Part of my reasoning is value. I used to buy a Houston Chronicle every
morning at a local Walgreens. The price has gone up from a dollar a
day to a dollar fifty, Monday thru Friday. I have reluctantly
tolerated it even though I'm guaranteed a heavy dose of liberalism day
to day. However, the Saturday and Sunday paper recently went up to
three dollars and I decided that it wasn't worth it. I stopped buying
it on those days but I wasn't the only one! Now, the stack of papers
just sit there on the weekend. Nobody, or at least, virtually nobody,
buys the Saturday or Sunday paper anymore. It's over priced. Now the
delivery person has to remove them and take them back on Mondays with
no money earned on those days. I've checked other stores and found
pretty much the same results. Why pay three bucks when I can read the
news on line? Why pay a dollar fifty? That's just a bad habit I'll
probably address soon.Poor news paper delivery person.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]"
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 8:52 AM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
***
**
*
*
**
**
**
*
*
*
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <emily.mae50@...> wrote :
Are you prejudiced towards fast food workers in general or just
McDonald's employees? What are your assumptions about people who work
at MickeyD's?
*
*I don't quite understand Mike's reasoning here. Who eats at
McDonalds? Poor people, rich people, people who just want to pay less
for a burger? If you are truly paying less for a burger then how do
you think that can come about? Hint: you have to cut costs. What is
the easiest way to cut costs? Pay your employees less. Is your $3
hamburger worth it knowing others don't make a living wage? I don't
eat at McDonalds - never have for a whole lot of reasons but if I did
I would like to think the staff were not the equivalent of indentured
servants. It's a bit the chicken and the egg. If you can't make enough
money to live beyond the poverty level by working at McDonalds than
what person would choose to work there? I'll tell you. Those who
either don't have the education or experience or luck to find a better
paying job, that's who. So when Mike says they don't know their
McNuggets from their milkshakes there is a good reason for that if
that is, in fact, a true statement.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :
If you're going to pay fifteen an hour , you have a right to expect
more from your employee, probably more than many average McDonalds
employee are capable of giving. Might require some *focused*
attention. Of course, if you are more efficient and accomplishing
more, you'll need fewer workers to assist you. Which means fewer jobs.
A higher wage may mean more for you but it also means more from you.If
someone complains about their eight dollar an hour job now, wait till
they have a fifteen dollar an hour job.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]"
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:16 PM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :
LOL, $15 an hour and they can't remember if you ordered an egg
McMuffin or a sausage McMuffin.
So, you apparently frequent Mcdonalds. Then you should be willing to
pay the labor a barely living wage for your cheap meal. Or maybe that
cheap meal will cost a bit more 'cause the f! ast food outlet will
have to pay their employees more. That could be a hardship for you, Mike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]"
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Saturday, October 3, 2015 10:28 PM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Just For the Record
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> wrote :
On 10/03/2015 08:01 PM, awoelflebater@... <mailto:awoelflebater@...>
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>,
<steve.sundur@...> <mailto:steve.sundur@...> wrote :
I really don't think this is the case.
Most gun owners, I mean the vast majority, keep them
at home for protection.
Conceal and carry permits are pretty rare.
When you think about it though, when has society not
been in rough shape?
I guess these mass shootings are a new development,
so perhaps thatis the case.
What I am saying, Steve, is that the apparent runaway
train of gun ownership and lethal gun use on fellow
human beings seems to be tied to the state of our
society where absurdly rich exist geographically
within spitting distance of those who can't afford a
decent meal (I was listening to NPR tonight driving
home from work and there was an interview where they
were talking about the wealthy in Manhattan whose net
income per year was, on average, 120K and just a 25
minute commute away in the Bronx were folks who made,
on average $20K per annum). This creates a problem.
This creates the potential for violence. This can
make people crazy with resentment, with need and then
place a gun in their hands and all bets are off.
Threatening becomes easy. Killing becomes more likely
than not killing.
Perhaps then we need a maximum wage if we're going to
have a minimum wage. For about the last 25 years it's
been "see how much money you can accumulate. He with
the most bucks wins."
Maybe, but in our current system (capitalism) that
might be a bit hard to implement. On the other hand, I
hear in America some politicians are gunning for a
$15/hr minimum wage. Good.
So when you say "the vast majority keep them at home
for protection." then you agree with what my point
was! This is what I'm saying. Too many feel they
need protection from the threat from their fellow
citizens, their (geographically speaking) neighbors,
for crying out loud! And why would this be? I think
there are a multitude of reasons but the disparity in
economic conditions between Americans is one of them,
for sure.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>,
<awoelflebater@...> <mailto:awoelflebater@...> wrote :
But, such high profile mass shootings are bound to
create media hyper ventilation and the resulting
outrage and lamenting is continuously ignited by
these relatively common occurrences in schools, movie
theaters and elsewhere. It is a subject that deserves
attention because it also indicates something deeper
- is a barometer for other social disease rampant in
(in this case) the US. Guns seem to accompany fear
and rage and mental illness but not necessarily in
all cases when their use is against a neighbor, a
classroom, an employer.The need to own guns, to have
them handy at all times, is an indicator or a society
in rough shape.When you can't feel safe unless you
have a gun in your possession it points to economic
reasons as well. Drug addiction, poverty, lack of
resources can lead citizens to assume they can take
what they need at the point of a gun, for example.
Whole city blocks and blocks of substandard living
conditions or millions of people scraping by all over
America are testimony to the sorry state of our
society. Even the vehemence with which gun lovers
defend their (and by default everyone's) right to own
and carry a gun is based in fear and a distorted idea
that to change the Constitution with regard to gun
ownership rights would somehow be un-American or even
sacrilegious. This whole gun issue reveals far more
than just how people feel about arms.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>,
<awoelflebater@...> <mailto:awoelflebater@...> wrote :
More than 10,000 Americans are killed every year by
gun violence. By contrast, so few Americans have been
killed by terrorist attacks since 9/11 that when you
chart the two together, the terrorism death count
approximates zero for every year except 2001. This
comparison, if anything, understates the gap: Far
more Americans die every year from (easily
preventable
<http://www.vox.com/2015/8/11/9126891/gun-suicide-rate>)
gun suicides than gun homicides.
The point Obama is making is clear: We spend huge
amounts of money every year fighting terrorism, yet
are unwilling, at the national level, to take even
minor steps (like requiring background checks on all
gun sales nationally) to stop gun violence.
*
**
**
**
*
*
**
**
**
**
*
*
