The Obama Presidency

[Anthony]

Not necessarily. They could also just lay off people and make customers wait in line longer and the like. If we're talking small towns without alternatives for employment, they probably don't have alternatives for shopping either. The fact their lines are longer is one of the reasons I try not to go there already, but if there was no Target or Kroger or whatever, I wouldn't have much option.

And if they thought they would be more profitable doing this, they would have already.

They will probably close stores that are no longer above the long term profitability line. Which is a reduction of profits.

[Yoshi]

And if they thought they would be more profitable doing this, they would have already.

I agree, but this will change that equation and possibly the decision.

They will probably close stores that are no longer above the long term profitability line. Which is a reduction of profits.

Yet still a reduction in employment. Depending on the location, that could test SSJN's void theory though. And maybe those stores will turn into wormholes and return the towns to the 1920s to make buttplant's ramblings valid.

[Anthony]

And maybe those stores will turn into wormholes and return the towns to the 1920s to make buttplant's ramblings valid.

Walmart's true form...

[Anthony]

On topic, Diff's line "pushing negative externalities onto the people and organizations that benefit from them is good, free market oriented policy. " is a great way of putting it. If businesses are creating damage for everyone else, ideally they are forced to pay for the damage done (the most common example being pollution). Often though, it is the people who get the damage, and the businesses who capture the profits.

[Advocate]

First the NSA wiretaps Verizon customers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3393466.html

Now they (NSA) has a program mining your online data. Codenamed PRISM.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ion-documents/

[Yoshi]

On topic, Diff's line "pushing negative externalities onto the people and organizations that benefit from them is good, free market oriented policy. " is a great way of putting it. If businesses are creating damage for everyone else, ideally they are forced to pay for the damage done (the most common example being pollution). Often though, it is the people who get the damage, and the businesses who capture the profits.

Is that what he meant by that? I'm still not 100% clear. I was reading it as saying that the employees should suffer the side effects of legislation meant to protect them, which is why I asked him to clarify.

[Yoshi]

I guess that extended honeymoon with the press is finally coming to an end when even the NY Times publishes stuff like this:

The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it.

[A Robot Bit Me]

What are the side effects of overtime laws? Risk of ascension to a higher tax bracket?

[Yoshi]

You just hire two people at 2/3 time or whatever instead of letting one person get benefits and overtime pay, so the original employee loses 1/3 of his hourly pay.

[A Robot Bit Me]

And child labor laws put hard-working ten year olds out of mining jobs. What of it.