CEO who gave everyone a $70K minimum wage faces more questions

posted at 12:11 pm on February 3, 2016 by Jazz Shaw

The twisted tale of Gravity Payments CEO Dan Price continues to grow more and more convoluted as time goes by. There was a time when the public – particularly the heavily progressive, SJW segment of it – were carrying Price on their shoulders like the second coming of Jesus. (And with that wild mane of hair and made for Hollywood looks it’s probably not all that surprising.) When Price “sacrificed” his own vast wealth to give all of his employees a pay bump to $70K per year he may as well have been handing out fishes and loaves to the masses. But since that time one question after another has arisen over both his moves and his motives. The latest wrinkle, though, has nothing to do with generosity or socialist tendencies, but rather allegations that he may have been gaming the system to drive up profits. (SF Gate)

Gravity Payments, the Seattle-based credit card processing company that garnered international acclaim after CEO Dan Price raised minimum salaries to $70,000, has been improperly classifying payments it processes in a way that could put many of the small businesses it serves at risk of thousands of dollars in fines, according to a new report.

That accusation comes from documentary filmmaker Doug Forbes, who published the results of what he calls a four-month-long investigation into the company on his website, Hundred Eighty Degrees. Forbes alleges that Gravity Payments used incorrect coding for bars and restaurants when it processed card transactions. In the credit card processing industry, every merchant is categorized according to a Merchant Category Code (MCC), which helps determine the interchange fee, or the amount that merchants must pay to card-issuing banks per credit card transaction.

Before continuing, let’s keep in mind that this isn’t a law enforcement investigation… at least not yet. This is all coming from a private investigation done by a filmmaker, but the charges should be rather easy to prove or disprove. This gets a little bit wonky in terms of the business requirements for accepting credit card payments, but it seems easy enough to summarize. Companies like Price’s take charge of processing credit card payments for businesses. The business has to pay an “interchange fee” to the bank issuing the card for each transaction, and companies like Gravity take care of that as well. The fee is variable, though, based on the type of business you operate, how much the average charge is and how many transactions you process. In the case of eateries there are a couple of different rates. One is for bars and another is for restaurants. Restaurants tend to have higher average bills (and more transactions) so their fee is higher.

What Price is being accused of doing is charging a lot of the restaurants at the lower fee normally assigned to bars (since the restaurant generally has a liquor license as well) allowing them to charge a lower price to their customers. This gives them a leg up in a very competitive market and saves the business owners money. That would be a pretty sweet deal except for the inconvenient fact that it’s also illegal. If this proves true and the long arm of the law gets involved, Gravity may be on the hook for the difference between the fee rates for millions of transactions. Even worse, their customers could be held liable as well.

This is just one more log on the fire in terms of just how much of a saint Price has been. We already saw how the generous pay raises he handed out may have been done to force out his brother (who was also his business partner) and heard his ex-wife weigh in on charges of domestic abuse. The bloom may be off the rose for Price, and as with so many other stories, something that sounds too good to be true often is.

DanPrice


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Perhaps they should just raise taxes instead and keep all the oil workers there under welfare programs. That would be the left’s plan.

darwin on February 3, 2016 at 3:17 PM

nah. more cuts in services and more tax cuts for oil companies and drill baby drill should fix their problems right quick.

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 3:26 PM

(e.g., he wasn’t going to pay ‘everyone 70k’ – that was a floor and it was 3 years off).

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 2:30 PM

First of all, I don’t see any indication in the article that it is said he will “pay everyone” 70k.

Secondly, do you consider it likely that everyone will be given raises proportional to the higher pay that their position and experience previously had merited? Or is it more likely that, in order to keep the company nominally profitable, the people at the top will see little or no pay increase relative to the people under them in the organizational chart?

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 2:39 PM

I don’t know.
It’s his company and nobody is forced to work there, so I can’t see why panties are a’twist over all of this.
Is there and amount he must pay upper mgmt and not pay to employees in order to avoid being accused of being a socialist or a communist? Why are so many cons irked by this?
I believe we are currently in an environment where the average ratio of CEO to workers pay is 300 -1.
Maybe Price won’t meet that standard.
Oh the shame.
/
Bottom line…he is fully a free market capitalist. I hope he, his company, and his employees succeed and do well.
And if he’s breaking the law or beating his wife, well that’s just a fully different story.

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 3:29 PM

I want you to explain your claim.

I rescinded my claim. You are right. There was no free publicity. Nobody came rushing to prop up his company with their business in the wake of it. Everything was exactly the way it was before.

no, I won’t let you sidetrack the discussion.

Yeah! Don’t let me sidetrack your discussion about the folly of questioning the impact of government policies on business, by asking whether government policies impact business at all! Keep me focused on the REAL discussion here, Dan Price! I mean, McDonalds!

you sure? you kept repeating the word “quarter” as if it diminished the fact that the stock was higher than ever. i can only assume you don’t know the meanings of these words.

I am saying the quarter is a very recent report, and a departure from how the company had been performing previously. I said that a long time ago.

You didn’t answer the question. How is this a “turnaround” if they were never doing badly in the first place?

Who said it was never doing badly?

The pathetic attempt to ascribe “lefty” culture for its “downfall”

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 3:06 PM
That’s not what you said. You said people were blaming the downfall of McDonald’s on “political correctness”.

Explain the politically correct nature of the price of beef.

Explain the politically correct nature of franchisees moaning about reduced prices straining their margins.

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 3:15 PM

the premise was that the polically correct lefty culture had pressured and/or influenced mcdonald’s to attempt to broaden its appeal into unprofitable product offerings. you would know this from reading the articles.

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 3:24 PM

“the polically correct lefty culture had pressured and/or influenced mcdonald’s

“One big factor which doesn’t seem to make a lot of news is that the primary component of burgers is beef, and the cost has been on the rise.”

Explain.

“the polically correct lefty culture had pressured and/or influenced mcdonald’s

“McDonald’s franchisees say the launch of all-day breakfast has been a disaster — griping that it has slowed down service, lowered average bills and sparked chaos in the kitchens.”

Explain (and for the second time, there is no “article” here, only a link to SOMEBODY ELSE’S NEWS).

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 3:31 PM

and now McD’s is kicking a$$.

but no more updates here.

Man don’t you guys get lonely living up on BS Mountain?

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 1:03 PM

Here’s an update for you. I can stop in to McD’s and get a bacon, egg and cheese biscuit for $4.79. Right across the street at Chick-Fil-A I can get the same thing for about half that. Update: Even for you this should be a no brainer.

Oldnuke on February 3, 2016 at 3:32 PM

And now McDonald’s is doing better than it ever has.

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 2:43 PM

McDonald’s STOCK is doing better than it ever has. This quarter. Which, as I already pointed out to you, I presented as fact long before you decided it was a crushing counter-point.

