betwixthewires @ betwixthewires @lemmy.basedcount.com

Posts

0

Comments

220

Joined

2 yr. ago

She's arguing with children about a piece of legislation, not climate change. I'm also arguing with children.

"Sweetheart, you're obviously sharp, so you should learn this early: you're being used as a political tool"

I don't think the founding fathers intended that the federal government own this much land.

Oh no what ever shall we do.

You think half the voting population is racist? The fact that he's on that stage, or Nikki Hailey was elected governor, or the last governor of Louisiana, or the FCC head under Trump exist should tell you how wrong you are. Your team does not own all the brown people.

Where did I say housing assistance was tied to an employer?

Well, my thoughts on that are 1) if you wouldn't move for 20 an hour because the environment's good, is $20 really a living wage? If you can stand $15 then that's gotta he enough to live, right? 2) if people won't achieve more than the minimum they need to get by, maybe that's something we should just let happen, and 3) if companies are raising pay to stay competitive without government action, doesn't that negate the argument used to institute stuff like this?

The McDouble.

It's cheap, nutrient dense, simple.

I never said anything about removing all regulations.

Just, think about the downstream impact of what you're doing. This one's fucking econ 101 level obvious, there's a meme about shit this obvious involving a bicycle and a stick. There's got to be a better, more well thought out idea. Here's one off the top of my head: a 0.1% additional business tax for every location above 10 in the state that goes towards housing assistance for food service workers. That's a win win; either you get more business diversity in the state or you get all the workers at all the fast food businesses a pay bump.

If you think this isn't corporate capture and corrupt business politics you're nuts. There's a fucking exemption in the law for panera bread.

OK I fat fingered 20 instead of 60. That's even better for my argument. To get the good pay you have to work for a huge multinational. Who else has 60 locations in the US alone?

What are you smoking? You know there's a labor market right? And companies compete for workers? Imagine you run a taco shack and every one of your employees is waiting for the minute there's an opening across the street at taco bell, or the opening of the new burger king down the street. What do you do? High turnover and employee resentment or raise wages? If raising wages means going out of business you're stuck.

And then small minded people like you will be in a thread in 2 years quoting statistics showing how big corporations are putting smaller ones out of business and taking over all the industries, even going so far as to blame corrupt politicians and corporate capture, conveniently forgetting that you cheered on the very corporate capture legislation that led to it.

My bad, 60. That's even better. To get the good pay you have to work for a big corporation.

Yeah, the "exempt" ones will be in a situation where they'll have to raise pay above what they can afford, thus going out of business, or have high turnover and high employee resentment. The end result of all of this is of course more big multinational control over the fast food industry.

minimum of 20 locations nationwide

And then, when this predictably puts all the small time, local food joints out of business, the people that vote for these clowns will be complaining that big corporations control everything.

Can you guys even see 10 inches in front of your own nose?

He's Indian. He means just talk to her. They talk like that.