ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags minimum wage

Reply
Old 19th February 2013, 07:50 PM   #281
fdbrian
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
Does anyone have a chart of the price of 1 gallon of gasoline to minimum wage ratio over the course of time?
not a chart but in 1986, the minimum wage was $3.35 and I remember buying gas for 75 cents a gallon or less a lot.
fdbrian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2013, 03:50 PM   #282
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
 
TubbaBlubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 8,867
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Since when are employee needs the basis for employee pay? Does the financial analyst at the bank "need" more than the teller?
OK, I definitely see your point there. Demands are important, not needs. But surely needs are an important factor of demands, at least at the lower end of the scale.
__________________
There are two kinds of fact - the trivially true, and the technically correct.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2013, 08:06 PM   #283
respect
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,856
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I agree that it doesn't affect demand of labour. But it affects supply of labour. Suddenly there will be workers who are willing to work for less than whatever was the lowest rate labour was supplied at before because of the government subsidies (who may, for instance, be currently unemployed).
I'm still perplexed at why you would think this is as it assumes that labor is only concerned with achieving $x rather than wanting more than $x.

People don't accept pay cuts because they inherited money, won at blackjack or came into it in some other manner. And they don't accept pay cuts because of a subsidy, tax rebate etc either.

Aside from that, earned income credits have empirically been successful at lifting low income earners out of poverty, not just creating a substitution of who pays their wages.

Although I would advocate going farther with it and not tie it to work, rather replace existing redundant and ludicrously wasteful welfare schemes with a streamlined negative tax that can accomplish the same goals at much lower costs, it would just need to be phased out in a way that always encourages work. Earned income credits and welfare reforms that encourage work are smaller versions of the same idea,
respect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2013, 09:30 AM   #284
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
 
TubbaBlubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 8,867
Originally Posted by respect View Post
I'm still perplexed at why you would think this is as it assumes that labor is only concerned with achieving $x rather than wanting more than $x.

People don't accept pay cuts because they inherited money, won at blackjack or came into it in some other manner. And they don't accept pay cuts because of a subsidy, tax rebate etc either.
Hmm, I think I'm starting to get it. The marginal value of each hour worked will actually decrease up to a point because you effectively only earn 50 cents on the dollar. So if anything the labour force might demand HIGHER salaries, because they get subsidized on the dollars they don't earn.
__________________
There are two kinds of fact - the trivially true, and the technically correct.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2013, 09:48 AM   #285
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,144
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Hmm, I think I'm starting to get it. The marginal value of each hour worked will actually decrease up to a point because you effectively only earn 50 cents on the dollar. So if anything the labour force might demand HIGHER salaries, because they get subsidized on the dollars they don't earn.
I read that 5 times, and still can't make any sense out of it.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2013, 11:00 AM   #286
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
 
TubbaBlubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 8,867
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
I read that 5 times, and still can't make any sense out of it.
If earning a dollar gives you only 50 cents more due to the government subsidy, then you'll want more dollars for the same amount of work.
__________________
There are two kinds of fact - the trivially true, and the technically correct.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2013, 11:12 AM   #287
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,144
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
If earning a dollar gives you only 50 cents more due to the government subsidy, then you'll want more dollars for the same amount of work.
Sorry, still not making any sense.

What happened to the other 50 cents, and what is this subsidy you're speaking about?
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2013, 11:21 AM   #288
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
 
TubbaBlubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 8,867
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Sorry, still not making any sense.

What happened to the other 50 cents, and what is this subsidy you're speaking about?
If you earn 1 dollar more, the government will pay you 50 cents less, assuming a 50% negative income tax subsidy rate and that you're below the breakpoint.
__________________
There are two kinds of fact - the trivially true, and the technically correct.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2013, 11:24 AM   #289
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,144
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
If you earn 1 dollar more, the government will pay you 50 cents less, assuming a 50% negative income tax subsidy rate and that you're below the breakpoint.
I have no idea wat you're talking about. Is this a Swedish thing?
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2013, 11:25 AM   #290
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
 
TubbaBlubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 8,867
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
I have no idea wat you're talking about. Is this a Swedish thing?
We're discussing negative taxes as an alternative to welfare/minimum wage.
__________________
There are two kinds of fact - the trivially true, and the technically correct.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2013, 12:29 PM   #291
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,144
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
We're discussing negative taxes as an alternative to welfare/minimum wage.
Oh, I see. You appear to think that the value of any job must be at minimum equal to a living wage (however you are defining that)? It would be nice if that were true, but ultimately the value of a job is the value that employee provides to the company.

You still seem to be under the impression that employee "needs" determines the value of their labor?
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2013, 12:47 PM   #292
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
 
TubbaBlubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 8,867
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Oh, I see. You appear to think that the value of any job must be at minimum equal to a living wage (however you are defining that)? It would be nice if that were true, but ultimately the value of a job is the value that employee provides to the company.

You still seem to be under the impression that employee "needs" determines the value of their labor?
That's the side of demand for labour, but there's the supply of labour side as well. Ultimately they must meet, and exactly where, and the resulting value created, result profits etc depends on many things in the market.

