Minimum wage. Should it be $15?

[Mallette]

Well, obviously the original topic is quite dead. 

 

Dave

[Woofers and Tweeters]

 

I definitely do not share your view that our environmental laws and regulations are corrupted and that we have bad air, water and soil.  In places, sure. 

Self contradiction.

 

 

 

One cannot serve Mammon AND God.  That is very nearly the basis for me saying there are moral, amoral and Immoral capitalists.  I choose moral capitalists and check to see if they are.

 

I wasn't speaking of "capitalists," I was speaking of "capitalism". One is an individual, another is a set of principles of operation. Those principles, or the theory itself, doesn't include a moral core. For instance, "The Golden Rule" is a wonderful moral dictum, but it's not a part of capitalist theory. "Serving the Greater Good" is another handsome dictum, but again, not a part of capitalist theory. All moral ideas are supplanted by one goal - to maximize profit. 

 

If you can't find a moral premise within a theory, it is "amoral" by definition. When there is no moral compass, there is no predicting the good or harm that might be caused. And, there is obviously no accountability, aside from individual specific laws, which the capitalist seeks to avoid at all cost. 

 

So, you approve of and support an amoral theory, and I do not. That's our difference of opinion. I hold that all social and economic activity ought to be constrained by a readily identifiable moral code, and that all operators within, are subject to accountability to that moral code, and you don't. I want to live in a morally accountable society, and you want something else.

 

As to the individuals who actually qualify as being "capitalists" there have been a few good ones along with many horrible ones. Let's not forget that Henry Ford and the Harrimans funneled money, loans, support and adulation to Hitler, because they were in love with Fascism. Most capitalists have a rather checkered background. We could today have capitalists working against my best interests, and why would I want that? Why on earth would someone ask me to be enthusiastic about men who are using soldiers as disposable pawns so that they can make more money? And believe me, those men are walking the earth right this minute wearing the "capitalist" hat. 

 

Why would any rational human being want to submit his future to an amoral process? Beats me. But therein lies our difference of opinion. 

 

You keep twisting what people say. You sit in judgment of everyone.  Is it moral to take from those who have to give it to those who don't have? Where does it stop? There are lots of places in the world that are worse off than anyone here in the US. Do you want to take everything from everyone who has something so you can give it to someone else.

 

As far as rich people, this isn't new news. There always had been and always will be the Carnegie, Gates, Rockefeller type. It is a crazy amount of money some people amass. You have no right to steal it, nor should you. 

 

 

 

 Answer this: After you eat all of the rich, who is next?

[BigStewMan]

Answer this: After you eat all of the rich, who is next?

the new rich people, they just wouldn’t have as much money as the previous group.  

[Woofers and Tweeters]

 

Becoming an anecdote is great, but are you then willing to remember where you came from, and strive to build a stronger staircase, so others can follow you, or do you seek to strenuously hold onto everything you have gained and put a boot on everyone seeking to start up that skinny staircase to prosperity?

 

Most put the boot to their own throat by succumbing to the temptations of short-sighted, immediate gratification consumerism.  It's a great means of controlling the masses, better than any autocratic dictator's wet dreams.  The illusion of choice and all.  It works like Soma, only without the group sex and euphoria.  

 

That is a problem that drives the bigger problem. People want to buy things that don't cost as much. So industry gives them what they want by finding way to make it for less money.

[oldtimer]

 

Answer this: After you eat all of the rich, who is next?

the new rich people, they just wouldn’t have as much money as the previous group.  

 

Who cares how much money they have.  The point is you are eating them.

[T2K]

 

 

Answer this: After you eat all of the rich, who is next?

the new rich people, they just wouldn’t have as much money as the previous group.  

 

Who cares how much money they have.  The point is you are eating them.

 

 

If this idea gains wide acceptance maybe the rich people will want to increase their 1% to maybe 20% to 30% thereby increasing their odds of avoiding being on the menu.

 

Now that I think about it it's a brilliant idea. By none other than, appropriately, bigstewman.

 

Keith

[Jim Naseum]

I definitely do not share your view that our environmental laws and regulations are corrupted and that we have bad air, water and soil. In places, sure.

Self contradiction.

