quote]CroatianRage wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
$15 an hour? Okay, let’s crunch some numbers.

McDonalds made 5.5 BILLION dollars profit last year. With that, they can afford to give their employees a raise of:

$5,500,000,000/1,800,000 employees=$3,055/employee-year

$3,500/employee/2080 hr/year = $1.47/hr per employee.

Nowhere near the 2x raise they’re asking for, and that’s assuming McDonalds is willing to drain the entirety of their profit to give their employees raises.

It’s worth mentioning that almost nobody works 40 hours a week as a McDonalds employee and this excludes much of upper management pay and payment to their workers in other countries. I’d factor these in too, but it’s already clear that McDonalds simply doesn’t have the profit margins to double the pay of their employees, even if they’re willing to make ZERO PROFIT.

You can always argue that McDonalds could simply raise the prices of their food in order to pay their employees more, but you’d be a fucking idiot. If Mcdonalds could make more money by charging more, they already would be. If you charge more, people buy less, you make less money, people lose their jobs.

Of course, if all the fast-food places raised their prices it could work (depending on the inelasticity of demand for fast-food, and how one defines “fast food”), but that would require collusion and extensive legislation establishing enough barriers to entry in order to ensure no new firms hit the market looking to undercut our new burger-cartel.

That’s the trade off; double minimum wage for a fast-food oligopoly.

So, which weighs heavier to the leftist; improving the living standards of unskilled labourers, or fighting crony capitalism?

Problem?

[/quote]

Maybe they would need to do away with the crew at night , the only reason they can afford it is cheap labor . Maybe they do not deserve to be in business . Maybe Ma and Pa could afford to run their burger stand and sell real food and hire people that can live on their wages .

Perfect plan ? no but it is better than the Corporate Fascist program we are presently running
[/quote]

Maybe ma and pa could take down Mcdicks.

We’d need a freer market to find out.[/quote]

They have us tricked into thinking the node of business is the only way we can go and if it wasn’t for them , no one would fill their shoes .

With out one super Walmart there would probably be 3 grocery stores , Every McDicks propbably 1/2 to 3/4 ma and pa burger joint . I would throw most other mega sized corp chain in with McDick and Walmart .I am surprised you actually see we are far from a free market :slight_smile:
[/quote]

How much growth are ma and pa allowed to have before you start outing them as greedy corporate scum?[/quote]

More than him.

132

[quote]H factor wrote:
I have no problem with this. A TON of things many people take for granted came from private sector unions and strikes. We probably need more strikes in this country, not less. If these people think they can improve their job I have no idea why it’s laughable.

[/quote]

x 2.

Workers solidarity now!

133

[quote]CroatianRage wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
$15 an hour? Okay, let’s crunch some numbers.

McDonalds made 5.5 BILLION dollars profit last year. With that, they can afford to give their employees a raise of:

$5,500,000,000/1,800,000 employees=$3,055/employee-year

$3,500/employee/2080 hr/year = $1.47/hr per employee.

Nowhere near the 2x raise they’re asking for, and that’s assuming McDonalds is willing to drain the entirety of their profit to give their employees raises.

It’s worth mentioning that almost nobody works 40 hours a week as a McDonalds employee and this excludes much of upper management pay and payment to their workers in other countries. I’d factor these in too, but it’s already clear that McDonalds simply doesn’t have the profit margins to double the pay of their employees, even if they’re willing to make ZERO PROFIT.

You can always argue that McDonalds could simply raise the prices of their food in order to pay their employees more, but you’d be a fucking idiot. If Mcdonalds could make more money by charging more, they already would be. If you charge more, people buy less, you make less money, people lose their jobs.

Of course, if all the fast-food places raised their prices it could work (depending on the inelasticity of demand for fast-food, and how one defines “fast food”), but that would require collusion and extensive legislation establishing enough barriers to entry in order to ensure no new firms hit the market looking to undercut our new burger-cartel.

That’s the trade off; double minimum wage for a fast-food oligopoly.

So, which weighs heavier to the leftist; improving the living standards of unskilled labourers, or fighting crony capitalism?

Problem?

[/quote]

Maybe they would need to do away with the crew at night , the only reason they can afford it is cheap labor . Maybe they do not deserve to be in business . Maybe Ma and Pa could afford to run their burger stand and sell real food and hire people that can live on their wages .

Perfect plan ? no but it is better than the Corporate Fascist program we are presently running
[/quote]

Maybe ma and pa could take down Mcdicks.

We’d need a freer market to find out.[/quote]

They have us tricked into thinking the node of business is the only way we can go and if it wasn’t for them , no one would fill their shoes .

