Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Nice argumentum ad lapidem there. (Score 1) 255

Considering your inane rant was a non sequitur strawman argument I am not required to argue its merits, because by definition is has none. But ok, sure, I'll humor you:

First off, strawberries aren't food? Since when? And pizza and Big Macs are?

Whatever difficulties there are in picking strawberries are irrelevant, as the production of every food substance has it's own set of challenges. Pizza dough has to be used when it's thawed and can't be refrozen. Same with hamburger. Cheese needs to be refrigerated. French fries can only be up to 2 hours old and then need to be pitched. Buns have to be thrown out once they get stale, and so on. None of which are germane to the discussion of wages.

And don't you think, following your trainwreck of thought, that if strawberries aren't priced fairly due to slave wages, that pizza and Big Macs also are not priced fairly due to the slave wages paid to make them? Not to mention the grade-z ingredients used? But again, irrelevant to the discussion of wages as the production of strawberries via slave wages is no different than the production of any other product via slave wages. And none of this has anything to do with almonds.

I laid out very specific economic points, each of which you ignored and then went on a rant about how delicate and luxurious strawberries are. Which not only makes no sense, it's completely irrelevant to the discussion and not even close to being on topic. If anything you actually proved my point -- if strawberries are so difficult to pick, and so delicate, one would think you'd need skilled labor to do it correctly and efficiently. And skilled labor doesn't come cheap. And I'm betting that paying your workers $25/hr + benefits is still cheaper than watching your entire crop shrivel and die because you can't find anyone willing to work for less. Let's also remember we're not talking about a little mom and pop farm here, the farm from the article is one of the biggest producers of strawberries -- most certainly a multi-million dollar enterprise whose top men I'm sure get paid very handsomely.

Any more words from the peanut gallery?

Comment: Re:You're not willing to pay (Score 1) 255

There is quite the preponderance of evidence showing that raising salaries, even significantly, does not translate into a significant rise in consumer prices, especially when dealing with bulk items.

When Papa John bitched and moaned about Obamacare it was revealed the extra cost per pizza was 11 cents. The minimum wage in Denmark is $20/hour + a ton of government-mandated perks, yet their Big Macs only cost about 25 cents more than ours.

So this whole "if we force employers to pay their workers $15/hr it will drive up the cost of their products" simply doesn't hold water. And on the flip side, you're giving people more money to spend, meaning more products they're going to buy, so you'll likely to sell MORE of your products, not less.

Economics 101.

Comment: Re:You're not willing to pay (Score 1) 255

If you business model requires that you pay slave wages to your employees you need a new business model.

I also love when they say "Americans don't want to do this work", because they always leave off the "for the slave wages I'm willing to pay them".

And as we've seen over and over and over again, increasing the salary you pay to your workers has a negligible effect on the price of your goods that consumers pay.

When I was in high school I used to work on a farm over the summer, picking berries and other fruit. It was absolutely shitty work, but it paid more than McDonalds, which was also shitty work and at least I got to be outside. But to do that as an adult for minimum wage? Oh fuck no. You'd have to pay me upwards of $25 an hour + full health benefits + overtime + minimum 2 weeks vacation to do that kind of shit work. Offer a package like that and see how many American come running for that job they supposedly don't want to do.

Comment: Re:Gotta disagree strongly . . . (Score 1) 109

by WillyWanker (#48854169) Attached to: <em>Star Trek Continues</em> Kickstarter 2.0

Have you seen Mind-Sifter? ST-C looks good until you compare it to New Voyages, and then you realize that it's not really all that great after all. And sure ST-C had Lou Ferrigno and Michael Forest, but New Voyages has had Walter Koenig, George Takei, and Denise Crosby. They also don't violate established canon like ST-C does.

Comment: Re:Use that pen Mr. President! (Score 2) 182

by WillyWanker (#48846489) Attached to: Republican Bill Aims To Thwart the FCC's Leaning Towards Title II

Oh please, stop with the Faux News bullshit. His EO and the bill that the Republicans attempted to pass were NOT equal in form or substance, namely, the EO was a delay that applied only to businesses while the GOP bill would apply to everyone, which would have resulted in a rise in premiums and lower enrollment numbers. And let's face it, the GOP bill is yet another thinly-veiled attempt at derailing the ACA, unlike the EO which was actually a bone toss to businesses to help them get onboard.

If you're going to bitch about something at least try to get your facts straight and compare apples to apples instead of oranges.

And apparently since you weren't paying attention the last time Faux News and the GOP made a stink about his EOs, it is 100% within the purview of POTUS to pass EOs that grant amnesty from any law he chooses. In this case it was nothing more than amnesty to businesses who did not enroll in the ACA. Really, it's not hard to understand. Enforcing the law also includes the ability to NOT enforce it when you see fit. It's done all the time from local DAs, to Mayors, to Governors, and right up the pipeline to President. All have the power to grant amnesty or to not charge someone for breaking the law. When a DA or Governor does it no one blinks. When the Black man does it, everyone starts screaming bloody murder.

Comment: Re:Use that pen Mr. President! (Score 1, Interesting) 182

by WillyWanker (#48846213) Attached to: Republican Bill Aims To Thwart the FCC's Leaning Towards Title II

Well before he can veto, Congress needs to actually pass something, which in and of itself is highly unlikely.

And I have absolutely zero issues with executive orders. Presidents have been using them for decades and no one ever complained until now. It's just more anti-Obama smoke and mirrors courtesy of the Koch brothers and Faux News.

Money can't buy love, but it improves your bargaining position. -- Christopher Marlowe

Working...