chasfh

History is lousy with examples of an entrenched minority ruling over a majority basically against their will. Just because it’s the 21st century doesn’t mean were beyond the possibility of that happening again. And the current minority here in America is methodically undertaking the process of entrenching themselves by using the system itself to destroy that very system. That’s the first chapter of the autocracy playbook.

Right. There are a few different ways to handle this and it's up to the business owner to make the call that's best for them. Point being, it's not always as simple as, "I'm being forced by the government to pay higher wages, and no way I'm cutting my own comp, so I'll just raise prices to cover the wages increase so my customers pay for the whole bump, which sucks for them but hey, everything will work out nice and neat for me". For many businesses, there's a good chance that they wouldn't be able to pass all, or even some, of the wages increase on to their customers, who may simply flee to cheaper competitors, or buy less, or quit the product altogether. In that case the business would have to absorb at least some of the loss by having only a nominal price increase, or maybe even no increase at all, in a bid to maintain sales volume. #CapitalistBlues

That’s one way. You could also lower prices in order to move product to try increase profit or cut losses through volume.

The 2020 election was the most secure election in American history. https://apnews.com/article/top-officials-elections-most-secure-66f9361084ccbc461e3bbf42861057a5

You're the one who specified milk and bread. I was just asking whether those are the only products you were talking about. Anyway, back to the question: when prices rise, people tend to buy less, or trade down to cheaper alternatives. This is also Economics 101. My question to you is, what happens to the company that raised the prices in the first place when people buy less or buy from someone else? How will they respond?

So we're talking only about milk and bread?

Thanks for the economics 101 lesson. I have a question: What about when employers pay higher wages, raise prices so they can pass it all on to the customers, and customers simply buy less, or stop buying period, because the new prices are too high? What happens then?

Which proves that Biden is dangerous to the entire world and not just 'Murica? 😛

Yep. Unilateral disarmament.

Biden’s not behind the rise in inflation and he’s not at fault for it, but I agree he’s gonna pay for it.

Dopesick on Hulu. It’s a 360 look at the beginning of the opioid addiction crisis from the standpoints of a doctor caught up in prescribing then using, the Sacklers who callously pushed the drug, the people who enabled the push, the DEA working to bring them down and hold them accountable, and the people caught up in the addiction. It sounds like a relentless downer, and it’s true there’s not much levity to balance it out, but there are a lot of strong performances that make it a compelling watch.

Kinda sorta related:

Never forget where this guy spent 4th of July a few years ago:

Of course he wasn’t, and isn’t. It was a joke: people like MTG calling Biden a communist when the Russian leader she reveres was himself a member of the communist party of the loudest communist nation. Get it?

Far as I can tell, red hats want healthcare to be tied to a job so their tax dollars won't be used to provide precious healthcare to undeserving people of questionable national provenance that they don't like and care even less about. I think that's how it plays in their minds, anyway.

Wasn't he always both, really? 😏

The irony is that Putin was very much the communist one.

Oh the irony of person beholden to Russia and Putin accusing Biden of being communist.

One day later ...

1987 is still my favorite Tiger baseball season, because of the comeback. 2006 is a close second, because it felt like the turning point.

This dovetails into a pet peeve that has taken root in the past year or so: the synonymization of the words “misinformation” and “disinformation”. They are simply not the same, and NPR is a repeat violator of botching the difference. “Misinformation” is defined by the OED as “The action of misinforming someone; the condition of being misinformed” or “Wrong or misleading information”. Specifically, intent is not contemplated in the definition, the general idea (which you may have experienced in your own life) being that when someone is “misinformed”, you generally give them the benefit of the doubt that they tried to obtain the correct information, and that when they turned around and relayed such information to you, they thought they were dealing in the truth—but were instead misinformed. It’s fair to assume that they are trying to be honest actors. “Disinformation”, on the other hand, is defined by OED as “The dissemination of deliberately false information, esp. when supplied by a government or its agent to a foreign power or to the media, with the intention of influencing the policies or opinions of those who receive it; false information so supplied.” Differently from the word “misinformation”, malevolent intent is front and center in the definition of “disinformation”, the dissemination of which is, again, deliberate and with intention to influence those who receive it. People who spread disinformation know the information is wrong, know it’s a lie, and yet spread it anyway, typically for a clear purpose beneficial to them. There is no way red hats are being misinformed, because the people they are getting their direction from are not trying to be honest actors and deal in the truth. Instead, they are lying for gain. That's not misinformation. That's disinformation.

Ahahahahanoshit. You don't say.

Lockout. Not strike.