One cannot serve Mammon AND God. That is very nearly the basis for me saying there are moral, amoral and Immoral capitalists. I choose moral capitalists and check to see if they are.

I wasn't speaking of "capitalists," I was speaking of "capitalism". One is an individual, another is a set of principles of operation. Those principles, or the theory itself, doesn't include a moral core. For instance, "The Golden Rule" is a wonderful moral dictum, but it's not a part of capitalist theory. "Serving the Greater Good" is another handsome dictum, but again, not a part of capitalist theory. All moral ideas are supplanted by one goal - to maximize profit.

If you can't find a moral premise within a theory, it is "amoral" by definition. When there is no moral compass, there is no predicting the good or harm that might be caused. And, there is obviously no accountability, aside from individual specific laws, which the capitalist seeks to avoid at all cost.

So, you approve of and support an amoral theory, and I do not. That's our difference of opinion. I hold that all social and economic activity ought to be constrained by a readily identifiable moral code, and that all operators within, are subject to accountability to that moral code, and you don't. I want to live in a morally accountable society, and you want something else.

As to the individuals who actually qualify as being "capitalists" there have been a few good ones along with many horrible ones. Let's not forget that Henry Ford and the Harrimans funneled money, loans, support and adulation to Hitler, because they were in love with Fascism. Most capitalists have a rather checkered background. We could today have capitalists working against my best interests, and why would I want that? Why on earth would someone ask me to be enthusiastic about men who are using soldiers as disposable pawns so that they can make more money? And believe me, those men are walking the earth right this minute wearing the "capitalist" hat.

Why would any rational human being want to submit his future to an amoral process? Beats me. But therein lies our difference of opinion.

You keep twisting what people say. You sit in judgment of everyone. Is it moral to take from those who have to give it to those who don't have? Where does it stop? There are lots of places in the world that are worse off than anyone here in the US. Do you want to take everything from everyone who has something so you can give it to someone else.

As far as rich people, this isn't new news. There always had been and always will be the Carnegie, Gates, Rockefeller type. It is a crazy amount of money some people amass. You have no right to steal it, nor should you.

Answer this: After you eat all of the rich, who is next?

Who is trying to eat the rich? Not me. I'm in favor of restoring economic justice by repealing all the bad rules which the rich have purchased from Congress. Repeal the NAFTA, the WTO, restore Glass Steagall, slash corporate subsidies, restore usury laws, restore bankruptcy rights, repeal Taft Hartley, prosecute bank criminals, tax derivatives the same way as shoes, end the prison for profit system, reduce health care costs with Medicare Everywhere. Now, I can go on, but do you see me saying anything about eating the rich? No, you don't. What you see me suggesting is to reverse the crooked rules that your precious rich bought from Congress to rob the middle class.

Your persistent and very unsubstantiated claims that I am trying to "steal from the rich" speaks to a very very shallow understanding of economics and sociology and politics. If all you know about public policy and economics is "stealing from the rich" you are not really ready or capable of an economic argument. You have offered not one shred of meaningful economic policy content here beyond your claims of stealing. I don't steal, pal. Unlike you, I want to hold all economic actors accountable to a moral standard that at a minimum includes "the Golden Rule," and "Actions for the Greater Good." Do you know what any of that means? Well let me be clear, it is not about stealing.

As for who is stealing what, yes there was recently a massive theft. Maybe the largest in our history. Filthy rich Bankers by the hundreds committed fraud and theft and stole hundreds of millions of dollars from working people. Not a single prosecution! So, in fact it is your rich idols who are the thieves here.

I haven't twisted anyone words. I dissect them.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Edited November 15, 2015 by jo56steph74

[oldtimer]

Maybe you aren't but my brother and I just made the most fantastic smoked brisket. The technique is already there.  The top ,01 percent is forewarned.

[Mallette]

Maybe you aren't but my brother and I just made the most fantastic smoked brisket. The technique is already there.  The top ,01 percent is forewarned.

Well, not really on topic either but certainly welcome as opposed to the stuff being served up.

 

Dave

[Woofers and Tweeters]

 

 

 

I definitely do not share your view that our environmental laws and regulations are corrupted and that we have bad air, water and soil. In places, sure.

Self contradiction.

