Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

1. Completely untrue
2. Why do you believe this
3. You believe this nonsense that there is no good reason to believe same as every other one-line uninformed generalization in your brain because you are 100% ignorant and your entire knowledge base is from right-wing TV and radio (ironic considering your propensity to dismiss those around you irl as "ignorant")

Disprovable through three simple facts (and five seconds of thought):
1. Only businesses that price items above cost are viable
2. The price for a product is what the market will bear
3. Regulation affects cost not price

Therefore, all regulation that does not make business unprofitable will come out of profit margins and not be passed on to consumers.

1. Regulation can only kill industries if they become unprofitable
2. For an entire industry to become unprofitable (i.e., not due to competitive forces) economic input must exceed economic output
3. This is basically impossible in modern times due to extremely high productivity driven by very advanced technology

During WW2, this country had full employment. In that economic environment, it would be theoretically possible to regulate an industry to death, because all available economic resources were being utilized. Today, with more advanced tech, that's no longer the case.

1. Not all land/labor/capital are being used because productivity is so high that not all inputs need to be used to meet all needs
2. Regulation improves quality of life at the cost of productivity
3. Increasing regulation during a time of high technology and underemployment will have the net effect of leveraging high technology to improve the quality of life

Flaw in logic, Usd?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I'd have thought that would be as true as the whole 'lower taxes creates more jobs' thing is false.

The reverse is actually true.

1. Higher taxes on the rich creates more jobs because tax-and-spend on their savings/profits plows that money back into the economy, thereby increasing consumer demand.

2. Lower taxes on the rich will eventually destroy capitalism because it will result in a monopoly on currency by the wealthy who control businesses and property:
a) the rich get rich off profits paid by consumers
b) undertaxed profits will result in all currency gradually flowing towards the rich
c) as the rich get richer and consumers are played out the system will inevitably end in stasis

3. Therefore, the best economy is not a free market - it is a mixed economy, with heavy taxes on the rich, plowing their wealth back into the economy via abundant service economy and human development.

The key is to understand that a free market is a contradiction in terms. All markets are defined by what make them un-free: the rules of the market, i.e., regulation.
A well-regulated mixed economy keeps capitalism going by skimming the top and diffusing it back into the economy.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

To change the topic (closer to the original topic), I am very aware of these cliche bases for interview and I've always thought they're really stupid and counterproductive.

Imo these selection criteria are very common but due to their lack of relevance they tend to produce incompetent fakers and I believe that is a major problem with business today.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

If it's "greed," he's no "greedier" than the other chains that have plans to cut employee hours but aren't making a public spectacle of themselves about doing it. Last I heard, this included the corporation that owns Red Lobster and Olive Garden. I haven't seen a comprehensive list, but a few days ago there were some facebook posts about boycotting businesses planning to do exactly what Schnattner is making a lot of noise about doing.



Given that his business employs some agency for the purposes of PR, I'm not sure why that's surprising. What is funny to me is that while you take exception to those in his employ editing out false/slanderous/misleading (and yes, probably even some unflatteringly true) content on his/Papa John's wikipedia page, you seem to take no umbrage at all regarding people abusing the wiki system to post false/slanderous/misleading/juvenile content. There wouldn't be a "tug-of-war" if there weren't somebody on the other end of the rope, and if what the PR guys are doing is wrong, what the guys on the other end of the rope are doing is (for the most part) equally wrong.



This isn't the first year they've done the pizza give-away, and it's probably being marked as an advertising expenditure in their accounts. The pizza give-away doesn't have anything to do with the practice of cutting hours or healthcare, except that it seems to be some new meme among liberals that "you could do it if you didn't give away pizzas." The pizza give-away is meant to create new revenue by enticing people to order pizza from Papa John's in order to win/earn a free pizza. It's a planned one-time (or annual) expense. The healthcare, on the other hand, represents a new and ongoing cost.

Like most businesses, Papa John's is passing the cost on to a consumer. In this case that consumer is the employee who is buying wages with their labor. In short, the law is unintentionally hurting the people it's meant to help in this case.



As the majority of your responses are as canned as condensed soup, and consist entirely of variations of "ur dum" or implying/stating that the person you disagree with is ignorant, as opposed to any discernible examination of the argument being made by the "dum/ignorant" person, I would think this puts me in good company.



