Fast Food Strikes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

Sounds very similar to representative Democracy in my book. [/quote]

Great. You’re wrong, but good for you.

Some states in the Union allow certain regulations to be decided by democratic means, and our representatives are chosen through democratic (to a degree) means. Other than that, not a democracy, not at all.

But that’s a truth that doesn’t fit the statist narrative so they don’t bother to teach the subtitles anymore.

[quote] but you still have a representative Democracy.

[/quote]

Just like your argument above, you can say the same things over and over if you want, doesn’t make them true. [/quote]

If you mean ancient greek Democracy or Direct Democracy when you use the term demoracy( repetative I know ) then yes you dont have a Democracy and neither do my country. But in modern lingua Democracy are mostly used to describe a country With a representative democractic system and With a constitution wich limits the state in some respect( humans rights for example ). I know that your model is different than Ours, but I would argue that your system is a variation of representativ Democracy. If you want to Call that a Republic then fine. [/quote]

I do want to use the strict definitions because to not do so plays into the narrative that is currently in vogue here. A narrative I reject and do generally fear.
[/quote]

I can understand that. I am rather anal regarding other terms( See my discussion With pittbull regarding the meaning of the term socialism ). I also dont like that your country conflates liberalism With socialdemocracy, thats confusing as shit for a person from Europa LOL. Liberalism in Europa( except England ) is Close to what you in US Calls Libertarianism. [/quote]

Good article discussing modern liberalism:

http://www.tomsunic.com/?p=319

Carl Schmitt argued that modern liberalism is an extremely dangerous ideology for a number of reasons:

  1. It is a utopian philosophy like Communism.

  2. It is global in perspective. It seeks to “spread” liberal democracy throughout the world.

  3. It claims to represent “humanity” and “humane ideals” therefore anyone who opposes it is necessarily inhumane and working against humanity.

Put these 3 together and you have a recipe for an extremely destructive and dangerous globalist ideology.[/quote]

I actually own Smith’s “The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy”, but have never read it. On the back of its cover it is written:

"Described both as “the Hobbes of Our age” and as “the philosophical godfather of Nazism,”…

In the foreword it says that

“…, he entered Public life as a constitutional adviser to the government during the last years of the Republic, then shifted his Allegiance to the National-Socialist regime after Hitler’s rise to Power.”

I would take what this guy has to say about liberalism and democracy With a pinch of salt. However the article you posted pointed to some legitimate concerns regarding the state of affairs in western Democracys. One problem is the proffesional politician and marketification( if that is a Word ) of the democratic process. Today most arent very active in politics, we only shop politicians and their partys every 2-4 years and the politicians have a arsenal of media-experts who advice them on what to say an do when they are in the Public eye. That is in my view a democratic problem. I wish that trend will turn and that we will se a popuation who participate more in political affairs and that we get representatives who actally represent someting other than their own career.

102

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It’s what fuelled plantation slavery in the Southern states. [/quote]

I know you’re too smart to pretend that slavery in the states was an isolated incident.

What you and Flor are missing, that I’m poorly showing is all these things are human conditions, and everything you’re complaining about happens irrelevant who owns the capital, free people or the state.

Stop blaming capitalism for the weakness of mankind as a whole.

103

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

Sounds very similar to representative Democracy in my book. [/quote]

Great. You’re wrong, but good for you.

Some states in the Union allow certain regulations to be decided by democratic means, and our representatives are chosen through democratic (to a degree) means. Other than that, not a democracy, not at all.

But that’s a truth that doesn’t fit the statist narrative so they don’t bother to teach the subtitles anymore.

[quote] but you still have a representative Democracy.