What I'm trying to understand is exactly how a government subsidy would affect the supply of labour. Initially I thought that it would push down wages and increase the supply - but this is clearly absurd as the subsidy will not cause employees to place less value on their work hours.

However, up to the breaking point where the taxes stop taking effect, every extra marginal dollar earned will only bring 50 cents worth of value to the employee, as the government will subsidize 50 cents less. This should have some, however small, effect causing the labour force to actually value their labour hours higher. This of course is the case with any welfare.
__________________
There are two kinds of fact - the trivially true, and the technically correct.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2013, 01:14 PM   #293
respect
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,856
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
That's the side of demand for labour, but there's the supply of labour side as well. Ultimately they must meet, and exactly where, and the resulting value created, result profits etc depends on many things in the market.

What I'm trying to understand is exactly how a government subsidy would affect the supply of labour. Initially I thought that it would push down wages and increase the supply - but this is clearly absurd as the subsidy will not cause employees to place less value on their work hours.

However, up to the breaking point where the taxes stop taking effect, every extra marginal dollar earned will only bring 50 cents worth of value to the employee, as the government will subsidize 50 cents less. This should have some, however small, effect causing the labour force to actually value their labour hours higher. This of course is the case with any welfare.
Where are you getting fifty percent from? Can I assume you Googled up video of Milton Friedman explaining the idea? Fifty percent doesn't have to be the number, it is just very useful for illustrative purposes as it makes the math extremely easy. IIRC, the US Earned Income Tax Credit is phased out at 10-16% (it has been a long time since I looked at that, the exact numbers may be slightly different) depending on various factors. And at this level of income most people will see a significant incentive to earn more.
respect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2013, 01:21 PM   #294
respect
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,856
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
I have no idea wat you're talking about. Is this a Swedish thing?
He is talking about the phase out of schemes like the American Earned Income Tax Credit. Empirically they have been much more successful at reducing poverty than market distorting schemes like minimum wage laws that have a tendency to create poor to poor wealth transfers.

Last edited by respect; 21st February 2013 at 01:22 PM.
respect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2013, 01:21 PM   #295
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
 
TubbaBlubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 8,867
Originally Posted by respect View Post
Where are you getting fifty percent from? Can I assume you Googled up video of Milton Friedman explaining the idea? Fifty percent doesn't have to be the number, it is just very useful for illustrative purposes as it makes the math extremely easy. IIRC, the US Earned Income Tax Credit is phased out at 10-16% (it has been a long time since I looked at that, the exact numbers may be slightly different) depending on various factors. And at this level of income most people will see a significant incentive to earn more.
Yeah, it was just an example I got off a webpage explaining the idea.

And, as I look closer at it, there really doesn't seem to be any problem with it that doesn't already exist with standard welfare.
__________________
There are two kinds of fact - the trivially true, and the technically correct.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2013, 01:24 PM   #296
respect
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,856
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Yeah, it was just an example I got off a webpage explaining the idea.

And, as I look closer at it, there really doesn't seem to be any problem with it that doesn't already exist with standard welfare.
But it cuts the cost significantly of administering welfare. If a country actually adopted it they could pay more welfare at less taxpayer expense if they chose to do so.
respect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2013, 01:39 PM   #297
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
 
TubbaBlubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 8,867
Originally Posted by respect View Post
But it cuts the cost significantly of administering welfare. If a country actually adopted it they could pay more welfare at less taxpayer expense if they chose to do so.
Works for me. But it seems to be a recurring problem that the "best" kinds of taxes tend to be politically infeasible to implement.
__________________
There are two kinds of fact - the trivially true, and the technically correct.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2013, 10:25 PM   #298
jflower
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15
Has the President posted a justification for setting the national minimum wage at $9 hr? Anyone who proposes something that will interfere with the market bears the burden of proof of showing that the interference will actually work.
jflower is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2013, 11:22 PM   #299
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,868
Originally Posted by fdbrian View Post
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
Does anyone have a chart of the price of 1 gallon of gasoline to minimum wage ratio over the course of time?
not a chart but in 1986, the minimum wage was $3.35 and I remember buying gas for 75 cents a gallon or less a lot.

I assume no one else could find a chart either (I looked too).

Has the minimum wage to a gallon of gasoline ratio every been this high? I don't remember a gallon of gasoline ever being more than half of the minimum wage.

Except perhaps during that crisis in the 70s...

Right now 1 gallon of gasoline is $4 and minimum wage is $7.25.
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 12:12 AM   #300
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3158'S 11557'E
Posts: 7,210
Originally Posted by respect View Post
Although I would advocate going farther with it and not tie it to work, rather replace existing redundant and ludicrously wasteful welfare schemes with a streamlined negative tax that can accomplish the same goals at much lower costs...
Now we are on the same wave length.

Originally Posted by respect View Post
...it would just need to be phased out in a way that always encourages work. Earned income credits and welfare reforms that encourage work are smaller versions of the same idea,
I guess not
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 01:11 PM   #301
Astrodude
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 371
The minimum wage shouldn't be raised because real estate and rents haven't increased.
Astrodude is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2013, 02:23 PM   #302
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 23,612
Originally Posted by Astrodude View Post
The minimum wage shouldn't be raised because real estate and rents haven't increased.
You believe this means that the cost of living hasn't increased as well?
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2013, 11:29 AM   #303
respect
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,856
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Now we are on the same wave length.