The weird thing is, you claim McDonald’s wasn’t doing badly, but you quote an article that says the new CEO implemented a turnaround in the final quarter of the last calendar year. How do you have a “turnaround” if you weren’t doing badly in the first place?

And of course, there’s the overarching problem that you previously claimed the articles said McDonald’s was being politically correct and that would end them, but the links you gave say nothing about political correctness.

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 2:48 PM

What poor little lester is too stupid to realize is that the real reason McDonald’s has turned things around is because of a single word.

BUTTER.

Mickey D’s has gone back to using REAL butter in their offerings, after taking it off the menu years ago after all of the bleatings of the Left, who cockily assured us we would all die of heart disease from eating butter. Of course, that Lie got trashed by the 20-year Framingham Heart Study that came out in 2010.

They’re now using butter to toast all of their buns (not just the Egg McMuffin), and are also using Buttermilk for the coating for their chicken sandwiches. In all, they have now brought back butter for 20 of their menu items.

When will they go back to cooking their fries in their old oil mixture? It was 7% cottonseed oil, and 93% beef tallow. lester’s parents made Mickey D’s abandon that mixture in the early 1990s, and Mickey D fries, which made that company famous and profitable (because fries are much more profitable than hamburgers are), have never been the same.

Not to be outdone, Burger King announced their new sandwich this week; it rolled out on Monday.

The Extra Long Buttery Cheeseburger.

It’s two patties covered in a buttery garlic sauce and is served on a toasted hoagie bun. There are the usual veggies on it too (lettuce, tomato, onion, pickle).

Oh, and each one is 710 calories, with 15 grams of saturated fat.

Extra Long Buttery Cheeseburger

Del Dolemonte on February 3, 2016 at 3:37 PM

Not from free publicity, and not from people rushing to prop up his business, you sure made that clear.

who rushed to prop up his business? and how did they prop it up?

………………everditzi……………………..

In part, it was propped up by him. He mortgaged everything he owns – including the house he lives in – and put the money into the company. It may have been at that point that he came up with the plot to swindle the banks and the credit card companies.

Solaratov on February 3, 2016 at 3:44 PM

Is there and amount he must pay upper mgmt and not pay to employees in order to avoid being accused of being a socialist or a communist?

There’s an amount in order for it to be of significance to the argument whether $70k is the constant or the floor.

If entry-level goes from $35k to $70k and supervisors go from $70k to $140k or even $120k, it’s significant. If the supervisors go from $70k to $75k, is there really any significant difference when saying the pay is not 100% level?

Why are so many cons irked by this?

It’s not a question of it being irksome, it’s just not a practical or sustainable business model. The reason Price and his employees consider $70k a reasonable base-level salary, and the reason nobody around him contests it, is because the cost of living in Seattle is so outrageously high. Housing alone more or less doubles the cost versus the national average.

But people have no concept of cost of living comparisons, and so they see a sign that says “$70k jobs here” and go “holy $#!+ I can double my income just by showing my face in the door” until they realize their rent is $2000/mo when previously it was $800. I’d have to make six figures there to replace what is a very average middle-class salary here in the Midwest.

So people think because $15 can’t buy you $#!+ in New York or Seattle, then people should make $15 everywhere as a starting point, without a thought for the idea that people in the Midwest don’t relish the thought of their cost of living skyrocketing to level the playing field with a completely different demographic 600 miles away.

I believe we are currently in an environment where the average ratio of CEO to workers pay is 300 -1.

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 3:29 PM

So? Why are so many… you… irked by this?

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 3:48 PM

Why are so many cons irked by this?

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 3:29 PM

blah blah blah cost of living blah blah

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 3:48 PM

Oh, and by the way, you know what would remedy the cost-of-living disparity between coastal metropolises and midwest suburbs? If the feds kept their national minimum low or nonexistent and let the states and municipalities set their wages independently of anyone else.

If Seattle raises their minimum and things work out in their little pocket of the world, great. That doesn’t mean $15 is the global benchmark, and that’s the problem with cheerleading federal minimum wage hikes and arbitrary buzzwords like “living wage”.

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 3:53 PM

nah. more cuts in services and more tax cuts for oil companies and drill baby drill should fix their problems right quick.

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 3:26 PM

Huh, a progressive showing such glee at an economic downturn.
And at one of the rare economic successes that happened during Obama’s “Economic Recovery”.

But really, it’s just enough seeing the progressive’s “compassionate and caring” mask slip off as you see an economic down turn as politically useful to you (somehow) and personally enjoyable.

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 3:55 PM

I believe we are currently in an environment where the average ratio of CEO to workers pay is 300 -1.

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 3:29 PM

And?

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 3:56 PM

I rescinded my claim. You are right. There was no free publicity. Nobody came rushing to prop up his company with their business in the wake of it. Everything was exactly the way it was before.

so you can’t explain how anyone has “propped up” his business?

no, I won’t let you sidetrack the discussion.
Yeah! Don’t let me sidetrack your discussion about the folly of questioning the impact of government policies on business, by asking whether government policies impact business at all! Keep me focused on the REAL discussion here, Dan Price! I mean, McDonalds!

Dan Price and McDonald’s have both been subject to repeated, and hilariously stupid, attacks on their business models via lefty culture and politics.

Both are doing great.

government policies have nothing to do with this discussion.

.
I am saying the quarter is a very recent report, and a departure from how the company had been performing previously. I said that a long time ago.

the quarterly measure has no bearing on the fact that stock price is at a record high. do you know what these words mean?

Who said it was never doing badly?

I see you ran away from this one.

“the polically correct lefty culture had pressured and/or influenced mcdonald’s”

“One big factor which doesn’t seem to make a lot of news is that the primary component of burgers is beef, and the cost has been on the rise.”

Explain.

“the polically correct lefty culture had pressured and/or influenced mcdonald’s”

“McDonald’s franchisees say the launch of all-day breakfast has been a disaster — griping that it has slowed down service, lowered average bills and sparked chaos in the kitchens.”

Explain (and for the second time, there is no “article” here, only a link to SOMEBODY ELSE’S NEWS).

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 3:31 PM

Article 1:

“McDonald’s has also felt the social pressure to make some changes which have ruined the factors about their original menu which made it so addictive….

..But that particular surrender was only one element of a larger war that McDonald’s was losing…

..The Left has been waging a cultural war against McDonald’s for decades now, and the results are telling. It won its fight against the chain in the early 1990, forcing McD to remove the beef tallow from the french fries, in order to avoid offending the tender sensibilities of vegetarians. The company’s troubles began in earnest with the emasculation of its world-class fries, but the trend has accelerated with the ascension of Michelle Obama to First Lady. She rails tirelessly against affordable and wholesome-but-bland food which parents can actually get their kids to eat, because buttinskies can’t be happy without buttinsking. McDonald’s has tried to comply by offering healthy apple wedges in place of french fries in children’ Happy Meals, but it’s obvious that the Left won’t be happy with anything short of the chain converting to McTofu & Gruel.