One cannot serve Mammon AND God. That is very nearly the basis for me saying there are moral, amoral and Immoral capitalists. I choose moral capitalists and check to see if they are.

I wasn't speaking of "capitalists," I was speaking of "capitalism". One is an individual, another is a set of principles of operation. Those principles, or the theory itself, doesn't include a moral core. For instance, "The Golden Rule" is a wonderful moral dictum, but it's not a part of capitalist theory. "Serving the Greater Good" is another handsome dictum, but again, not a part of capitalist theory. All moral ideas are supplanted by one goal - to maximize profit.

If you can't find a moral premise within a theory, it is "amoral" by definition. When there is no moral compass, there is no predicting the good or harm that might be caused. And, there is obviously no accountability, aside from individual specific laws, which the capitalist seeks to avoid at all cost.

So, you approve of and support an amoral theory, and I do not. That's our difference of opinion. I hold that all social and economic activity ought to be constrained by a readily identifiable moral code, and that all operators within, are subject to accountability to that moral code, and you don't. I want to live in a morally accountable society, and you want something else.

As to the individuals who actually qualify as being "capitalists" there have been a few good ones along with many horrible ones. Let's not forget that Henry Ford and the Harrimans funneled money, loans, support and adulation to Hitler, because they were in love with Fascism. Most capitalists have a rather checkered background. We could today have capitalists working against my best interests, and why would I want that? Why on earth would someone ask me to be enthusiastic about men who are using soldiers as disposable pawns so that they can make more money? And believe me, those men are walking the earth right this minute wearing the "capitalist" hat.

Why would any rational human being want to submit his future to an amoral process? Beats me. But therein lies our difference of opinion.

You keep twisting what people say. You sit in judgment of everyone. Is it moral to take from those who have to give it to those who don't have? Where does it stop? There are lots of places in the world that are worse off than anyone here in the US. Do you want to take everything from everyone who has something so you can give it to someone else.

As far as rich people, this isn't new news. There always had been and always will be the Carnegie, Gates, Rockefeller type. It is a crazy amount of money some people amass. You have no right to steal it, nor should you.

Answer this: After you eat all of the rich, who is next?

I haven't twisted anyone words. I dissect them.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

If someone does not agree with you, they support amoral theories or don't want to hold others accountable. - Righteous

 

I have very little positive things to say about the banking system. I'm all for bringing the National Razor to the US and have a Reign of Terror, but you nor Robesierre should be in power.

 

The fact is that no one can blame one side. It's like blaming a lawyer or a used car sales person for filling in for what the people ask for. You don't like NAFTA, make people stop buying cheaper goods. (Remember, we are not an Island and other countries will supply the consumer with whatever we can't/won't live without.)  You don't like how people amass their wealth in the money markets, help us all out with a better retirement because many of us have our retirements invested and need a return. 

 

You keep saying that minimum wage should be a lot more than what it is and that deep pocket should pay for it (hint: I am not apposed to people earning more, but it pays what it does because that's what it's worth to a company). I have asked before and will one more time: If the pay for minimum wage doubles, does everyone's increase commensurately or equally (do we all get to double our pay or only $7+/hr more)?  The people who get $15 get what out of the deal? And you what who to pay for it?   

 

 

If we bring back Glass Steagall, can we bring back the Gold Standard too (or some sort of other tangible valuable standard)?

[Jim Naseum]

I definitely do not share your view that our environmental laws and regulations are corrupted and that we have bad air, water and soil. In places, sure.

Self contradiction.

One cannot serve Mammon AND God. That is very nearly the basis for me saying there are moral, amoral and Immoral capitalists. I choose moral capitalists and check to see if they are.

I wasn't speaking of "capitalists," I was speaking of "capitalism". One is an individual, another is a set of principles of operation. Those principles, or the theory itself, doesn't include a moral core. For instance, "The Golden Rule" is a wonderful moral dictum, but it's not a part of capitalist theory. "Serving the Greater Good" is another handsome dictum, but again, not a part of capitalist theory. All moral ideas are supplanted by one goal - to maximize profit.

If you can't find a moral premise within a theory, it is "amoral" by definition. When there is no moral compass, there is no predicting the good or harm that might be caused. And, there is obviously no accountability, aside from individual specific laws, which the capitalist seeks to avoid at all cost.

