Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Stupid reasoning. (Score 1) 1073

by rockout (#49742453) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour
I don't consult. I work. And you're assuming that the entire labor force of a business is making minimum wage, which of course is a ridiculous assumption, and thus blows your numbers right out of the water as wildly inaccurate. Keep defending your indefensible rhetoric, though; your amateur "Econ 101" combined with the fact that you're the one not running a business provides me with much entertainment.

Comment: Re:Stupid reasoning. (Score 1) 1073

by rockout (#49737619) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour

Don't you feel stupid. I am a corporation, hiring myself out to clients, on a 100% freelance basis. So yeah, I own a business. I literally charge the maximum I feel my clients will pay, based on what I know they pay others and several other factors, and regardless of my costs. Here's where your argument really falls apart, though:

if you are forced to buy labor at a certain price, you simply must raise prices to make a profit.

Unless, of course, you're making a profit already, and the labor cost going up means you'll make slightly less profit when you continue charging the maximum that customers will pay, which will be the case in the vast majority of minimum-wage hirers.

Thanks for playing.

Comment: Re:Stupid reasoning. (Score 1) 1073

by rockout (#49735285) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour

You've obviously never owned a business, as evidenced by your question "how do they know how much someone is willing to pay for it without trying to raise prices?" It's like a question a 3rd-grader would ask.

As for - "Raise prices to justify higher pay" - that doesn't even make sense. You charge whatever the market will bear. Your labor costs don't set the prices, unless you're an idiot.

Comment: Re:More proof the media is controlled by Republica (Score 1) 273

by rockout (#49735265) Attached to: Kim Dotcom Calls Hillary Clinton an "Adversary" of Internet Freedom

Yeah I think you're responding to someone else maybe. I never said one thing even remotely related to "voting costing money", "money being spent", or "getting donations."

I was pointing out to someone else that Scott Walker has very little chance of being president according to bettors, and if he really believed that Walker was going to win, as he stated, then the current betting odds of 12-to-1 meant if he wanted to gamble on his stated convictions, he could get a 1200% return on his bet. That's all.

I don't know who was talking about spending on campaigns but it wasn't me. Learn to read.

Comment: Re:Stupid reasoning. (Score 1) 1073

by rockout (#49733447) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour

Oh look, you're quoting Fox News. Sure sign of an intelligent conversation. But okay, I'll bite anyway.

The reason you don't raise the minimum wage to $1 million/hour is because it would be unreasonable to pay someone working a drive-thru $40 million per week. But, there just might a reasonable place in between the $290/week they make now and the $40 million you suggest. Perhaps, a, what-do-you-call-it... a compromise?? oh, the horror!

Comment: Re:Stupid reasoning. (Score 1) 1073

by rockout (#49733421) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour

Bullshit. The price of a product is based on how much people are willing to pay for it. That's it. Nothing more. It has fuck-all to do with the wage being paid to a menial worker.

If Starbucks raised their minimum wage to $15/hour, the price of everything would stay exactly the same, and the owners of Starbucks would make .16 on the dollar per fiscal year instead of the current .18 - that's the only difference. Boo-fucking-hoo.

Comment: Re:More proof the media is controlled by Republica (Score 1) 273

by rockout (#49733389) Attached to: Kim Dotcom Calls Hillary Clinton an "Adversary" of Internet Freedom

All of this, of course, has zero to do with my post that you responded to, which dealt with the odds of each candidate winning, which is directly based on how much bettors are putting on each candidate to win. In other words, anyone can spout a stupid opinion, but if you asked them to actually bet real money on who they'd pick to win, they might suddenly not be so confident. However, looking at who actual bettors put their money on has been reasonably accurate in the past.

Which has fuck-all to do with candidates raising money. How you got there is a mystery to me. Poor reading comprehension, I suspect, which makes your writing automatically worthless.

Comment: Re:Cui bono? (Score 1) 70

by rockout (#49726479) Attached to: Apple Acquires GPS Start-Up
The point is that Google doesn't need all the Apple iPhone users to use Google maps. There's millions of them that do. That's a big enough sample size to pretty much know, statistically, where iPhone users are going. Much as you'd like to believe that you're important enough for them to want to know where YOU are, you're not. They just want the trends. They have that.

Comment: Re:More proof the media is controlled by Republica (Score 1) 273

I generally agree Jeb is unlikely to win because people don't want him, but I'm more worried than you are. If your sort of analysis could be counted on, then we could already call a Hillary loss in the general election because people don't like Hillary. She has very little to offer and probably won't be able to do anything to surprise anyone or to motivate a strong turnout.

I'd guess the most likely outcome is President Scott Walker and Vice President Marco Rubio.

If you really believe this nonsense, you could make a shit-ton of cash right now. Among the people that actually put their money where their mouth is, you can get Scott Walker at 12-to-1. Meanwhile, Hillary is even money.

None of that is a guarantee of anything, of course; even money represents a 50% shot in the minds of bettors. But the odds have been a pretty good indicator in past presidential elections. Barring some sort of collapse, I don't see why they'd be wrong this time around.

www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

Where there's a will, there's an Inheritance Tax.

Working...