Chicago inacts Living Wage ordinance

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Give me control of the machines and I will.

Okay, you can be the cashier manager guy who makes sure people aren't stealing and runs over and helps them when the number lights up cuz someone scanned their stuff wrong.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Okay, you can be the cashier manager guy who makes sure people aren't stealing and runs over and helps them when the number lights up cuz someone scanned their stuff wrong.

That's not control. Control is the guy who tells that guy what to do.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Paid training is a lot better for creating skills.

When people are in paid training (isn't that called community college?) they're not producing stuff. When they're employed, they are.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


When people are in paid training (isn't that called community college?) they're not producing stuff. When they're employed, they are.

They are creating skills. That's more productive than working when you are unskilled, because eventually you will become more productive, and you will end up producing more in the long run.

[Timexwatch]

If it makes anyone feel any better, there's a strong possibility that the House will shoot for a $2.00 increase in the minimum wage (if the Republican moderates have their way), which is incredible considering that the Senate is shooting for $1.00. Considering that the house is probably going out of session tomorrow (or may come in on Saturday), there could be a lot of movement on this in the next day and a half.

[Kuciwalker]

If it makes anyone feel any better

No.

[Caligastia]

Intriquing thread...

It's interesting to see how Sava has changed over the years. I remember he used to be pretty hard-left. Sava is a smart guy, and his heart is in the right place. A lot of people here underestimate him.

Sava.

[Kuciwalker]

They are creating skills. That's more productive than working when you are unskilled, because eventually you will become more productive, and you will end up producing more in the long run.

When people are in paid training (isn't that called community college?) they're not producing stuff. When they're employed, they are.

Not to mention that there are job skills you just don't learn in school. And not everyone is or will be a skilled worker.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Well-intentioned but wrong ideas we all know what road those pave.

Perhaps, but I give some points for intent.

-Arrian

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Because the public has ALREADY charged the owners the price of that resource. Duh! It's a penalty because for most of these 'public resources' you will have to go back and charge a far higher rate to get them to 'fund education'. Unless you are willing to wait out their long running leases (if the teams haven't already bought the stadiums out).

And if you charge stations that show sports more for use of airwaves that those that don't, how is that not a penalty? Charging more for use of the same resource at the same time is always considered a penalty!

Well, the public has an enormous resource here at it's disposal (for generating revenue). I hope some policy makers will one day think of this. What it boils down to is either charging sports franchises more for using the public's resources or whether or not people want to pay more in taxes.

For whatever reason, you seem to believe in this idea of entitlement for the owners of sports franchises, as if they have some right to use public resources and that it's a penalty for the public to respond to the demand for sports entertainment by charging more for leasing that specific airtime (ask Ming, but I think it costs more for advertisements to be run during times that are in higher demand) that is in higher demand rather than charging everyone the same amount. It's not penalizing, IT'S RESPONDING TO THE MARKET.

Maybe you will understand this. But once again, I've found that when after repeating things to people many times and they still don't have a basic grasp of such fundamental concepts, there really is no hope.

Don't worry though. Maybe one day my idea will take form and everyone can have an equal opportunity to get a better education.

Lord knows this thread is proof that such education is sorely needed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, the public has an enormous resource here at it's disposal (for generating revenue). I hope some policy makers will one day think of this. What it boils down to is either charging sports franchises more for using the public's resources or whether or not people want to pay more in taxes.

And the people have made their choice. Why won't you understand that? Even in stadium financing. You STILL have cities that pay, at least part, for stadiums.

For whatever reason, you seem to believe in this idea of entitlement for the owners of sports franchises, as if they have some right to use public resources and that it's a penalty for the public to respond to the demand for sports entertainment by charging more for leasing that specific airtime (ask Ming, but I think it costs more for advertisements to be run during times that are in higher demand) is in higher demand rather than charging everyone the same amount. It's not penalizing, IT'S RESPONDING TO THE MARKET.

A. I love how you keep repeating the strawman, like if you say it enough times it'll come true... like you are the one agitating for equal treatment rather than myself . "Entitlement" indeed. Maybe someone should ask you why you think every other broadcaster deserves an entitlement to the public resources but not sports?

B. There is no leasing of 'specific airtime'. Do you even know how the FCC works? FCC offers licenses to channels to broadcast (based on who bids highest on an auction for all the frequencies in the market at the same time, every 8 years). These channels are free to buy or not buy broadcast rights for sporting events. There are no 'specific airtime' charges; this is NOT advertising.

C. When everyone is charged exactly the same regardless of what they show, and then one channel (and it would have to be a channel, because they are the ones that get the license) is charged more for using the same services, that is a penalty.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And the people have made their choice. Why won't you understand that? Even in stadium financing. You STILL have cities that pay, at least part, for stadiums.

I'm not about to come up with a policy here, nor am I informed as to the specific ownership situations of every stadium in America. Though, I have considered that eminent domain may be used in recovering some stadiums from private ownership for "general public use"... This would allow the public to then retain ownership of the stadiums and lease them to sports franchises. Eminent domain has been used to take land from private owners for far less important things than funding education, and since the stadiums would still be used for the same purposes, and since the case could be made for lower taxes and generating revenue for education, I think public opinion would definitely be on the side of this.