[/quote]

Just like your argument above, you can say the same things over and over if you want, doesn’t make them true. [/quote]

If you mean ancient greek Democracy or Direct Democracy when you use the term demoracy( repetative I know ) then yes you dont have a Democracy and neither do my country. But in modern lingua Democracy are mostly used to describe a country With a representative democractic system and With a constitution wich limits the state in some respect( humans rights for example ). I know that your model is different than Ours, but I would argue that your system is a variation of representativ Democracy. If you want to Call that a Republic then fine. [/quote]

I do want to use the strict definitions because to not do so plays into the narrative that is currently in vogue here. A narrative I reject and do generally fear.
[/quote]

I can understand that. I am rather anal regarding other terms( See my discussion With pittbull regarding the meaning of the term socialism ). I also dont like that your country conflates liberalism With socialdemocracy, thats confusing as shit for a person from Europa LOL. Liberalism in Europa( except England ) is Close to what you in US Calls Libertarianism. [/quote]

Good article discussing modern liberalism:

http://www.tomsunic.com/?p=319

Carl Schmitt argued that modern liberalism is an extremely dangerous ideology for a number of reasons:

  1. It is a utopian philosophy like Communism.

  2. It is global in perspective. It seeks to “spread” liberal democracy throughout the world.

  3. It claims to represent “humanity” and “humane ideals” therefore anyone who opposes it is necessarily inhumane and working against humanity.

Put these 3 together and you have a recipe for an extremely destructive and dangerous globalist ideology.[/quote]

I actually own Smith’s “The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy”, but have never read it. On the back of its cover it is written:

"Described both as “the Hobbes of Our age” and as “the philosophical godfather of Nazism,”…

In the foreword it says that

“…, he entered Public life as a constitutional adviser to the government during the last years of the Republic, then shifted his Allegiance to the National-Socialist regime after Hitler’s rise to Power.”

I would take what this guy has to say about liberalism and democracy With a pinch of salt. However the article you posted pointed to some legitimate concerns regarding the state of affairs in western Democracys. One problem is the proffesional politician and marketification( if that is a Word ) of the democratic process. Today most arent very active in politics, we only shop politicians and their partys every 2-4 years and the politicians have a arsenal of media-experts who advice them on what to say an do when they are in the Public eye. That is in my view a democratic problem. I wish that trend will turn and that we will se a popuation who participate more in political affairs and that we get representatives who actally represent someting other than their own career. [/quote]

Yes it’s true. Schmitt was a Nazi. However, his criticism of liberalism and parliamentary democracy is profound. He is regarded as one of the greatest political philosophers of the 20th century. He influenced both the left and the right. Don’t let the fact that he became a Nazi dissuade you from taking his philosophical criticisms of liberalism seriously.

104

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I know you’re too smart to pretend that slavery in the states was an isolated incident.
[/quote]

I wasn’t suggesting it was an isolated incident. I was just using that as an example.

[quote]
What you and Flor are missing, that I’m poorly showing is all these things are human conditions, and everything you’re complaining about happens irrelevant who owns the capital, free people or the state.

Stop blaming capitalism for the weakness of mankind as a whole. [/quote]

I agree and said so myself. My point is that we should avoid portraying free market capitalism as a utopian system if we want to be taken seriously.

105

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

What you and Flor are missing, that I’m poorly showing is all these things are human conditions, and everything you’re complaining about happens irrelevant who owns the capital, free people or the state.

Stop blaming capitalism for the weakness of mankind as a whole. [/quote]

I agree and said so myself. My point is that we should avoid portraying free market capitalism as a utopian system if we want to be taken seriously.[/quote]

Okay, my bad, I missed that.

Yeah. I’m not trying to sit here and say rule of law isn’t important, nor do I intend to imply that human’s aren’t fallible. Yes, some amount (the argument lies in how much and by who) of state intervention into a “free market” will be needed because man has a tiny bit of a problem with power.

Totally free market will fail for the same reason communism and other collective philosophies always fail.

106

Might as well post this here too:

107

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Also an increase in minimum wage is bad for an economy? Where are the studies, evidence that confirms this theory? Or should I just believe it cause it conforms to an ideology?

[/quote]
You should believe it because it’s basic economics.[/quote]

What kind of basic economics? Are we talking Marxian, Austrian or Keynesian economics?

According too keynesian Logic a raise in the minimum wage would mean a raise in low-wage earners ability to buy Things, wich in turn would lead to more Growth in Your domestic market, since the pool of customers would increase.

