Papa John's CEO John Schnatter Says Company Will Reduce Workers' Hours In Response To

Unless they don't.

A funny thing happens to lots of right-wing economics when you try to test it in the real world - empirical results don't always match what you'd predict, because people don't always act rationally w/perfect information, or any number of other intervening factors.

 

And laws will be passed to crack down on this, and existing laws will be enforced, and unions are also part of the solution. All of this is inevitable, just like Texas turning blue.

 

He will get his....

 

I'm pretty sure he already has.

Have you seen his house?

 

Wow - and unions are part of the solution? I love that we've gone from unions protecting poor oppressed coal miners to unions protecting poor oppressed government workers.

Healthcare is a problem, we all get that. The democratic solution is to spread the costs around and make the people with money poorer. That's always their solution, it sells well. The problem is that it results in fewer jobs (look at unemployment rates in Europe) and higher costs, both of which have a disproportionate negative impact on the lower middle class.

A bill that addressed the problem would have been named Mediprice, not Obamacare. We have the highest dang medical costs in the world - any sane person looking to FIX the problem would have attacked that side of the problem.

 

you are an imbecile. government policies have done nothing but make the rich even richer and increase the disparity, you are too ignorant to understand this, to understand the role infrastructures play in the creation of wealth.

 

But you didn't give me any reasons that I'm an imbecile. OR any reasons why I'm wrong. You just made a claim like a simpleton, with no logic behind it.

I have money, and I use that money to make me more money. Why would I expect richer people to behave any differently? Of course some of what you speak goes on. However, more rules and more government do not tend to benefit the common man. Regulations on small business discourage me from starting one - and the only way to make more than a living wage for the average man is to have other people work for him.

I'm for a system that makes that possible, and encourages people to make their lives better - not for one that promises people that the government will take care of them. In the long run, it can't. Only people given freedom can take care of themselves.

Those who speak endlessly of the disparity between rich and poor are no different than the race-baiters. They have fooled you into thinking that they care about you, when they just want a compliant public. They tell you of the endless riches of the 1%, and they they will get you your fair share.

YOUR FAIR SHARE IS WHAT YOU HAVE EARNED. Now stop taking what is mine and giving it to some slacker!

 

you earned it by relying on infrastructures that must be paid for, imbecile.

 

What specific regulation has discouraged you from starting a small business?

 

And may I ask your opinion of what we should do with the ill-gotten gains of those in wealth?

 

"ill-gotten" is a loaded term. I would confine it to fraud or theft.

Rather than say, delivering pizzas.

 

You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

— Exodus 20:17 (NIV)

 

Thou shalt not use unreadable font en masse. --The Book of Most (7:13)

 

There must be a lot of them.

 

this:grin:

 

The quotation in that picture is from Hank Williams Sr.

 

Are gains ill gotten because they are large? So if you build the proverbial better mouse trap and become wealthy, your gains are ill gotten like if you were running a Ponzi scheme?

That is tremendously odd.

 

It's a common belief that behind every great fortune lies a great crime. It's understandable that some would believe so - there are enough examples that a stereotype could be formed.

If you follow the thought patterns of progressives and socialists, the claim makes even more sense. If you have more than others, that in itself is a crime. Apparently as you get richer, you are supposed to provide more for others to the point where you don't get richer. So if you are incredibly rich, you have clearly committed a moral crime against the public, never mind how your economic activities may have helped others along the way.

And yes, that type of thinking should be tremendously odd, but it isn't.