McDonald’s is feeling the squeeze on its core customers: undiscriminating children and hurried adults on a budget. Most everyone else abandoned McD for the likes of Five Guys or Panera, and the chain has so far shown no talent for winning them back.

It’s going to take much more than just a new CEO if McDonald’s is going to have a chance of victory on any of these three fronts — it’s going to take a reimagining of the company — or a return to serving its core customers, and serving up a super-size middle finger to the Left….

….they certainly are not going to prosper if they feel like they have to tailor their menu to a bunch of vegans in the hopes of shutting up Michelle Obama and the talking heads on MSNBC. Those people aren’t buying their food anyway… they just want to see them go out of business. McDonald’s needs to get back to their roots, put the beef tallow back in the fries and tell the vegans to go eat their celery sticks quietly in the dark.”

Article 2:

“McDonalds has been losing money right and left and they’ve been dumping massive resources into a seemingly endless array of marketing gimmicks as they try to turn their fortunes around. None of it seems to be working, and the reason may be that they’re not addressing the core issue which some of the franchisees are bringing up: the chain strayed away from their original core mission and the strength of their brand in response to social pressures of the day….

…It’s true that costs of beef and some of their toppings have been going up, leading to pressure on them to raise prices, but that’s hardly the only cause for their woes. Everyone in that market sector is dealing with the same problems. No… what really killed McDonald’s market position was selling out to liberal pressure groups…..

…I think the beginning of the end can be traced back to 2002 when they buckled to pressure from health nuts and changed the oil they used to make their french fries, cutting the dreaded trans-fats….

..Later the restaurant felt even more pressure from the health obsessed wing on the left and began “diversifying” their menu to be less trashy. They were trying to sell apple wedges as an alternate for fries and the menu was stocked with salads….

…The Breakfast All Day idea sounded great to me, but if they’re losing money on it then it’s one option too many. So that was their other major issue… too many options. But to combat the problem, they decided to diversify the menu even further and start offering all manner of specialty sandwiches. Some were good and some… not so much. But yet again they were losing more money by having to stock up and prepare even more items which didn’t fly off the heating tables fast enough. And most of this was done in response to reading too many articles in the New York Times…..

….McDonald’s could still probably be saved, but I doubt they’re willing to risk the backlash from Michelle Obama’s army if they did it…..

laughably amateurish and ridiculousky ignorant partisan political and cultural hackery.

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 3:59 PM

laughably amateurish and ridiculousky ignorant partisan political and cultural hackery.

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 3:59 PM

Uh, have you ever read your own comments on pretty much any thread?

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 4:02 PM

The weird thing is, you claim McDonald’s wasn’t doing badly, but you quote an article that says the new CEO implemented a turnaround in the final quarter of the last calendar year. How do you have a “turnaround” if you weren’t doing badly in the first place?

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 2:48 PM

It seems that everdiso suffers from the ‘fallacy of simple location’ as a form of philosophical ADHD; whatever shiny factoid is convenient is all that one needs to know about a given topic, as the factoid can be thought of as isolated in and of itself.

This most often pops up in progressive ideological thinking.

Ricard on February 3, 2016 at 4:05 PM

laughably amateurish and ridiculousky ignorant partisan political and cultural hackery.

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 3:59 PM

You’re an idiot, princess.

Solaratov on February 3, 2016 at 4:10 PM

Every time I see this pic of Price, I imagine him singing, I Only Want to Say.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 3, 2016 at 4:12 PM

I believe we are currently in an environment where the average ratio of CEO to workers pay is 300 -1.

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 3:29 PM

And?

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 3:56 PM

If it’s Dan Price…I have no issue with it.
Perhaps your embrace of such a disparity is unconditional?

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 4:21 PM

I KNEW that you wouldn’t answer the question, Coward.

Why don’t cops get charged with crimes that they commit?

blink on February 3, 2016 at 4:10 PM

because cops back up cops.

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 4:23 PM

so you can’t explain how anyone has “propped up” his business?

The more interesting aspect is watching how there seems to be something else about this that has become a higher priority driver for you than making stipulations in order to move a discussion forward.

government policies have nothing to do with this discussion.

Then don’t bring them up.

Who said it was never doing badly?

I see you ran away from this one.

That’s interesting. When you decline to answer a direct question, multiple times, I repeat it. I missed this, one time, and you call it running away. I think this hearkens back to that priority driver that was mentioned earlier.

You were the one who said McDonald’s was “doing great”. All I did was establish context: that McDonald’s DID great this PAST QUARTER, which is a departure from the way it has been performing for the past THREE YEARS. For it to be BETTER, it had to be DOING BADLY, and it is SO EASY to find a hundred different news articles on the web discussing this, that are not Hot Air.

I also pointed out their SPECIFIC BUSINESS REASONS for a strong single quarter: selling pancakes for dinner, making the buildings the franchisees’ problem, and taking that new revenue and liquidity and returning them as dividends to the stockholders. I didn’t hide from any of this: I pointed it out to you FIRST.

Now, can you tell me a SINGLE THING I mentioned in any of this that is WRONG?

Article 1:

It’s going to take much more than just a new CEO if McDonald’s is going to have a chance of victory on any of these three fronts — it’s going to take a reimagining of the company — or a return to serving its core customers, and serving up a super-size middle finger to the Left….

Pancakes for dinner.

Article 2:

The Breakfast All Day idea sounded great to me, but if they’re losing money on it then it’s one option too many. So that was their other major issue… too many options. But to combat the problem, they decided to diversify the menu even further and start offering all manner of specialty sandwiches. Some were good and some… not so much. But yet again they were losing more money by having to stock up and prepare even more items which didn’t fly off the heating tables fast enough.

Article by Not-Hot-Air, predating everything you linked by about three months, or more:

Menu complexity. We’ve talked about this before. But McDonald’s has 145 items on its menu. Many of those items are tough to make. This increases service times—and if McDonald’s is not fast, it’s not much… Menu complexity is one of the biggest complaints on the part of franchisees.

Few big hits. When was the last time a new product at McDonald’s made a real splash? Can’t remember? Neither can we. But we can remember some big failures…

Bad publicity. As the largest restaurant chain in the world, McDonald’s is a big, easy target for critics of the industry and the health of its food offerings or its labor practices… The chain is under considerable pressure to improve pay—to the point that the National Labor Relations Board is practically rewriting franchise law. Consumers in the current, politically divided climate have shown a propensity for using their dollars to make a statement. It wouldn’t surprise us if it’s happening in this situation.