[/quote]

I’m talking the basic economics of business not a theory in particular. If it costs $1 to make a widget and the market will only pay $1.25 for that widget. You can’t increase the cost of production above $1.25. A wage increase is an additional cost to production.

That’s just reality.[/quote]

You mostly talk theory because it fits your ideology. Where are the studies that show once minimum wage is increased there is a net loss of jobs?

108

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
The data is that McDonalds, Burger king, Fridays and other American fast Food Companys operates in my country where they have to pay their workers alot more ( roughly 20-25 dollars an hour ), A worker here who Works fulltime( 40 hours a week ) at mcDonalds can pay rent, gas, buy the Essentials like Food clothes etc, get drunk once or twice a week and so on. If they where not able to generate a profit from being here, they would not be here. From that observation I atleast Draw the conclusion that they are able to pay People a decent wage in Your country. [/quote]

That’s not exactly data is it? How much do the products at these restaurants cost? What is your cost of living? Does the $20-$25 include benefits? What exactly is a decent wage anyway? How much support do these worker get from the government?

[quote]
When it comes too other bussines that are not able too pay People a more than the current minimum wage then you have too way the positives against the negatives. If an increase in the minimum wage leads to an overall effect of improving the lifes of people stuck in low-wage employment and increasing Growth in Your domestic market, then I will say that a few bancrupt company’s is Worth the cost. As they say, you have to break some eggs to make a omelett.[/quote]

My guess, and it is a guess (A somewhat educated one), is that the positives will not out weigh the negatives in this case. You are talking about a lot of companies across a lot of industries. We will either have an increase in those on government assistance because companies are out of business or we will have an increase in those on government assistance because even more jobs have been shipped over seas. Reducing the number of available jobs in America is not a solution to our problems. [/quote]

So you guess instead of showing studies that have evidence for your theories.

Where are the studies?

109

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Why would someone hurt themselves economically?
[/quote]

You missed Nick’s point and it’s a good one. By creating an artificial floor (min wage) you are limiting the bargaining power of unskilled laborers. By this I mean (Nick meant) an unskilled laborer can’t undercut his competition by accepting less money up front. You see this as hurting himself economically. It isn’t if it allows him to get his foot in the door because #1 he’s earning a wage he, I assume, wasn’t before (unemployed) and #2 it allows him to work his way up beyond the minimum and hopefully to a good (whatever that is) wage. Point being he first needs the opportunity and you’ve limited how he can get it.[/quote]

There is no evidence he will increase his wage to a good one as productivity gains are not given to employees but rather consumed by those at the top. Plenty of studies to confirm this. So the potential employee has zero incentive to undercut his pay.

110

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Also an increase in minimum wage is bad for an economy? Where are the studies, evidence that confirms this theory? Or should I just believe it cause it conforms to an ideology?

[/quote]
You should believe it because it’s basic economics.[/quote]

What kind of basic economics? Are we talking Marxian, Austrian or Keynesian economics?

According too keynesian Logic a raise in the minimum wage would mean a raise in low-wage earners ability to buy Things, wich in turn would lead to more Growth in Your domestic market, since the pool of customers would increase.

[/quote]

I’m talking the basic economics of business not a theory in particular. If it costs $1 to make a widget and the market will only pay $1.25 for that widget. You can’t increase the cost of production above $1.25. A wage increase is an additional cost to production.

That’s just reality.[/quote]

You mostly talk theory because it fits your ideology. Where are the studies that show once minimum wage is increased there is a net loss of jobs?[/quote]

"…a comprehensive, 182-page summary of the research on this subject from the last two decades, economists David Neumark (UC-Irvine) and William Wascher (Federal Reserve Board) determined that 85 percent of the best research points to a loss of jobs following a minimum wage increase…

111

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Also an increase in minimum wage is bad for an economy? Where are the studies, evidence that confirms this theory? Or should I just believe it cause it conforms to an ideology?

[/quote]
You should believe it because it’s basic economics.[/quote]

What kind of basic economics? Are we talking Marxian, Austrian or Keynesian economics?

According too keynesian Logic a raise in the minimum wage would mean a raise in low-wage earners ability to buy Things, wich in turn would lead to more Growth in Your domestic market, since the pool of customers would increase.