With out one super Walmart there would probably be 3 grocery stores , Every McDicks propbably 1/2 to 3/4 ma and pa burger joint . I would throw most other mega sized corp chain in with McDick and Walmart .I am surprised you actually see we are far from a free market :slight_smile:
[/quote]

How much growth are ma and pa allowed to have before you start outing them as greedy corporate scum?[/quote]

Once they start stacking the deck against their competition and their employees

134

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
I have no problem with this. A TON of things many people take for granted came from private sector unions and strikes. We probably need more strikes in this country, not less. If these people think they can improve their job I have no idea why it’s laughable.

[/quote]

x 2.

Workers solidarity now!

x3

When American labor lost Union Influence , they lost their dog in the fight , we are now spectators

[/quote]

135

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
I have no problem with this. A TON of things many people take for granted came from private sector unions and strikes. We probably need more strikes in this country, not less. If these people think they can improve their job I have no idea why it’s laughable.

[/quote]

x 2.

Workers solidarity now!

x3

When American labor lost Union Influence , they lost their dog in the fight , we are now spectators

[/quote]
[/quote]

And the middle income working class decreased.

136

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
I have no problem with this. A TON of things many people take for granted came from private sector unions and strikes. We probably need more strikes in this country, not less. If these people think they can improve their job I have no idea why it’s laughable.

[/quote]

x 2.

Workers solidarity now!

x3

When American labor lost Union Influence , they lost their dog in the fight , we are now spectators

[/quote]
[/quote]

And we all have seen what Unions can do to a city…Yeah they are the best way to go.

I will agree they were needed in the past, but today they are just an organized mob always wanting more, and when they don’t get their way throw a tantrum. They then pull guns on management and beat up scabs. Yeah Unions are your regular stand up citizens.

137

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
I have no problem with this. A TON of things many people take for granted came from private sector unions and strikes. We probably need more strikes in this country, not less. If these people think they can improve their job I have no idea why it’s laughable.

[/quote]

x 2.

Workers solidarity now!

x3

When American labor lost Union Influence , they lost their dog in the fight , we are now spectators

[/quote]
[/quote]

And we all have seen what Unions can do to a city…Yeah they are the best way to go.

I will agree they were needed in the past, but today they are just an organized mob always wanting more, and when they don’t get their way throw a tantrum. They then pull guns on management and beat up scabs. Yeah Unions are your regular stand up citizens.
[/quote]

Labor unions and partys are important aslong as there exist contradictory interests between labor and capital. I dont expect right wing people to agree with me on this, but it needs mentioning IMO.

138

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
I have no problem with this. A TON of things many people take for granted came from private sector unions and strikes. We probably need more strikes in this country, not less. If these people think they can improve their job I have no idea why it’s laughable.

[/quote]

x 2.

Workers solidarity now!

x3

When American labor lost Union Influence , they lost their dog in the fight , we are now spectators

[/quote]
[/quote]

And we all have seen what Unions can do to a city…Yeah they are the best way to go.

I will agree they were needed in the past, but today they are just an organized mob always wanting more, and when they don’t get their way throw a tantrum. They then pull guns on management and beat up scabs. Yeah Unions are your regular stand up citizens.
[/quote]

Labor unions and partys are important aslong as there exist contradictory interests between labor and capital. I dont expect right wing people to agree with me on this, but it needs mentioning IMO.

[/quote]

What is the tax rate in Norway Flor?

139

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
I have no problem with this. A TON of things many people take for granted came from private sector unions and strikes. We probably need more strikes in this country, not less. If these people think they can improve their job I have no idea why it’s laughable.

[/quote]

x 2.

Workers solidarity now!

x3

When American labor lost Union Influence , they lost their dog in the fight , we are now spectators

[/quote]
[/quote]

And we all have seen what Unions can do to a city…Yeah they are the best way to go.

I will agree they were needed in the past, but today they are just an organized mob always wanting more, and when they don’t get their way throw a tantrum. They then pull guns on management and beat up scabs. Yeah Unions are your regular stand up citizens.
[/quote]

Labor unions and partys are important aslong as there exist contradictory interests between labor and capital. I dont expect right wing people to agree with me on this, but it needs mentioning IMO.

[/quote]

And where does labor invest their money? Thats right in the publically traded companies they are extorting. Interests are the same. The working man now with 401k have an interest in the companies doing well.

Now unions and cities there is separate interests. Unions get elected people that give them everything they want and then tax the hell out of it citizens, and then when the tax revenue dries up and the city is left in ruins the unions go some place else, and do not give a shit about their labor because the dues are all dried up.

You are right. Unions do have different interests, their own. You can kid yourself all you want, but Labor Unions do not care about their labor only their selves. It is not sustainable. Liberals should understand that.

140

Is anyone going to answer the question of why would a business purposely increase their overhead with no return on production or profit?