So there’s that.

Article 2:

McDonald’s could still probably be saved, but I doubt they’re willing to risk the backlash from Michelle Obama’s army if they did it

Pancakes for dinner.

Also, why didn’t you provide any quotes from “Article” number 3, where Hot Air goes on about left politics and this and that?

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 4:24 PM

If it’s Dan Price…I have no issue with it.
Perhaps your embrace of such a disparity is unconditional?

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 4:21 PM

Is there a reason that not being concerned that someone has more than me should be conditional?

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 4:25 PM

If it’s Dan Price…I have no issue with it.
Perhaps your embrace of such a disparity is unconditional?

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 4:21 PM

I don’t embrace the disparity.

I don’t think it really matters.
I don’t care.

YOU are the one who thinks it matters.

Why?

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 4:26 PM

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 4:21 PM

It depends, how will the disparity be fixed? If by government, no way. If this guy had been actually altruistic, it sure would have made for a better story.

Cindy Munford on February 3, 2016 at 4:27 PM

blink on February 3, 2016 at 4:28 PM

You’ve got to cut everdiso some slack.

He lives in a world where the cops are so virulently racist that target and kill black people and the justice system is so corrupt that they get away with it BUT vast political machines run by Democrats and the vast administrative state aren’t touched at all by corruption or self-interest and can be entrusted to run peoples lives for their own good.

Obviously such a mind is suffering from massive cognitive dissonance and will naturally employ many measures of self-deception in order to deal with it.

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 4:32 PM

It’s not a question of it being irksome, it’s just not a practical or sustainable business model. The reason Price and his employees consider $70k a reasonable base-level salary, and the reason nobody around him contests it, is because the cost of living in Seattle is so outrageously high. Housing alone more or less doubles the cost versus the national average.

But people have no concept of cost of living comparisons, and so they see a sign that says “$70k jobs here” and go “holy $#!+ I can double my income just by showing my face in the door” until they realize their rent is $2000/mo when previously it was $800. I’d have to make six figures there to replace what is a very average middle-class salary here in the Midwest.

So people think because $15 can’t buy you $#!+ in New York or Seattle, then people should make $15 everywhere as a starting point, without a thought for the idea that people in the Midwest don’t relish the thought of their cost of living skyrocketing to level the playing field with a completely different demographic 600 miles away.

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 3:48 PM

Would seem to be that calling it unsustainable is a lack of faith in the free market.
Obviously, his company needs to do well and it needs to remain profitable.
(Unless it goes public, then it’s shares can rise simply by losing less money than the year before.).
So to be successful, he’ll need to hire great people – and they may indeed be knocking on door.
I imagine they will need to do much more than ‘show their face at the door’ to be welcomed into the company and remain there.
And indeed, 70k in Seattle ain’t 70k in Skidaddle.
As for minimum/living wage laws, I’m not fully sold or unsold.
I’m just amused at the frustration with Dan Price’s compensation model from folks that seem to cheer Wall St’s bonus and pay culture.

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 4:33 PM

I’m just amused at the frustration with Dan Price’s compensation model from folks that seem to cheer Wall St’s bonus and pay culture.

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 4:33 PM

We’re not frustrated. Or upset.

When this guy first burst into national consciousness progressives praised him as A Progressive CEO! Socialism would work in a business!

Conservatives were simply amused by this and made obvious predictions about what would happen.

And now that nasty things have come out about this CEO – like the salary scheme being more about bilking his business partner brother instead of a devotion to progressive socialist principles and that he might be bilking other businesses – it’s YOU lefties who are defending him.

And you’re correct that in the end the market will determine whether or not he succeeds but pointing out how unsound things look isn’t some sort of sign of “frustration” or “anger” or whatever on the part of conservatives – it’s just pointing out that the company isn’t doing that well.

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 4:39 PM

Are you an idiot? Prosecutors can charge cops with crimes. Maybe you should provide a coherent answer.

prosecutors need evidence. which usually come from…cops.

the reason why many cops avoid prosecution is because cops are thr ones in charge of evidence.

Meanwhile, answer this….

Is that your formula for determining wrongdoing? If no charges, then no wrongdoing?

Are you ok apply this formula to white cops that shoot innocent black men? If no charges, then no wrongdoing?
blink on February 3, 2016 at 4:28 PM

If Dan Price is engaging in illegal activity, there will obviously be a paper trail, and he will be charged. Why wouldn’t he be?

What does this have to do with the he said/she said witness evidence of cop crimes?

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 4:40 PM

Would seem to be that calling it unsustainable is a lack of faith in the free market.

Well, no, the free market has no shortage of unsustainable models. It is not the free market capitalist that dubs a company Too Big To Fail ™, because the free market capitalist remembers the East India Company.

I imagine they will need to do much more than ‘show their face at the door’ to be welcomed into the company and remain there.

Well, I mean, you can be pedantic, or you can accept the axiom that 70k is an entry-level wage at this company, whereas entry-level wages in the Midwest are more in the 30-35 range.

I’m just amused at the frustration with Dan Price’s compensation model from folks that seem to cheer Wall St’s bonus and pay culture.

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 4:33 PM

Cheer? Or yawn?

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 4:45 PM

the reason why many cops avoid prosecution is because cops are thr ones in charge of evidence.
everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 4:40 PM

Oh, so that’s why Rahm hid the extent of police corruption until after his election?

Also, I’ve NEVER heard your particular argument made in any of these “cops killing black people” cases.
Because AFTER the prosecutors take up the case you still hear progressives screaming about corruption of the system and yada yada yada.

AFTER prosecutors, grand juries, courts, or juries make decisions lefties still freak out if the outcome isn’t against the cops. They NEVER cite cops tampering with evidence.
They NEVER talk about the facts considered by courts and the conclusions they reached – they ALWAYS conclude that the WHOLE system is corrupt and out to oppress black people.

But I’m glad you put down this marker for the next “cops shoot black person” thread we can expect you to accept the decisions made by the justice system.

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 4:47 PM

The more interesting aspect is watching how there seems to be something else about this that has become a higher priority driver for you than making stipulations in order to move a discussion forward.

so you can’t explain your claim?

government policies have nothing to do with this discussion.
Then don’t bring them up.

I didn’t. you did.

Who said it was never doing badly?
I see you ran away from this one.
That’s interesting. When you decline to answer a direct question, multiple times, I repeat it. I missed this, one time, and you call it running away. I think this hearkens back to that priority driver that was mentioned earlier.

So you admit you made this one up?

You were the one who said McDonald’s was “doing great”. All I did was establish context: that McDonald’s DID great this PAST QUARTER, which is a departure from the way it has been performing for the past THREE YEARS. For it to be BETTER, it had to be DOING BADLY, and it is SO EASY to find a hundred different news articles on the web discussing this, that are not Hot Air.