[/quote]

I’m talking the basic economics of business not a theory in particular. If it costs $1 to make a widget and the market will only pay $1.25 for that widget. You can’t increase the cost of production above $1.25. A wage increase is an additional cost to production.

That’s just reality.[/quote]

You mostly talk theory because it fits your ideology. Where are the studies that show once minimum wage is increased there is a net loss of jobs?[/quote]

"…a comprehensive, 182-page summary of the research on this subject from the last two decades, economists David Neumark (UC-Irvine) and William Wascher (Federal Reserve Board) determined that 85 percent of the best research points to a loss of jobs following a minimum wage increase…

[/quote]

Counter-points

http://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org/news/00135/research-shows-minimum-wage-increases-do-not-cause-job-loss

A debate on the subject.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11832

112

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
You mostly talk theory because it fits your ideology. Where are the studies that show once minimum wage is increased there is a net loss of jobs?[/quote]

Everything you say fits your ideology as well.

How do you propose a study like that be conducted?

113

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
The data is that McDonalds, Burger king, Fridays and other American fast Food Companys operates in my country where they have to pay their workers alot more ( roughly 20-25 dollars an hour ), A worker here who Works fulltime( 40 hours a week ) at mcDonalds can pay rent, gas, buy the Essentials like Food clothes etc, get drunk once or twice a week and so on. If they where not able to generate a profit from being here, they would not be here. From that observation I atleast Draw the conclusion that they are able to pay People a decent wage in Your country. [/quote]

That’s not exactly data is it? How much do the products at these restaurants cost? What is your cost of living? Does the $20-$25 include benefits? What exactly is a decent wage anyway? How much support do these worker get from the government?

[quote]
When it comes too other bussines that are not able too pay People a more than the current minimum wage then you have too way the positives against the negatives. If an increase in the minimum wage leads to an overall effect of improving the lifes of people stuck in low-wage employment and increasing Growth in Your domestic market, then I will say that a few bancrupt company’s is Worth the cost. As they say, you have to break some eggs to make a omelett.[/quote]

My guess, and it is a guess (A somewhat educated one), is that the positives will not out weigh the negatives in this case. You are talking about a lot of companies across a lot of industries. We will either have an increase in those on government assistance because companies are out of business or we will have an increase in those on government assistance because even more jobs have been shipped over seas. Reducing the number of available jobs in America is not a solution to our problems. [/quote]

So you guess instead of showing studies that have evidence for your theories.

Where are the studies?[/quote]

Please explain how you would conduct a study like this.

114

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Why would someone hurt themselves economically?
[/quote]

You missed Nick’s point and it’s a good one. By creating an artificial floor (min wage) you are limiting the bargaining power of unskilled laborers. By this I mean (Nick meant) an unskilled laborer can’t undercut his competition by accepting less money up front. You see this as hurting himself economically. It isn’t if it allows him to get his foot in the door because #1 he’s earning a wage he, I assume, wasn’t before (unemployed) and #2 it allows him to work his way up beyond the minimum and hopefully to a good (whatever that is) wage. Point being he first needs the opportunity and you’ve limited how he can get it.[/quote]

There is no evidence he will increase his wage to a good one as productivity gains are not given to employees but rather consumed by those at the top. Plenty of studies to confirm this. So the potential employee has zero incentive to undercut his pay.[/quote]

You completely missed the point.

What is a good wage in your opinion?

115

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Also an increase in minimum wage is bad for an economy? Where are the studies, evidence that confirms this theory? Or should I just believe it cause it conforms to an ideology?

[/quote]
You should believe it because it’s basic economics.[/quote]

What kind of basic economics? Are we talking Marxian, Austrian or Keynesian economics?

According too keynesian Logic a raise in the minimum wage would mean a raise in low-wage earners ability to buy Things, wich in turn would lead to more Growth in Your domestic market, since the pool of customers would increase.

[/quote]

I’m talking the basic economics of business not a theory in particular. If it costs $1 to make a widget and the market will only pay $1.25 for that widget. You can’t increase the cost of production above $1.25. A wage increase is an additional cost to production.