I guess not
I'm a bit confused by this, you would be for streamlining welfare but against having the system encourage working?
respect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2014, 08:07 PM   #304
daenku32
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,121
It's election time

Originally Posted by Astrodude View Post
The minimum wage shouldn't be raised because real estate and rents haven't increased.
Well, it's been a while, but I think the issue is still relevant in political discourse. Polling for minimum wage hike, is strongly in favor: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econom...imum-wage-hike

But as most regular folks admit, the prices are going up. (even if at low rates, as Fed policy folks would happily tell you, and some others scream at you).

But if in the end we are talking about prices increasing because of this; why would you think someone just above a future minimum wage would find things unaffordable, but have people earning under the hike number find things just as expensive & affordable as they need them to be, just to survive.

In other words, how many people do we still need in the servant class?
daenku32 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:59 AM   #305
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3158'S 11557'E
Posts: 7,210
Originally Posted by respect View Post
I'm a bit confused by this, you would be for streamlining welfare but against having the system encourage working?
I don't think that I have ever seen this post before. The idea that a negative income tax would require separate measures to encourage work runs counter to the concept of a NIT and suggests a lack of knowledge of what a NIT actually entails.

Just as under capitalism you don't need an army of bureaucrats to deal with the logistics of the production and distribution of bread and milk, under a NIT you don't need an army of bureaucrats to deal with wage or welfare equity. It is self-adjusting.

The idea is that every income earner (whether it be corporate or individual) is taxed at the same rate. This means that there is no point in trying to hide the income in corporations/trusts since wherever the income is, it will be taxed the same way. The revenue from the NIT provides a pool of funds which can be equally divided among all adult citizens.

The self-adjusting feature of NIT comes from the fact that the amount of handout that each person gets depends on the size of the pool raised by NIT (no more structural deficit problems). If people decide that they don't want to work and just live on the handout then the pool will shrink resulting in a smaller handout and forcing more people back into the workforce. A similar effect occurs if businesses try to cut wages (assuming that less wages = more profits). Fewer people would be inclined to seek employment so employers would have to increase their offer.

Since the handout isn't means tested, there is no work dis-incentive for welfare recipients.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:34 AM   #306
Joecool
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,531
Another alternative might be for employers to carry fewer employees in order to make up for the increased wages. For example, say I ran a fast food joint where I employed 4 workers on a shift at $7.00 an hour. Because government has mandated a higher wage, now I'll cut one worker and that shift will be run with three workers at $9.00 an hour.

The remaining workers may have to work harder and put out more but I don't think too many employers will just eat the loss unless the number of staff they have is vital to getting the work done with little or no alternatives.
Joecool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:39 AM   #307
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3158'S 11557'E
Posts: 7,210
Originally Posted by Joecool View Post
For example, say I ran a fast food joint where I employed 4 workers on a shift at $7.00 an hour. Because government has mandated a higher wage, now I'll cut one worker and that shift will be run with three workers at $9.00 an hour.
If an employer could make do with three staff instead of four, don't you think they would be doing so already?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:42 PM   #308
ehcks
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,881
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
If an employer could make do with three staff instead of four, don't you think they would be doing so already?
Not exactly. If an employer could make do with three instead of four, they'll fire all but two and make them spend half their time apologizing to customers for the wait.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:09 PM   #309
Joecool
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,531
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
If an employer could make do with three staff instead of four, don't you think they would be doing so already?
Not necessarily. Where I live, entry level workers can be hard to find, so for example the McDonald's near my house pays (I think) $8.25 an hour but they always carry a skeleton crew. Sometimes during lunch rush, they have the drive thru and only one cash register open while the line literally goes out the door.
Joecool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:21 PM   #310
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 36,050
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
I certainly wouldn't have an issue with it, as I think it is the best approach.

The part about "so the working poor can be absolutely, bottom of the barrel third world country poor" is just the result of a lack of understanding and critical thinking on your part.
Nope, just simple reality.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:23 PM   #311
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 36,050
Originally Posted by Joecool View Post
Not necessarily. Where I live, entry level workers can be hard to find, so for example the McDonald's near my house pays (I think) $8.25 an hour but they always carry a skeleton crew. Sometimes during lunch rush, they have the drive thru and only one cash register open while the line literally goes out the door.
And so - even if they otherwise would - they will not get my money....If fast food isn't a)fast and b) edible+ they won't either.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:55 PM   #312
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3158'S 11557'E
Posts: 7,210
Originally Posted by Joecool View Post
Sometimes during lunch rush, they have the drive thru and only one cash register open while the line literally goes out the door.
That's normal for a Friday evening where I live. Maccas lost my business years ago.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:09 AM   #313
Joecool
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,531
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That's normal for a Friday evening where I live. Maccas lost my business years ago.
I know that businesses have to make a profit but mickey dees has lost a lot of business where I live because there are other places to get a burger in the shopping complex where I live.
Joecool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:44 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.