RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS

RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS (6/26/2017 6:52:57 PM)
mikee dees wages.

Edwird -> RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS (6/26/2017 7:05:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix I never know what the fuck Boscoe is saying or, the direction he's heading but...allow me: The 15 dollar an hour wage thing has failed (Philadelphia says it's added jobs...every other city {Seattle, foremost among them...a city that's growing by what can only be described as "wildfire"} says it's reduced them. In the end...more fast foods are now setting up "pick your own food" kiosks because...it works (better). Was it due to the "15 for 40" wars? Who knows but, not only was the writing on the wall....designing a store with this kind of technology takes at least 35 months and...this discussion has been "on" for about 24....so...the "market" has been "on this" waiting....for about 10 years...and the tide has now turned. The market was ready for this turn of events and...it has arrived and...the result: Fewer jobs. (Cheaper food). (It's fairly basic math). What's ultimately fascinating to me is...McDonalds (and others...Carls', every fast food anyone) have spent the last 75 years praising their ability to "raise the next generation of managers"...yet with this national push towards raising their costs...they simply saw the writing on the wall and said...."enough". (It's just math). I'm trying to figure out your "issue,' here . . . but actually not. And I'm tired of trying to figure out why people who have figured out how to make millions (and congrats to them, in all seriousness) are so jealous of those doing the most crap jobs that society either demands (requires) outright or otherwise greatly demand (by choice) getting paid for their laborious and incessantly demanding efforts. This former group cries all day, every day, about being 'unfairly punished by taxes,' while simultaneously arguing for relentless economic punishment of those doing the worst jobs which are *demanded* by society. Every Fucking Day. All Fucking Day and Night. Don't even try to explain it, please. I know more than I wish to know or what you could understand in the first place. And certainly more than I can understand of the mentality in that regard anyway.

Edwird -> RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS (6/26/2017 7:47:58 PM)
So while investigating or considering how to respond to all the "it's just math," "it's just econ 101" ignorance . . . The first legitimate econ classes start at the 200/201 level. The required math once getting to or beyond the 300/301 level involve better algebra or 'basic calculus' and statistics and probability."Basic math" for the smart kids, not so "basic" for others (like me, e.g.) Both the econ 200/201-300/301 level classes (even at the University of Chicago) explain that those of lower income put a much higher % of paycheck into the economy than the few who get a $26 million bonus as reward for destroying the economy and destroying the long-accumulated wealth of millions of US hardworking citizens. Pay attention- The lowest quintile spend all they've got, no matter what, there's no way around it. The next quintile spend all they've got if they have one kid, no way around it. In either case, paycheck could be increased 50% and it's still all gone. In terms of increase in aggregate spending by way of increased income of those bound by circumstance to spend greatest amount (by percentage) of 'disposable income,' how could we go wrong by increasing availability of funds to that purpose, considering that there are many more useful and productive workers than there are financial shysters and other siphons of wealth, whom the latter just put to purpose of another off-shore vacation property and invest the remainder to purpose of further economic and societal destruction? But all we've got are the Huns Ichan and Ackerman calling the soldiers to log-ram the gates of corporations who've done all the research and dirty work beforehand, as the invaders yell "You've got too much cash! We want it!" Yeah, that's just not going to work, here, if anybody's serious about it. So then, we just sailed along when deregulation led to destruction of millions of jobs and trillions of wealth, Billions of reward to the winners of bailouts. But paying $15/hr. to people actually making themselves useful to so society will be the destruction of us all. Got it.

MrRodgers -> RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS (6/26/2017 8:00:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I thought that righties loves the capitalist free unregulated market? That's the propaganda spew that you swallowed, sure No, she's correct. The only 'regulation' the capitalist wants to see is his taxes regulated...down to zero.