I also pointed out their SPECIFIC BUSINESS REASONS for a strong single quarter: selling pancakes for dinner, making the buildings the franchisees’ problem, and taking that new revenue and liquidity and returning them as dividends to the stockholders. I didn’t hide from any of this: I pointed it out to you FIRST.

Now, can you tell me a SINGLE THING I mentioned in any of this that is WRONG?

McDonald’s shares are at a record high. The individual variability of quarterly performances has no bearing on this fact.

Article 1:

It’s going to take much more than just a new CEO if McDonald’s is going to have a chance of victory on any of these three fronts — it’s going to take a reimagining of the company — or a return to serving its core customers, and serving up a super-size middle finger to the Left….
Pancakes for dinner.

Article 2:

The Breakfast All Day idea sounded great to me, but if they’re losing money on it then it’s one option too many. So that was their other major issue… too many options. But to combat the problem, they decided to diversify the menu even further and start offering all manner of specialty sandwiches. Some were good and some… not so much. But yet again they were losing more money by having to stock up and prepare even more items which didn’t fly off the heating tables fast enough.
Article by Not-Hot-Air, predating everything you linked by about three months, or more:

Menu complexity. We’ve talked about this before. But McDonald’s has 145 items on its menu. Many of those items are tough to make. This increases service times—and if McDonald’s is not fast, it’s not much… Menu complexity is one of the biggest complaints on the part of franchisees.

Few big hits. When was the last time a new product at McDonald’s made a real splash? Can’t remember? Neither can we. But we can remember some big failures…

Bad publicity. As the largest restaurant chain in the world, McDonald’s is a big, easy target for critics of the industry and the health of its food offerings or its labor practices… The chain is under considerable pressure to improve pay—to the point that the National Labor Relations Board is practically rewriting franchise law. Consumers in the current, politically divided climate have shown a propensity for using their dollars to make a statement. It wouldn’t surprise us if it’s happening in this situation.
So there’s that.

Article 2:
McDonald’s could still probably be saved, but I doubt they’re willing to risk the backlash from Michelle Obama’s army if they did it
Pancakes for dinner.

Also, why didn’t you provide any quotes from “Article” number 3, where Hot Air goes on about left politics and this and that?

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 4:24 PM

I guess I applaud your need to have the last word, but it would have been easier for you to just say “oops”.

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 4:47 PM

Why wouldn’t he be?

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 4:40 PM

Because progressives have ensured we no longer live in a system of Rule of Law, but one of Rule by Men.

GWB on February 3, 2016 at 4:50 PM

And now that nasty things have come out about this CEO –

and by “come out” you mean “obsessed insecure rightwingers have been furiously digging for dirt ever since”.

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 4:50 PM

and by “come out” you mean “obsessed insecure rightwingers have been furiously digging for dirt ever since”.

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 4:50 PM

Ha ha ha.

Yeah – vast right wing conspiracy!

I love how general conservative amusement at this CEO is “obsessive” and “insecure” but your devotion to defending his good name and business practice is…what exactly?

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 4:53 PM

But I’m glad you put down this marker for the next “cops shoot black person” thread …

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 4:47 PM

Yup, these idiot trolls are paving the way for Hot Air commenters to say, “If there’s no indictment, then there’s obviously no proof of wrongdoing.”

blink on February 3, 2016 at 4:51 PM

It is funny watching them drop any pretense of having principles or standards or even reasoning ability all in the effort to protect the obviously corrupt and criminal Hillary Clinton.

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 4:55 PM

Oh, so that’s why Rahm hid the extent of police corruption until after his election?

Also, I’ve NEVER heard your particular argument made in any of these “cops killing black people” cases.
Because AFTER the prosecutors take up the case you still hear progressives screaming about corruption of the system and yada yada yada.

AFTER prosecutors, grand juries, courts, or juries make decisions lefties still freak out if the outcome isn’t against the cops. They NEVER cite cops tampering with evidence.
They NEVER talk about the facts considered by courts and the conclusions they reached – they ALWAYS conclude that the WHOLE system is corrupt and out to oppress black people.

But I’m glad you put down this marker for the next “cops shoot black person” thread we can expect you to accept the decisions made by the justice system.

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 4:47 PM

we are talking about a crime here in which Dan Price is apparently manipulating things which would have a clear paper trail. if he’s guilty of a crime, he’ll be charged.

this has nothing to do with the difficulty of assessing probable cause in police shooting incidents.

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 4:55 PM

I didn’t. you did.

I brought up “political correctness”? I brought up McDonalds?

So you admit you made this one up?

I’ve explained this to you in detail twice. I’m not doing it again.

I find it even more amusing that you talk to me about “making stuff up” when all I have done is provide a mountain of facts and all you’ve done is change your verbiage around to pretend you were talking about something different, and then criticize me for being “off-point” for talking about a subject you introduced.

McDonald’s shares are at a record high. The individual variability of quarterly performances has no bearing on this fact.

A three year slump is “quarterly variability”?

I guess I applaud your need to have the last word, but it would have been easier for you to just say “oops”.

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 4:47 PM

What “oops”? Everything I cited is one of two things: either a notation that the reason their business turned around was by expanding access to their “less healthy” foods instead of angus burgers and fancy salads, or pointed directly to external sources that confirmed what was written in the article.

In the cases where there was an article. See, cause there’s one, where there’s no article, but you claimed it was evidence that HotAir was trying to blame McD business slumps on leftist politics. Did you maybe forget to point out where I missed the article on that one?

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 4:57 PM

McDonald’s shares are at a record high.

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 4:47 PM

Enron’s stock was once at a record high, too. When will idiots like you stop asserting a company’s stock price as a substitute for the company’s actual performance?

Regardless, McDonald’s was, in fact, in real trouble because of their stupid PC nonsense. Their turnaround has occurred because they’ve taken steps which have disregarded it.

Maybe someone of McDonald’s turnaround managers were reading the Hot Air threads and figured out what they were doing wrong – “Hot Air Commenters Save McDonald’s!”

blink on February 3, 2016 at 4:54 PM

Today stock price is a sign of a healthy company.

Tomorrow a high stock price is just more evidence that “wall street” is robbing “us” blind and that CEOs are only making short sighted decisions at the expense of long term success and growth.

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 4:57 PM

a clear paper trail. if he’s guilty of a crime, he’ll be charged.

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 4:55 PM

But any investigation will be evidence of a vast right wing conspiracy.

antipc on February 3, 2016 at 5:10 PM

we are talking about a crime here in which Dan Price is apparently manipulating things which would have a clear paper trail. if he’s guilty of a crime, he’ll be charged.

this has nothing to do with the difficulty of assessing probable cause in police shooting incidents.

