And I bet they have vending machines full of broccoli that tastes like Snickers bars, give you plenty of time to spend your lunch hour petting the unicorn in the lobby, and have weekly employee poker games with Santa.
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.
How do any volunteers who drive gas or hybrids get out of the paying gas tax, since they're paying the mileage tax? It's added right into the pump, yeah?
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
Bad move, Sweden. Now you're stepping on the USDOJ's winkie.
Looks like it's Popcorn Time!
It does, actually. In fact, the shifting spelling of that word has already entered the spelling that you don't like into the dictionary.
Definition of RIGAMAROLE: variant of rigmarole