I think (and this is not unusual, given the problems you seem to have with reading comprehension) that you are under the mistaken impression that Schnattner and/or other businessmen/businesses are firing these employees. They aren't firing them, they're only cutting the hours they work in a week so that they are part-time instead of full-time employees. That may mean that they hire more employees working part-time to make up the difference, but it doesn't necessarily mean that there is less work being done.



That's true in the cases where the businesses are complying with the ACA without cutting employee hours or otherwise finding ways to skirt the law, but businesses that fail to meet the obligations created under the new law are fined...oh, I'm sorry, "taxed" is how they're selling it for the legality's sake...by the IRS. In this case, the money is going to neither the government nor physicians because a chunk of the business community has flipped the federal government the bird.



This argument is a prime example of "you're not greedy if you want everyone else's stuff, only if you want to keep your own." We're all aware that you think you can read minds over the vast distance which separates us all and tell us what we think, but despite your delusions or how you'd care to define my "premise," I get nothing...less than nothing, honestly...from the actions taken by Schnattner or any of the other businesses that are/will be cutting employee hours.



I spent 8 out of 40 years in the military, which I will assume is what you are referring to as "welfare." Not only is the "military is welfare" assertion you like to make so silly as not to merit a response, it's one I'm fairly certain has been beat to death in past threads. Not only is the "welfare" argument a laugh-riot, my military service definitely doesn't represent "most of [my] life," and barely covers a quarter of it. What's even funnier is the guy living off his parents pointing fingers at anyone else for being indigent...I guess that if you're cornered by facts and logic and can't make your case any other way, you can always call the other guy a fat, drug-addicted welfare-leech...maybe you should send Roger Ailes your resume.



About time you said something reasonable...I second that emotion.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Funny that a law that affects almost every worker in the US is only the object of gripe and vindictive action by a small handful of closely affiliated firms all owned by the same super-rich hedge fund people. You know, the same guys who built Cain and Romney out of cardboard.

Business never passes cost onto the consumer because all businesses charge what the market bears. An increase in cost does not change that.



By your logic, if someone gets away with burglarizing a house due to a loophole, the solution isn't to fix the law, it's to legalize burglary.

This is the America-hater argument again. Your premise is that self-interest is more good and honorable than cooperating for the good of the nation.



The US has the lowest worker obligations in the civilized world.
Businesses being forced to pay for healthcare for their workers is not an outrage.



Do I live off my parents? Yes. Do I tell people who can't manage on their own they suck? No.

The bottom line is you owe what you have to other people's money taken against their will by the government, but then criticize others for being reliant on the same.

Like most right-wing people, you buy into this nonsense because it saves you the effort of having to challenge your own biases. You like to think you're awesome, you can take on the world and understand what it's all about, instead of just an uneducated piece of military trash who relies on stuffing his face, hard drugs and tuning into FOX to deal with life.

You keep trying to affect the mannerisms of educated rhetoric and talk in generalizations about complex issues you don't understand. You don't want to understand, but you want to pretend that you do. That is clearly a strong need for you.

It is easier to declare victory than it is to win. That is what this nonsense does for you.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

That's Keynesian idiocy, especially when you consider that every business in a specific sector generally shares the same regulatory costs, and as you admit you cannot stay in business without recouping costs regardless of your price point. If everyone that makes widgets can produce a widget for $1, and sees a regulatory compliance cost of $1 per widget, widgets are going to cost the consumer at least $2. If the market doesn't bear the price of $2+profit, people stop making widgets. They don't magically become cheaper. Corporations don't pay taxes or compliance fees, they're all passed on to an end user as part of the built-in cost of the item.



That's making a lot of assumptions and putting words in my mouth than I don't even imply. People cooperate because they have an incentive to cooperate. The "public good" isn't an incentive. If it was, there wouldn't be books written about the tragedy of commons. I don't see the incentive for business owners, especially those like Schnattner who aren't employing skilled labor. The expense of the new system is being put on their shoulders, and they aren't just bearing a monetary cost but also a regulatory/compliance cost. You can't say that it's "cooperating for the good of the nation" when the only a certain group of people are expected to bear the burden of said "cooperation."

If there are "loopholes" that need to be closed, then let congress close them...or better yet, they should have written a law that wasn't so haphazard in the first place. Better minds than those that occupy congress might have seen this coming and warned against it had the ACA been presented to the public when it was still a bill. Instead, we had to "pass it to find out what was in it" before it was signed by the "most transparent administration in history." Until the loopholes are closed, any business that acts consistent with the law, whether they do so with your approval or not, are "cooperating" in exactly the manner in which they're obligated to behave.



