They exploit food stamps because they know that the government will subsidize their workforce. I don't blame them as they are working in the rules that the government has set but that is one of the biggest issues with the current economic structure. Increasingly large corporate tax cuts and regulation changes have sky rocketed and centralized personal wealth. I personally think that society is healthier when the wealth gap is decreasing. New rules need to be set. The middle class and top 20-10% of earners get squeezed more in relative terms than the top 1%. Murray Edwards should need to face the same tax burden as a guy making 200k dollars but he doesn't and the problem is much worse in the US.
It sounds like your issue is the gov't subsidy. When gov'ts start to allocate capital (which is all food stamps are really), it distorts the economy and you get all sorts of unintended consequences.
It sounds like your issue is the gov't subsidy. When gov'ts start to allocate capital (which is all food stamps are really), it distorts the economy and you get all sorts of unintended consequences.
Lol do you really think in a world without regulations and social safety nets that benevolent corporations will be fair to their employees? Basically the capitalist version of communist rhetoric.
It sounds like your issue is the gov't subsidy. When gov'ts start to allocate capital (which is all food stamps are really), it distorts the economy and you get all sorts of unintended consequences.
Yeah like emergency services, healthcare and all those other consequences.
The Following User Says Thank You to iggy_oi For This Useful Post:
Those services are not the gov't attempting to pick winners and losers.
By your logic, and I’m using that term loosely, it absolutely is. People who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford to pay those services will receive them at the expense of those who otherwise could afford to pay for them.
By your logic, and I’m using that term loosely, it absolutely is. People who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford to pay those services will receive them at the expense of those who otherwise could afford to pay for them.
No they don’t, they allocate services by need. In your utopia of no government intervention someone with more money could expedite their service timelines.
The biggest issue is we as investors (retirement funds , mutual funds ,etc) demand not just increasing profits but exponentially increasing profits
So keeping costs down while raising prices is the only real option for a lot of companies - especially grocery stores and department stores / walmarts
Raise minimum wage ? They will just increase the prices . Raise taxes ? They will increase the prices .
The investors need to change their attitude and demand less profit and more social accountability or the consumer will always just have the costs passed onto them, which results in the same issues we are seeing with inflation at the moment with the lower end consumers
Not arguing one side or the other, but this post seems to reflect the changes in attending Flames games since the revenue sharing started. It used to be affordable to attend a game. Now the players make more money and the owners want their return.
Who pays? The consumer.
I just want to say complaining about cost to attend a sports event is a very first world problem!
Last edited by Just a guy; 08-29-2022 at 09:45 PM.
Reason: Further thoughts
I wasn't sure whether to put this in the Kadri thread or this new arena thread. I put it here because it kind of pertains to how the outdates features of the Dome makes the Flames a bit of a joke to some players.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
There are a number of complex issues that you have tried to address. I think we should work on whether a dilemma actually exists or not. You have tried to make two mutually exclusive points by claiming that a dilemma exists while also claiming that one part of that dilemma either doesn't doesn't exist or is a minor factor.
Nope. Not what I did.
You don’t understand the difference in the points is all.
You don’t understand the difference in the points is all.
None of BoLevi's posts are meant to inspire discussion, he's just hammering his point harder and harder while ignoring your statements except to find an inconsistency he can attack. He'd be right at home on the Fox news comments section.
Anyone that argues that there is no competition between jurisdictions on luring investment with lower tax rates obviously missed the Amazon HQ2 mess where dozens of cities tried to out-debase themselves to get noted upstanding employer Amazon to treat some local white collar workers as wonderfully as they treat their blue collar staff. An argument centered around a 100% corporate tax rate not generating investment is itself based around a bad faith premise and is such an absurd comparator that everything written after that was not worth the electrons inconvenienced to type it.
Likewise, if anyone thinks that removing minimum wage would create wealth among the lowest income earners, because benevolent companies would all feel so excited to, for no reason whatsoever, increase the amount spent on wages, should probably look into how the railway tunnels were built, or any other example from that time. Unskilled (and even skilled where possible) jobs would be filled en masse from companies abusing workers visas. This would create a glut of workers, allowing companies to pay less and less, starting at the entry level and then creeping upwards.
As for the arena deal, with 3 hockey teams and a lacrosse team, along with concerts and events, there is no reason why such a venture should be unprofitable, which means there is no reason why the city should put any expenditure up without a plan to recapture the investment, even if it is just from a fair market rent being earned on the lease the flames will sign. Otherwise please count me among the nays for the vote on whether we should all assume the position and let daddy edwards have his way with us financially.
Agreeing to bad arena deals is no good. That's an edmonton thing, let them agree to stupid overpayments on D men and arenas.
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to GhostCookie For This Useful Post:
What if an employer thinks it only makes sense to hire you for $12 otherwise it is better to not hire you at all?
Would you prefer the $12 over no job?
Then the employer is someone that you probably shouldn't work for in the first place. Any idiot running a medium to small business that is trying to nickel and dime their employees to the point where they are either having to perform poorly because they are working multiple jobs, or are simply in disarray, shouldn't be in business.
Paying a good employee a decent wage pays off in so many ways - its sad there are so many "business people" out there that are too obtuse to see it.
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve just launched an air biscuit
Then the employer is someone that you probably shouldn't work for in the first place. Any idiot running a medium to small business that is trying to nickel and dime their employees to the point where they are either having to perform poorly because they are working multiple jobs, or are simply in disarray, shouldn't be in business.
.
On the flip side, if you aren't skilled or useful enough to have an employer willingly pay you a good wage then you are in "disarray". A government price control on wages isn't going to change your value.