That’s just reality.[/quote]

You mostly talk theory because it fits your ideology. Where are the studies that show once minimum wage is increased there is a net loss of jobs?[/quote]

I am not talking theory. I can tell you from first hand experience the raise in minimum wage in MD will have a yearly affect in the millions on the company I work for. I was involved in the analysis and modeling of the issue. Do you know what one of the possible outcomes/solutions was? Cutbacks. That’s real life, not some link that fits your ideology.

116

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
"…a comprehensive, 182-page summary of the research on this subject from the last two decades, economists David Neumark (UC-Irvine) and William Wascher (Federal Reserve Board) determined that 85 percent of the best research points to a loss of jobs following a minimum wage increase…

[/quote]

Lol, who does this sound like>

"Stevenson argues that this consequence is a figment of the conservative imagination, citing â??manyâ?? studies which show a higher minimum wage has no impact on employment.

85% of research points to job lose:

“In a comprehensive, 182-page summary of the research on this subject from the last two decades, economists David Neumark (UC-Irvine) and William Wascher (Federal Reserve Board) determined that 85 percent of the best research points to a loss of jobs following a minimum wage increase.”

117

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
You mostly talk theory because it fits your ideology. Where are the studies that show once minimum wage is increased there is a net loss of jobs?[/quote]

Everything you say fits your ideology as well.

How do you propose a study like that be conducted?

[/quote]

I just go where the evidence suggests unlike you and your ilk. You will hang on to an ideology until your last breath.

118

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
You mostly talk theory because it fits your ideology. Where are the studies that show once minimum wage is increased there is a net loss of jobs?[/quote]

Everything you say fits your ideology as well.

How do you propose a study like that be conducted?

[/quote]

I just go where the evidence suggests unlike you and your ilk. You will hang on to an ideology until your last breath.
[/quote]

But you don’t go to where the evidence lies. You go to the fringe. That’s why your “source” is always some site like “da real newz” or “freakonomics”.

119

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
"…a comprehensive, 182-page summary of the research on this subject from the last two decades, economists David Neumark (UC-Irvine) and William Wascher (Federal Reserve Board) determined that 85 percent of the best research points to a loss of jobs following a minimum wage increase…

[/quote]

Lol, who does this sound like>

"Stevenson argues that this consequence is a figment of the conservative imagination, citing â??manyâ?? studies which show a higher minimum wage has no impact on employment.

85% of research points to job lose:

“In a comprehensive, 182-page summary of the research on this subject from the last two decades, economists David Neumark (UC-Irvine) and William Wascher (Federal Reserve Board) determined that 85 percent of the best research points to a loss of jobs following a minimum wage increase.”[/quote]

If what they say is true, why do the majority of the studies come to the opposite conclusions?

I shall go for the weight of the evidence as I could make an educated guess that they made some errors in their study like Reinhart and Rogoff the 2 Harvard economists who are responsible for shaping public policy in regards to austerity. When their errors were pointed out and they have yet to an accept a debate offered to them by the Real News I’m left to assume they are wrong and they know it.

Did the fact that the study was wrong effect policy makers decision on what policies to put in place? No, because they like you have invested their beliefs on ideological economic thought and find it too difficult to admit to themselves that maybe what they believe in is wrong.

120

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
You mostly talk theory because it fits your ideology. Where are the studies that show once minimum wage is increased there is a net loss of jobs?[/quote]

Everything you say fits your ideology as well.

How do you propose a study like that be conducted?

[/quote]

I just go where the evidence suggests unlike you and your ilk. You will hang on to an ideology until your last breath.
[/quote]

But you don’t go to where the evidence lies. You go to the fringe. That’s why your “source” is always some site like “da real newz” or “freakonomics”.[/quote]

So the studies I’ve referenced are nil because you say they are from the fringe? Where is your proof? Debunk the studies with proof not feelings.

Is your study acceptable because YOU think it falls within the mainstream? You sit within the narrowly defined parameters of debate. You are proof positive that the propaganda system in the U.S. works well.