That's absolutely idiocy. Even you like to make the "the rest of the civilized world has socialized medicine" argument. How could the obligation(s) American business have to workers be lower than it is in country where medicine, retirement, and social welfare are provided by the state and paid for the country as a whole?



If every person on welfare or other public assistant were required to either hold a paying job (many do--not saying everyone receiving public assistance is a deadbeat) or provide community service, it would be the same thing. I don't know what you think goes on in the military, but people don't just put on a uniform and show up to stand around drinking coffee. It's a job, whether you like it or not, just like pretty much any other government job. Unless you're also willing to say every PhD we have working in government at places like the State Department "can't manage on their own" and "owe what you have to other people's money taken against their will by the government," you're just being disingenuous and petty toward people who are doing something you're most likely afraid you're incapable of doing.



Like most left-wing people, you tell yourself that the only reason right-wing people don't agree with you is because they're stupid, ignorant, taking advantage of someone, or unaware of the workings of the world, and fail to consider their point-of-view because it's too much of a challenge to your own biases. Your description of "right-wing" thought processes is lazy, but your own is equally so, and even worse for the arrogance.



If it makes it easier for you, I'll use small words so you can more easily understand. I've been reading and writing at a college level since the 8th grade, what you term "mannerisms of educated rhetoric" I refer to as "English."



Physician, heal thyself.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

When i interview potential candidates, i ask:

Tell me about yourself.
What do you think makes a good employee?
What does outstanding customer service mean to you?
If a customer asked you to do X, what would you do?
Why do you want to be an employee/manager?

Give me an example of a time when you displayed good customer service.

Biggest thing i can say about interviews is... it's not so much about the answer... as it is being extremely forward and excited about the position. If you walk in and act all mopy, speak mono tone... etc.. I'm just not going to hire you plain and simple. Be super enthusiastic and excited... Show them and make them see how much you want the job!

Thanks for the advice Euphonic.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

14 people applied for the position. I doubt everyone got an interview, but goddamn. I'm trying to be hopeful but realistic.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

State Dept employment is highly competitive (I know because I took the examination) and very demanding. The military will take basically anyone who doesn't have a health issue. This is also why one gets 1/20th the budget of the other.

The State Dept is a mostly positive force and the military is not. This is inescapably linked with the fact that one involves thinking about things and the other involves blowing things up. I am aware of the rivalry and culture clash between the State Dept and the military/spooks.

I don't deny you read and write well. And you're basically intelligent. Neither functional literacy or basic intelligence means much without education and mental organization. That includes having a decent knowledge base and critical thinking skills.



This is the very essence of the America-hater argument.

No, good Americans DON'T need an incentive to cooperate. That is the difference between a good American and a bad American.
Case in point: right wingers and military trash simply hate America.



I wouldn't worry.

Besides, you can, in fact, win by losing. If you do well they may pick you next time around.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I'm pretty sure I did very well. On two separate occasions the HR Manager informed me my answers were the best she'd heard. It was a 2:1 interview format with the Assistant Store Manager I'd be reporting to (who I'm also very tight with and on good terms) and the HR Manager.

I showed up 15 min early, had two copies of my résumé (would have had 3 if I'd known it was a 2:1 format), scan of customer compliment and two email printouts from two different managers, all enclosed in a black leather portfolio. I had on a polo and khakis, and was freshly shaved (father, forgive me) and generally looking pretty baller.

I think I handled the questions really well, as mentioned. I think the main negative points would be lacking hands on experience in Lawn and Garden and having no previous management experience.

The answers that impressed them the most had to do with developing employee potential and handling poor performance.

So both of those subjects reflect well on me and my ability to manage. Hopefully I get it, if not I at least know I did well.

Never leave an interview without asking two questions as well:

1) What single personal attribute do you believe to be the most critical to success in the position of Department Manager?

2) When can I expect to hear back regarding the position?

Always ask the second one. Hopefully I did ok.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

I really hope you get it! You definitely deserve something positive this year.

I'm terrible at interviews. My mom and I did live with her b/f and his roommate a while back. His roommate was the head of HR for the Lowes here. The only thing I recall is him saying "If they aren't even wearing a collared shirt, I'm not going to consider them." So good job with that xD

Also, is your lack of experience in Lawn and Garden due to your own preference, or did they never have the time/ability to cross train you? If you don't get it, I would talk to management about being cross trained to gain some experience there, so you will be perfectly well-rounded next time around.

s^ | Kay