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 4:55 PM

Well, you didn’t really respond to what I said. You have completely mis-portrayed the left on how corrupt they think the criminal justice system is.

Ok, lets try this. What you are apparently claiming is that “banksters” don’t exist and that if wall street and corporate American in general were doing corrupt and illegal things then they’d certainly have been prosecuted, right?

So, the whole housing bubble crash was on the up-and-up?

Modern banking and corporate practices are beyond reproach because no prosecutions?

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 5:14 PM

We all know that leftists never mind being completely hypocritical. That’s because they don’t think, they feel. So, they deny that they’re being hypocritical about something as long as they “feel” the same way about two things.

“I would feel bad about Hillary getting prosecuted for her crimes, and I would feel bad about a cop not getting prosecuted for his crimes. Since I would feel bad about both things I’m not being hypocritical.”

blink on February 3, 2016 at 5:07 PM

Spot on

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 5:14 PM

a clear paper trail. if he’s guilty of a crime, he’ll be charged.

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 4:55 PM

But any investigation will be evidence of a vast right wing conspiracy.

antipc on February 3, 2016 at 5:10 PM

Ha ha ha

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 5:15 PM

If it’s Dan Price…I have no issue with it.
Perhaps your embrace of such a disparity is unconditional?

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 4:21 PM

Is there a reason that not being concerned that someone has more than me should be conditional?

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 4:25 PM

I’m simply making the point that there are situations where a 300-1 disparity is reasonable and situations where it is unreasonable.
And even then, opinions are sure to differ.
But if your position is an unconditional defense no matter any of the details, so be it.

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:15 PM

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 4:21 PM

It depends, how will the disparity be fixed? If by government, no way. If this guy had been actually altruistic, it sure would have made for a better story.

Cindy Munford on February 3, 2016 at 4:27 PM

I don’t have a kneejerk rejection of government involvement or a kneejerk demand for it.
I mean, I guess those pesky child labor laws and work safety regulations can cut into the margins, but still…

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:18 PM

I brought up “political correctness”? I brought up McDonalds?

no, you brought up government policy for some reason.

So you admit you made this one up?
I’ve explained this to you in detail twice. I’m not doing it again.

I find it even more amusing that you talk to me about “making stuff up” when all I have done is provide a mountain of facts and all you’ve done is change your verbiage around to pretend you were talking about something different, and then criticize me for being “off-point” for talking about a subject you introduced.

You made up a claim and then argued against it. But I never said anything of the sort. So you ran away from it.

McDonald’s shares are at a record high. The individual variability of quarterly performances has no bearing on this fact.
A three year slump is “quarterly variability”?

you understand that stock prices aren’t quarterly indicators, right?

I guess I applaud your need to have the last word, but it would have been easier for you to just say “oops”.

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 4:47 PM
What “oops”? Everything I cited is one of two things: either a notation that the reason their business turned around was by expanding access to their “less healthy” foods instead of angus burgers and fancy salads, or pointed directly to external sources that confirmed what was written in the article.

In the cases where there was an article. See, cause there’s one, where there’s no article, but you claimed it was evidence that HotAir was trying to blame McD business slumps on leftist politics. Did you maybe forget to point out where I missed the article on that one?

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 4:57 PM

The articles I linked to were rife with attempts to blame mcdonald’s demise on lefty culture. Heck, IT SAID IT SPECIFICALLY RIGHT IN THE HEADLINES.

I gave you all the quotes anyone could possibly need to see that. There’s nothing to argue about – that is what the articles specifically said.

Hilariously, your attempted example of beef prices was brought up at the start of an article only as a springboard to DISMISS it and address the “real” problem of a business that had lost its way by attempting to appeal to liberal values.

The new CEO of McDonald’s has overhauled all aspects of the business, leading to huge growth domestically and globally, especially in asia. And he has done this even while INCREASING the number of healthy and upscale options. Heck, the silly lib even mandated a pay raise for all workers at company stores. And somehow the company still made a dramatic turnaround! amazing atuff.

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 5:19 PM

I’m simply making the point that there are situations where a 300-1 disparity is reasonable and situations where it is unreasonable.
And even then, opinions are sure to differ.
But if your position is an unconditional defense no matter any of the details, so be it.

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:15 PM

If you’re simply making your own point then why are you ascribing points to us that we supposedly hold?

99.99% of the time a lefty considers a pay disparity between worker and CEO to be a sign of some sort of injustice.

Conservatives just consider it part of the complex “pricing and value system” of a functioning market.

It’s lefties that take “principled” stands against pay “disparity”.

If you ask if a certain CEO is making too much you’re going to get a wide range of responses on the right in a generic context – BUT the context of such a question is often on lefty terms meaning that “too much” is an indication of “injustice”.
Which is why conservatives get a bit reticent to answer the seemingly innocuous question of “is their pay too much”.

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 5:21 PM

I’m simply making the point that there are situations where a 300-1 disparity is reasonable and situations where it is unreasonable.

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:15 PM

Why?

I mean, I guess those pesky child labor laws and work safety regulations can cut into the margins, but still…

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:18 PM

Would you trade away the other $4 trillion in federal government to secure the half-billion dollar OSHA budget?

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 5:22 PM

McDonald’s is even offering table servic3 and gourmet burgers in the UK!

They are including BOOKS in their happy meals in california!!

the horror!

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 5:22 PM

And now that nasty things have come out about this CEO –

and by “come out” you mean “obsessed insecure rightwingers have been furiously digging for dirt ever since”.

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 4:50 PM

That’s essentially my take on all of this.
I mean, if he’s beating wife…damn wrong.
But that ain’t what made him a boogeyman on Fox News.
There’s not really a curiosity about the sustainability of his approach, but rather a demand that he fail or be deemed a failure.
But as it’s clear his biz has not failed and that his employees have not all quit….well, maybe his hair smells?

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:26 PM

I’m simply making the point that there are situations where a 300-1 disparity is reasonable and situations where it is unreasonable.
And even then, opinions are sure to differ.
But if your position is an unconditional defense no matter any of the details, so be it.

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:15 PM

If you ask if a certain CEO is making too much you’re going to get a wide range of responses on the right in a generic context – BUT the context of such a question is often on lefty terms meaning that “too much” is an indication of “injustice”.
Which is why conservatives get a bit reticent to answer the seemingly innocuous question of “is their pay too much”.

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 5:21 PM

Well if you’re at least willing to say it’s not never too much, then we’re finding common ground.
(And my above was to The Schaef…who may not be so willing to make such a concession on this point.)

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:29 PM

I’m simply making the point that there are situations where a 300-1 disparity is reasonable and situations where it is unreasonable.

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:15 PM

Why?

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 5:22 PM

Why ever, or why never?