So, you approve of and support an amoral theory, and I do not. That's our difference of opinion. I hold that all social and economic activity ought to be constrained by a readily identifiable moral code, and that all operators within, are subject to accountability to that moral code, and you don't. I want to live in a morally accountable society, and you want something else.

As to the individuals who actually qualify as being "capitalists" there have been a few good ones along with many horrible ones. Let's not forget that Henry Ford and the Harrimans funneled money, loans, support and adulation to Hitler, because they were in love with Fascism. Most capitalists have a rather checkered background. We could today have capitalists working against my best interests, and why would I want that? Why on earth would someone ask me to be enthusiastic about men who are using soldiers as disposable pawns so that they can make more money? And believe me, those men are walking the earth right this minute wearing the "capitalist" hat.

Why would any rational human being want to submit his future to an amoral process? Beats me. But therein lies our difference of opinion.

You keep twisting what people say. You sit in judgment of everyone. Is it moral to take from those who have to give it to those who don't have? Where does it stop? There are lots of places in the world that are worse off than anyone here in the US. Do you want to take everything from everyone who has something so you can give it to someone else.

As far as rich people, this isn't new news. There always had been and always will be the Carnegie, Gates, Rockefeller type. It is a crazy amount of money some people amass. You have no right to steal it, nor should you.

Answer this: After you eat all of the rich, who is next?

I haven't twisted anyone words. I dissect them.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

If someone does not agree with you, they support amoral theories or don't want to hold others accountable. - Righteous

HE SAID HE BELIEVED IN CAPITALISM. AND CAPITALISM IS AMORAL BY DEFINITION. HIS CHOICE, HIS WORDS. LOOK, PEOPLE OFTEN DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THEIR BELIEFS. THAT'S NOT MY PROBLEM. IF HE WANTED TO CHOOSE A MORAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM, HE COULD HAVE. STOP BLAMING ME FOR HIS CHOICE. CAPITALISM IS ABHORRENT TO A MORALIST.

I have very little positive things to say about the banking system. I'm all for bringing the National Razor to the US and have a Reign of Terror, but you nor Robesierre should be in power.

SOUNDS VIOLENT. I BELIEVE IN NON VIOLENCE.

The fact is that no one can blame one side. It's like blaming a lawyer or a used car sales person for filling in for what the people ask for. You don't like NAFTA, make people stop buying cheaper goods.

YOU HAVE THE CAR BEFORE THE HORSE, AS USUAL. THE NAFTA IS A CAUSE, NOT A CONSEQUENCE. SOME RICH PLUTOCRATS CONSPIRED TO ROB THE MIDDLE CLASS WITH A PEN, AND THE NAFTA WAS A RESULT. AFTER IT WAS PASSED, THEN AND ONLY THEN DO THE CHEAP GOODS GO NORTH AND GOOD JOBS GO SOUTH. CAUSE AND EFFECT, CAUSE AND EFFECT!

(Remember, we are not an Island and other countries will supply the consumer with whatever we can't/won't live without.)

NOT WITHOUT CUSTOMS APPROVAL AND OF TAXES THEY WON'T.

You don't like how people amass their wealth in the money markets, help us all out with a better retirement because many of us have our retirements invested and need a return.

THE BEST VEHICLE IS SAVINGS. BUT YOUR RICH FRIENDS DROVE THE INTEREST RATE DOWN TO ZERO, THEREBY KILLING OF THE PURPOSE AND BENEFIT OF SAVING. PRUDENT PEOPLE USE TO SAVE. NOW THEY ARE FORCED INTO RISKY EQUITIES MARKETS. THAT'S A BAD THING FOR SMALL FRIES LIKE MOM AND POP.

You keep saying that minimum wage should be a lot more than what it is and that deep pocket should pay for it (hint: I am not apposed to people earning more, but it pays what it does because that's what it's worth to a company)

WORTH IS RELATIVE, AND NOT FIXED. ONE VARIABLE IS HOW MUCH LABOR SUPPLY THERE IS. IF YOU OFFSHORE ALL THE HIGH PAYING JOBS, AND CREATE HUGE NUMBERS OF JOBLESS PEOPLE, WAGES WILL FALL. SO WHAT WAS ONCE WORTH $15 CAN NOW BE HAD FOR $10. THEY'RE IS NO FIXED WORTH OF ANY JOB. THE PRICE OF LABOR CAN BE MANIPULATED BY THOSE WHO CAN BUY LEGISLATION.