A. I love how you keep repeating the strawman, like if you say it enough times it'll come true... like you are the one agitating for equal treatment rather than myself . "Entitlement" indeed. Maybe someone should ask you why you think every other broadcaster deserves an entitlement to the public resources but not sports?

A. Again, you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. I originally stated that it seemed liked you believed in a sense of entitlement for the owners of sports franchises. Perhaps if you better explained your position and motives for objecting to my position, I would not be under this impression. What else am I to think?

B. There is no leasing of 'specific airtime'. Do you even know how the FCC works? FCC offers licenses to channels to broadcast. These channels are free to buy or not buy broadcast rights for sporting events. There are no 'specific airtime' charges; this is NOT advertising.

Yes. Thanks again CAPTAIN OBVIOUS. I'm aware of this. Because the FCC does things a certain way now does not mean they cannot change their policies and do things a different way.

That's what this whole discussion is about!

C. When everyone is charged exactly the same regardless of what they show, and then one channel (and it would have to be a channel, because they are the ones that get the license) is charged more for using the same services, that is a penalty.

So by your logic, when one advertiser is charged a different price for putting an ad on a certain time slot that is in higher demand than another advertiser who has an ad on a time slot that is in less demand, that is also a penalty?

Wow... I guess also by Imran's penalty logic, when if I decide to buy a Mercedes instead of a Ford, that's also a penalty.

Penalties


You should write a book, Imran. I'm loving this penalty logic.

It's going to revolutionize the way we think about economics. You might actually cause the downfall of capitalism. People don't like being penalized.

VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not about to come up with a policy here, nor am I informed as to the specific ownership situations of every stadium in America. Though, I have considered that eminent domain may be used in recovering some stadiums from private ownership for "general public use"... This would allow the public to then retain ownership of the stadiums and lease them to sports franchises. Eminent domain has been used to take land from private owners for far less important things than funding education, and since the stadiums would still be used for the same purposes, and since the case could be made for lower taxes and generating revenue for education, I think public opinion would definitely be on the side of this.

Yeah, and the money to pay the stadium owners will come from? And what if the owner says, screw this, moves out to the suburbs. How are those cities going to raise the capital for the fair market value of the stadium? Eminent domain costs up front cash, and I don't think you'll see all that many banks sign up for a loan on that... especially if there is a threat that the team moves to another location (hence the site gains nothing).

The fact that stadium leasebacks are not good deals will also be problematic. As stated in "Baseball Beyond the Numbers":

[q=Baseball Beyond the Numbers]In fact, one of the dirty little secrets of the stadium game is that while new buildings are promoted as cash cows... they seldom even pay for their own construction and operation costs... A $500 million stadium needs to bring in $35 million a year more than the old place to turn a profit. It's little wonder, then, that one seldom sees team owners exclusively invest private money to build pro sports facilities. They're generally bad investments.[/q]

The BEST way to get more money for education is simply to refuse to build stadiums for the teams. Even when leasing the stadium back, cities do NOT make back what they put in (after all, they do have to continue to run the facility and that isn't cheap).

And, of course, there are teams which are already in a lease situation, like the New York Jets. The benefits of a lease deal, of course, is flexibility. If a city builds a stadium (or 'buys it back'), it better make sure the team is locked into a long term stadium lease and even then the team may refuse to sign a lease (and will go play somewhere else for a bit) unless it gets some assurances. Once again, the Jets are a good example, as NYC put onerous demands on the Jets for the continued use of Shea Stadium, so they decided to lease up at Giants Stadium instead.

And, of course, while ownership is blamed in team moves, the politicians also will get their brunt of the blame if it is seen that they have treated the team poorly (ie, refusing to update stadiums that are falling down... see Houston). And no one wants to drop in the polls for simply losing a team. While people see the need for it in roads and highways and airports, they HATE eminent domain (especially after the recent Connecticut case) and may indeed turn on the politicians who take a team's stadium in a lease-back scheme.

Add to this that there are oodles of cities out there willing to offer sweetheart deals to teams, any such attempts are doomed to failure.

The lesson? Don't spend a dime on stadium construction unless there are other, intangible, benefits (like a city "on the verge" wanting to be seen as a big city for tourism purposes... knowing you'll lose money on this, but make money somewhere else).

Because the FCC does things a certain way now does not mean they cannot change their policies and do things a different way.

Yeah, because the cost of the FCC monitoring thousands of stations for how much the value of each time slot is won't be far more than revenue they'd recieve from channels broadcasting sports games or anything!!

So by your logic, when one advertiser is charged a different price for putting an ad on a certain time slot that is in higher demand than another advertiser who has an ad on a time slot that is in less demand, that is also a penalty?

It may help to get ESL classes if you can't read English: "charged more for using the same services". A time slot in a higher demand is not the same service as one that is in lower demand.

I guess also by Imran's penalty logic, when if I decide to buy a Mercedes instead of a Ford, that's also a penalty.

Nope, just by your idiocy .

Now if everyone is charged the same price for the same Ford, but the government decides that you are charged $5,000 more for whatever reason, that'd be a penalty on you. Of course, this would be a simple concept to comprehend to people who can actually read English.