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:30 PM

I mean, I guess those pesky child labor laws and work safety regulations can cut into the margins, but still…

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:18 PM

Would you trade away the other $4 trillion in federal government to secure the half-billion dollar OSHA budget?

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 5:22 PM

What would you trade for 10 year olds in factories?
But we digress…

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:32 PM

I don’t have a kneejerk rejection of government involvement or a kneejerk demand for it.
I mean, I guess those pesky child labor laws and work safety regulations can cut into the margins, but still…

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:18 PM

Ah, yes, Ye Olde if it weren’t for archaic labor laws we’d be living in an Oliver Twist dystopia.

It’s a sign of the weakness of your argument that whenever anyone says generally that there’s too much government regulation and government has too much power etc you (and pretty much every other lefty) jump right to “oh, you want children working in factories and to work in an unsafe hell hole!”.

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 5:37 PM

What would you trade for 10 year olds in factories?
But we digress…

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:32 PM

Yes – because if we didn’t have hundreds of thousands of regulations and tens of thousands more every year children would be right back in factories or mines instead of schools.

It’s amazing – children aren’t working in factories anymore because of good progressive laws and not the industrial revolution and our advanced economy.

Way to go verbaluce.

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 5:39 PM

no, you brought up government policy for some reason.

the premise was that the polically correct lefty culture had pressured and/or influenced mcdonald’s

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 3:24 PM

So how did I bring this up if it was your premise?

You made up a claim and then argued against it. But I never said anything of the sort. So you ran away from it.

I didn’t make up anything. You are the one crowing about how great McDonald’s has been doing, and that the fact that it is one quarter is not relevant.

you understand that stock prices aren’t quarterly indicators, right?

I understand that just because McDonald’s stock is at $120 today doesn’t mean it’s been at $120 for the last three years, or the last three months. Or even the last three weeks.

If anything, the more you make the stock price your sole focus, the more temporal your argument becomes.

The articles I linked to were rife with attempts to blame mcdonald’s demise on lefty culture.

I thought you said you weren’t the one who brought this up.

I gave you all the quotes anyone could possibly need to see that.

What you gave me were quotes that talked about meat prices and franchisee complaints. Left policies were one aspect of that but there are two big things I pointed out to you from the paragraphs you provided.

One: that their menu selection has hurt them
Two: that pressure from federal government has influenced their policies, as claimed in the article.

And then I pointed to outside data that said exactly the same thing.

Hilariously, your attempted example of beef prices was brought up at the start of an article only as a springboard to DISMISS it and address the “real” problem of a business that had lost its way by attempting to appeal to liberal values.

And a bloated menu.

And external market forces.

And franchisee issues.

The articles list a wide array of issues. You focus on one to the exclusion of everything else.

The new CEO of McDonald’s has overhauled all aspects of the business, leading to huge growth domestically and globally, especially in asia.

I said this to you first.

And he has done this even while INCREASING the number of healthy and upscale options.

False. They shrank their menus. Every article I have shown you – and a hundred others I haven’t yet – all say the same thing: menu complexity was hurting sales, trimming their menu helped them. The angus burger is gone, and the BBQ ranch burger is not its healthier cousin. There are PLANS to introduce new upscale foods in the FUTURE, but first they had to make room on the board.

Again, I don’t know why you feel the need to explain to me things I already said to you hours ago. I gave a very detailed description of what McDonald’s has done and why, and you continue to say “I’m wrong”, but every point where you disagree is false, and everything else is stuff I already said and asked you to point out what I described incorrectly. You never did.

And somehow the company still made a dramatic turnaround!

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 5:19 PM

Yes, a company recovered from a difficult period despite adverse conditions for the first time in history anywhere, hooray. And here I thought that every business in the world folded the first time anything ever became difficult. Thank you for that landmark piece of business savvy.

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 5:41 PM

I’m smelling a rat in this reporting.

There is a particular trend among both sides of the debate to trash those that make a point in support of the other side (for instance, destroying Joe The Plumbers reputation, I’m sure you can think of more recent examples).

This looks a lot to me like Big Business striking out against a guy who impacted the debate we are having on raising minimum wage. I disagree with raising it, and I can see this guy did something to support the opposite point of view.

Now we have documentary filmmakers breathlessly reporting that some restaurants were listed as bars, and also trotting out an ex-wife to claim abuse.

Make of that what you will.

You may recall the JournaList scandal a while ago, where lefty reporters were being given talking points. We may have the same thing happening among conservative websites. This is something I first noticed a couple of years ago when the issue of obtrusive TSA agents weren’t even on my radar, and then, within a couple of days, almost all the conservative websites were suddenly posting stories about how awful TSA agents are.

I don’t know if my suspicions are correct, but it would be disappointing if they were, because I think conservatives should be better,not the same.

Johnny 100 Pesos on February 3, 2016 at 5:42 PM

Well if you’re at least willing to say it’s not never too much, then we’re finding common ground.
(And my above was to The Schaef…who may not be so willing to make such a concession on this point.)

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:29 PM

Any conservative or libertarian would say that a CEO could be making too much – the essential question is who ultimately gets to decide what too much is.

Markets change all the time and the value of a particular position at a particular place fluctuates, so just like everything else a market can under or over value something. And markets correct themselves all the time.

But like I said – whenever a lefty talks about a CEO “making too much” they invariably see it as a result of “injustice” requiring government fixing it.

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 5:42 PM

McDonald’s is even offering table servic3 and gourmet burgers in the UK!

They are including BOOKS in their happy meals in california!!

the horror!

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 5:22 PM

Why is that horror?

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 5:42 PM

Why ever, or why never?

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:30 PM

Why is your conclusion correct?

Why are there situations where a pay gap – even a large one – is objectively reasonable or unreasonable?

What would you trade for 10 year olds in factories?

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:32 PM

I’m not arguing for 10yo in factories, so that’s not a point to find common ground.

You’re arguing for the existence of OSHA, so that’s what I’m offering you. If that’s not agreeable, then it’s a false compromise: that’s not where you see the limit of a reasonable government.

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 5:45 PM

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:18 PM

Ah, yes, Ye Olde if it weren’t for archaic labor laws we’d be living in an Oliver Twist dystopia.

It’s a sign of the weakness of your argument that whenever anyone says generally that there’s too much government regulation and government has too much power etc you (and pretty much every other lefty) jump right to “oh, you want children working in factories and to work in an unsafe hell hole!”.

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 5:37 PM

I’m just illustrating in a broadly simple way why I see how government at it’s best (aka ‘the people’) as an agent of progress and thus has a role.
Now of course, you and most everyone feels just the same. I just don’t need to tip-toe around that admission.
I don’t think you or anyone objects to child labor laws (well, maybe not anyone).
And I’m sure next time accused of wanting ‘the government running every aspect of our lives’, you’ll point out how that just shows the weakness of their argument.