. I have asked before and will one more time: If the pay for minimum wage doubles, does everyone's increase commensurately or equally (do we all get to double our pay or only $7+/hr more)? The people who get $15 get what out of the deal? And you what who to pay for it?

NO. RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE DOESN'T CREATE EQUAL RAISES ACROSS THE BOARD. WE'VE HAD MINIMUM WAGE LAWS FOR OVER 50 YEARS. HAVE YOU STUDIED THE HISTORY OF IT? THE EFFECTS? IF YOU HAVE, YOU WOULD KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. IF YOU HAVEN'T, I HAVE TO WONDER WHY YOU ARE TRYING TO BE AN EXPERT ON THIS WITH NO BACKGROUND IN THE SUBJECT? I'VE EXPLAINED ALREADY THAT THE HIGHER MINIMUM WAGES WILL COME FROM THE GROSS PROFITS OF A BUSINESS.

If we bring back Glass Steagall, can we bring back the Gold Standard too (or some sort of other tangible valuable standard)?

SURE, YOU CAN GO BACK TO IT IF THE WORLD'S CENTRAL BANKERS AGREE TO. I DOUBT IT WOULD CHANGE THE CORRUPTION DYNAMIC IN THE ECONOMY. GROWTH WOULD BE MUCH SLOWER, THE ECONOMY WOULD HAVE LESS VOLATILITY. BUT IT ISN'T A BIG SOLUTION FOR BRINGING BACK THE IDEA OF A VIBRANT MIDDLE CLASS. UNLESS AND UNTIL WE DEVELOP A MORAL COMPACT TO GUIDE THE ECONOMY AND ALL ECONOMIC ACTORS, THE MIDDLE CLASS IS DOOMED TO THE DUSTBIN.

HERE'S WHY. THE MIDDLE CLASS IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR ANY ECONOMY. IT'S A LUXURY. IT CAN ONLY OCCUR BY THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE TO COME TO A MORAL AGREEMENT THAT A MIDDLE CLASS IS DESIRABLE AND GOOD. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN NATURALLY, OR ACCIDENTALLY. WITH CAPITALISM, THE ESSENTIAL GOAL IS TO DRIVE ALL WAGES TO THE LOWEST POSSIBLE VALUE, WHICH MAXIMIZES PROFIT. THAT'S THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF CAPITALISM. WHEN YOU LOOK AT INCOME DISTRIBUTION GRAPHS, THE BIG BULGE IN THE MIDDLE REPRESENTS MIDDLE CLASS INCOME. THE INTENT OF CAPITALISM IS TO FLATTEN THAT TO A STRAIGHT LINE. A BASIC PRINCIPLE OF CAPITALISM. THE ULTIMATE BEING SLAVERY.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[muel]

Why are you shouting?

You say you "dissect" words... more like slice, dice, and throw them in the vegamatic.  

You take terms like "capitalism" to the extreme definition.  No one wants any "ism" in its pure form.  I certainly would trust one who did... foremost it wouldn't work.

 

I don't usually use hot sauce on steak but considering what is going on the menu I might 

[Jim Naseum]

I'm not in the least taking capitalism to an extreme. Rather, my bet is that the faithful never bothered to understand what they were worshipping. I'm not saying anything here that isn't in every basic critique of the theory.

So in place of raising the cause through some useful rebuttal, the disappointed just hound me for being too precise?

Why not consider the alternative? Why would people not want an economy based on sound moral principle? They demand it in other parts of life, why not in the most significant aspect of daily life? It's shocking to me that in a theistic large society no one requires moral accountability of their employers, vendors, suppliers grocers, utility companies, hospitals insurance companies, banks?

EDIT. In an economy dominated by corporations, the easiest change yielding the best results, would be to simply draft a morals clause that must be a part of all corporate charters, else no charter is valid. For crying out loud, even the silly NFL required it in players' contacts!