MrRodgers -> RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS (6/26/2017 8:13:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird So while investigating or considering how to respond to all the "it's just math," "it's just econ 101" ignorance . . . The first legitimate econ classes start at the 200/201 level. The required math once getting to or beyond the 300/301 level involve better algebra or 'basic calculus' and statistics and probability."Basic math" for the smart kids, not so "basic" for others (like me, e.g.) Both the econ 200/201-300/301 level classes (even at the University of Chicago) explain that those of lower income put a much higher % of paycheck into the economy than the few who get a $26 million bonus as reward for destroying the economy and destroying the long-accumulated wealth of millions of US hardworking citizens. Pay attention- The lowest quintile spend all they've got, no matter what, there's no way around it. The next quintile spend all they've got if they have one kid, no way around it. In either case, paycheck could be increased 50% and it's still all gone. In terms of increase in aggregate spending by way of increased income of those bound by circumstance to spend greatest amount (by percentage) of 'disposable income,' how could we go wrong by increasing availability of funds to that purpose, considering that there are many more useful and productive workers than there are financial shysters and other siphons of wealth? But all we've got is the Huns Ichan and Ackerman calling the soldiers to log-ram the gates of corporations who've done all the research and dirty work beforehand, as the invaders yell "You've got too much cash! We want it!" Yeah, that's just not going to work, here, if anybody's serious about it. So then, we just sailed along when deregulation led to destruction of millions of jobs and trillions of wealth, Billions of reward to the winners of bailouts. But paying $15/hr. to people actually making themselves useful to so society will be the destruction of us all. Got it. Results ? The top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 50%. Not a whole lotta dollar velocity there. Look, debaters, observers (forget economists for their jargon, they all just seek to be mainstream to get a real job if they can) understand that 'economy' whatever the fuck it is, is to be served by society. In the US, economy need not...serve society.

Edwird -> RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS (6/26/2017 8:32:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 in a much larger sense, this is illustrative of the tension between technological advancement and human need. among other things, it raises the questions of the morality of machines doing work that people could do and what progress actually means. when its manifestation comes from the left however, we get the added bonus of the seemingly contrary or paradoxical position of "yeah we're for the workers---but lets fire them because we can get machines to do the same work for less. and oh, of course we're not capitalist pigs!" All good points, up until the last. You forgot to mention Mitt Romney's point that if lay-offs occur as result of dictate from the equity fund buying the company, then it's just a matter of "efficiency," which is to say, "We just lay-off a bunch of workers, make the company temporarily look great on the balance sheet, then sell it to whatever sucker we can find."

Edwird -> RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS (6/26/2017 10:06:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Results ? The top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 50%. Not a whole lotta dollar velocity there. Look, debaters, observers (forget economists for their jargon, they all just seek to be mainstream to get a real job if they can) understand that 'economy' whatever the fuck it is, is to be served by society. In the US, economy need not...serve society. Economics is only 'jargon' for clueless politicos, let's bring truth to the table, here. I've already pointed out as well or better than anyone else here that economics has been infiltrated and sullied by politics, and the politicos' trying to turn it around in effort to escape their inherent ignorance and culpability thereby is greatly the problem, here. I've already made the point on numerous occasions that commerce and economics and in fact culture have legitimacy only insofar as such endeavors contribute to or promote society. I'm sick and tired of people insisting on putting every last point in terms of politics, last of which I consider as retrograde in regard to any notion of evolution to begin with.

Edwird -> RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS (6/26/2017 10:21:42 PM)
So, who want's to talk about small-powered tube (valve) amplifiers and high-efficiency speakers? I need to get back to 'fun.'

Edwird -> RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS (6/26/2017 10:27:33 PM)
Transformer core saturation at higher volume in older juke box machines . . . Mmmmm . . . yummy.

Musicmystery -> RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS (6/27/2017 4:54:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX The point is, e.d., that leftist trash scream about the 1% while going down on that part of the 1% that is really an issue for society (Not even a nice try) No, it's not the point. Should the US pursue policies that benefit broadly instead of primarily the 1%. Yes. Even many in the 1% (the "leftist trash") say so. Primarily tax policy is at issue here. Does that mean those on the left oppose the 1% itself? Not that either. Income inequality is an issue, but again, even many in the 1% (the "leftist trash" again) say so. And Henry Ford (not a leftist) pointed out and demonstrated the wisdom of making sure your workers can afford your product--even an expensive product like automobiles. I've no idea what "while going down on that part of the 1% that is really an issue for society." What issue? What part? Going down how? If you want to use this as a case study, it's an example of how trickle down economics does not lead to job creation necessarily. But then, "leftist trash" have been saying that for a while now. Welcome to the reality of economics.