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:49 PM

You’re arguing for the existence of OSHA, so that’s what I’m offering you. If that’s not agreeable, then it’s a false compromise: that’s not where you see the limit of a reasonable government.

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 5:45 PM

Not sure that I am.
But I’d argue for an OSHA…sure.

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:51 PM

Well if you’re at least willing to say it’s not never too much, then we’re finding common ground.
(And my above was to The Schaef…who may not be so willing to make such a concession on this point.)

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:29 PM

Any conservative or libertarian would say that a CEO could be making too much – the essential question is who ultimately gets to decide what too much is.

Markets change all the time and the value of a particular position at a particular place fluctuates, so just like everything else a market can under or over value something. And markets correct themselves all the time.

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 5:42 PM

Well the less/poorly regulated market gave us the sub prime mortgage crisis and our recent recession, so there’s that.

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:54 PM

Why ever, or why never?

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:30 PM

Why is your conclusion correct?

Why are there situations where a pay gap – even a large one – is objectively reasonable or unreasonable?

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 5:45 PM

Are you asking me where I would opine one or the other to be the case?
I might indeed hold such an opinion – based on all sorts of factors.
Might you ever do the same?

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:57 PM

Not sure that I am.

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:51 PM

Well, when pondering the difference between balking at government intrusion and government absence, you landed on work safety regulations. It’s not like I put that upon you.

It’s really another iteration of the “roads and bridges” argument from four years ago. Like the entire country would ground to a halt without the federal government to provide roads and bridges and teachers.

Well, those departments only chew up 2% of the budget at most, so it still doesn’t provide a strong argument for why we need a four trillion dollar government or why it’s so critical to tax more money from more people. I’ll give them all the roads and bridges and teachers they want but they still won’t give back the other 98%. So it’s a false justification.

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 5:59 PM

I’m just illustrating in a broadly simple way why I see how government at it’s best (aka ‘the people’) as an agent of progress and thus has a role.
Now of course, you and most everyone feels just the same. I just don’t need to tip-toe around that admission.
I don’t think you or anyone objects to child labor laws (well, maybe not anyone).
And I’m sure next time accused of wanting ‘the government running every aspect of our lives’, you’ll point out how that just shows the weakness of their argument.

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:49 PM

Nice try verbaluce.

You were – as is common among lefties – turning any criticism of government into a supposed statement in support of anarchy and dystopia with cats and dogs living together and mass hysteria.

And it’s also generally completely disingenuous on the left: whenever the government is found to be corrupt lefties almost never demand justice, transparency, restructuring or whatever. VA killing vets? Crickets.
EPA poisoning rivers? Crickets.
Government bureaucrats in charge of these things not being held accountable at all? Crickets.
But say that the government has way overstepped it’s bounds and is corrupt and needs to be considerably reduced in size and power – especially at the federal level? Yup – your knee jerk response about “child labor laws”.
Maybe this does or doesn’t describe you personally but it does accurate describe the left in general but your knee jerk response means that deep down you do know you have a weak argument and that he left is full of hypocrisy.
And it’s why you and others get accused of wanting the government ruling every aspect of our lives.

And no – I did not say I see government as an agent of progress. At best government is the best tool for ensuring basic law and order and criminal justice. The left has completely surpassed this simple role of government and turned it as you said into “an agent or progress”.

But it’s not. Children aren’t working in factories or in horrible conditions because the industrial revolution advanced our economy to the point where that’s not a thing anymore. Government “pushing progress” had very very little to do with it.
It’s also the same story with labor unions – they’re archaic organizations that were only really beneficial in a few cases but are touted incorrectly as generally effective, useful and necessary.

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 6:01 PM

Well the less/poorly regulated market gave us the sub prime mortgage crisis and our recent recession, so there’s that.

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:54 PM

Ha ha ha

The reality is that giving mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them was government policy because anything else was racism and the government backed financial institutions (fannie, freddie) were essentially financing the whole thing.

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 6:05 PM

Well the less/poorly regulated market gave us the sub prime mortgage crisis and our recent recession, so there’s that.

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:54 PM

That market was driven by government-sponsored entities who in turn were trying to drive public-private partnerships to increase home ownership at any cost, a policy which technically reaches back to the creation of mortgage-backed securities in the Depression but got a real push in the last 35 years.

The lesson learned is the folly in having the government decide to use law and regulation as a form of social engineering, where if we push this lever, then people will do this, and then if we pull it back, then people will do that. The government pulled this lever to increase home ownership and it finally bit them in the butt.

Are you asking me where I would opine one or the other to be the case?

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:57 PM

I did not ask where. I asked why. Why is somebody else’s salary ever reasonable or unreasonable relative to my own?

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 6:09 PM

I did not ask where. I asked why. Why is somebody else’s salary ever reasonable or unreasonable relative to my own?

The Schaef on February 3, 2016 at 6:09 PM

Well, dude, it’s like totally unfair that the CEO of Walmart makes 300x more than the greeter at the front door.

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 6:13 PM

Verbaluce doesn’t have knee jerk reactions about government being the best solution to any given “problem”…verbaluce just can’t for some reason mention any case where a government fix isn’t desirable and for some reason can’t stop him/herself from claiming that anyone who thinks the government is too big wants children working in factories.

Funny how that works.

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 6:29 PM

Well the less/poorly regulated market gave us the sub prime mortgage crisis and our recent recession, so there’s that.

verbaluce on February 3, 2016 at 5:54 PM

Ha ha ha

The reality is that giving mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them was government policy because anything else was racism and the government backed financial institutions (fannie, freddie) were essentially financing the whole thing.

gwelf on February 3, 2016 at 6:05 PM

Gwelf’s got it right…

Ricard on February 3, 2016 at 11:39 PM

…drill baby drill should fix their problems right quick.

everdiso on February 3, 2016 at 3:26 PM

Obviously “drill baby drill” did fix the $4/gal pump price for gasoline for which this was proposed. So much so, that Obama took credit for the lower fuel prices even though he campaigned on the promise that his economic policies would make energy prices “necessarily skyrocket”. And his illegal actions (necessitating court intervention) to prohibit drilling has kept the fer’al government out of the money bonanza due to not having any leases on public property.

But Leftists gotta lie, so “drill baby drill” has been hijacked and is really all about propping up government tax coffers and had absolutely nothing to do with the tribulations We The People are suffering under Democratic Rule.

Reuben Hick on February 4, 2016 at 6:44 AM

He was swindling his own brother. The older brother who helped set him up in business. This had been going on for quite a while in many different ways. I cannot say just how slimy this is. I hope his brother cleans his clock in court. And then the civil suits over his cheating get the rest.

Mormaer on February 4, 2016 at 1:08 PM

well his experiment with liberalism went well

Mr Soames on February 4, 2016 at 2:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2