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Edited November 15, 2015 by jo56steph74

[vindeville]

I wonder what moral competition would look like and who would set those standards and enforce them. Personal conduct by players are the only moral guidlines in the NFL that I have ever heard of but I do not study it and that may not be the case IDK. The NFL may be silly to some but the jobs it creates are certainly not, Bloated or not it does a very good thing by employing folks and even dare I say make many very very rich. The people in the NFL organization making the most are certainly spending a lot of money and supporting jobs and families on down the line. I certainly cannot hang with some people here who either are completely consumed by politics and buisiness or work in an arena that demands that they are. If I were that guy I am not sure I would shove my opiniated views on folks on an audio forum at every opportunity as that may seem a bit self indulgent and self righteous, maybe even immoral. I would definitely never refer to the general population of my country sarcastically as sheep as some have on this forum in other discussions as that would also not be moral I think. People chose how informed they are and I agree it is a shame and a danger that many pay no attention at all. We all have to try to get people engaged in these things on a personal level in our own lives. That is far more powerful than anything else or preaching on a forum. To the point of this thread vote your conscience on minimum wage. As a hard working person for 35 years who has been given opportunity based on effort I know where I stand....your mileage may vary.  

[Jim Naseum]

I wonder what moral competition would look like and who would set those standards and enforce them.

What does it look like to belong to Armed Forces? What does it look like to belong to the Masons? What does it look like to be a New Yorker, or Parisian? What does it look like to declare allegiance to s country? What's it like to be part of a team?

You don't need to look far to understand how morality guides human behavior in a group. Even when the explicit moral code is not written and signed, people learn how to follow it, when it exists. They learn by example, by watching others, by wanting an example to follow.

It doesn't require a lot of complicate structural pieces, just a desire and commitment to do so.

In the middle of the night, as we all slept, a viscous monster grew and was unleashed on the society. No one stood up to challenge or question the rules by which it would direct our lives. That was a mistake. And it is never too late to correct mistakes. The monster now rules the entire world by fiat, with not as much as one simple commitment to Man. You can worship beasts, or gods, it's always a choice.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Gilbert]

Well, obviously the original topic is quite dead. 

 

Dave

 

yep, it died many threads ago.... but I look forward to $15/slice pizza.

[Jeff Matthews]

I'm not in the least taking capitalism to an extreme. Rather, my bet is that the faithful never bothered to understand what they were worshipping. I'm not saying anything here that isn't in every basic critique of the theory.

So in place of raising the cause through some useful rebuttal, the disappointed just hound me for being too precise?

Why not consider the alternative? Why would people not want an economy based on sound moral principle? They demand it in other parts of life, why not in the most significant aspect of daily life? It's shocking to me that in a theistic large society no one requires moral accountability of their employers, vendors, suppliers grocers, utility companies, hospitals insurance companies, banks?

EDIT. In an economy dominated by corporations, the easiest change yielding the best results, would be to simply draft a morals clause that must be a part of all corporate charters, else no charter is valid. For crying out loud, even the silly NFL required it in players' contacts!

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

You grossly underestimate our culture.  Do some traveling or some reading on what kind of average morality you encounter in most other nations abroad.  Check out how people behave in China when they encounter long lines in a market, when they need a seat on the bus and there are old ladies standing in the aisle, when the elevator will not fit everyone waiting on it.  Check out what it takes to get "processed" by bureaucrats and you find out that it's commonplace to grease the wheels with bribes.  I could go on, and you can retort with larger scale heists a la Wall St., but don't underestimate the average morality of our society.

[Jim Naseum]

Are you referring to the economy? That's what my comments were addressing. Banking, industry, trade, wages, taxes, hedge funds, corporations, investments, insurance, health care, welfare, farming, and all that.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jeff Matthews]

Are you referring to the economy? That's what my comments were addressing. Banking, industry, trade, wages, taxes, hedge funds, corporations, investments, insurance, health care, welfare, farming, and all that.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

That, too.  Tainted dog food.  Fraudulent knock-offs.  Lead-painted children's toys.  Much less regard for others than we show.

[Mallette]

yep, it died many threads ago.... but I look forward to $15/slice pizza.

 

So, the 1% percent have sold even you on the idea that the cost of a piece of crappy pizza is mostly in the minimum wage person behind the counter?  I really can't believe people get that suckered. 

 

Dave