BoscoX -> RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS (6/27/2017 5:23:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I thought that righties loves the capitalist free unregulated market? That's the propaganda spew that you swallowed, sure No, she's correct. The only 'regulation' the capitalist wants to see is his taxes regulated...down to zero. More straw man stupidity

Musicmystery -> RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS (6/27/2017 5:26:50 AM)
You should explain that to GOP leadership then.

Hillwilliam -> RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS (6/27/2017 5:29:45 AM)
FR to the op. Capitalism

BoscoX -> RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS (6/27/2017 5:43:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam FR to the op. Capitalism Bezos pulling leftist strings, and leftists love him all night long for a dollar

Musicmystery -> RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS (6/27/2017 5:46:00 AM)
I'm still trying to figure out what you think is "leftist" about an online book retailer buying a whole foods store. Books and granola a danger to the right?

WhoreMods -> RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS (6/27/2017 5:56:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I'm still trying to figure out what you think is "leftist" about an online book retailer buying a whole foods store. Books and granola a danger to the right? The whole notion of Jeff Bezos being in any way shape or form a leftist is so bizarre that it beggars belief, really. I know that syrup boy (maybe we should start calling him Worzel given his obsession with strawman arguments?) doesn't read the lefty papers and so will have missed all of the complaints about Amazon's appalling treatment of its employees, attempts to turn internet retail into a monopoly, and tax evasion, but even so, where's he getting this idea that a one percenter who belongs in an Ayn Rand story is a liberal?

Hillwilliam -> RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS (6/27/2017 6:01:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam FR to the op. Capitalism Bezos pulling leftist strings, and leftists love him all night long for a dollar Those who are against Capitalism are LEFTISTS. You are apparently against Capitalism.................Leftist

Hillwilliam -> RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS (6/27/2017 6:02:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I'm still trying to figure out what you think is "leftist" about an online book retailer buying a whole foods store. Books and granola a danger to the right? Leftists hate Amazon[8D]

Musicmystery -> RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS (6/27/2017 6:04:35 AM)
Indeed, I know some who do.

BoscoX -> RE: BEZOS BOTS TO RUN WHOLE FOODS (6/27/2017 6:06:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods The whole notion of Jeff Bezos being in any way shape or form a leftist... Beside being a moron you are ignorant Some real journalism: Enough About Hillary’s Emails, Says Paper Owned by Clinton Foundation Donor Public interest in the Hillary Clinton email scandal is “out of control,” according to the Washington Post, a newspaper owned by billionaire Clinton Foundation donor Jeff Bezos. The Post editorial board notes that Hillary’s emails “have endured much more scrutiny than an ordinary person’s would have,” which is correct in the sense that most ordinary people do not run for president after serving as secretary of state. The editorial also suggests that even though Hillary “treated the public’s interest in sound record-keeping cavalierly,” it’s not that big of a deal because Colin Powell also did it. Donald Trump is a “dangerous man,” the Post writes, and any evaluation of Hillary’s email scandal must take this into account. History will “judge” Americans poorly, the editorial suggests, if Trump wins the election because of a “minor email scandal.” In sum, the Post doesn’t think Hillary’s emails are worth making a fuss about because 1) Colin Powell also behaved “cavalierly,” and 2) Donald Trump is bad. The Post also thinks the public should be more interested in “military spending” and “China’s aggressive moves in the South China Sea.” Bezos, who bought the Washington Post in 2013, has donated mostly to Democratic politicians, and has donated to the Clinton Foundation through the Bezos Family Foundation. The company Bezos founded, Amazon, also got a sweet $16.5 million contract from the Hillary Clinton’s State Department in 2012 to provide Kindle readers for U.S.-sponsored educational centers around the world. More

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

9.765625E-02