Topic: national minimum wage LAWS. good or bad? - page 3. (Read 21127 times)

Better yet, how about I actually highlight your errors, rather than respond to your attempt to pretend that you actually interpreted the discourse correctly the first time....


Please note, if you will, that you highlighted the correct part of the original post that I was responding to.  However, you then completely misinterpreted it to mean something entirely differnet....

You appear to conclude that he, and presumedly I, were talking about replacing 100% of CO2 with oxygen in the atmostphere.  That wouldn't be dangerous at all. Duh. No one was talking about replacing less than  a percentage point of anything with anything else.  And then you folow up with this...


Which was almost exactly my argument.  So what do you do?



The reason that you "don't see it" is because that link was just a reference for oxygen toxicity syndrome, but it even does have a loose reference in there that you filtered out with your cognative disonance...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity#Pulmonary_toxicity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity#Mechanism

As noted elsewhere, CO2 is used as a method to detect when the body needs to breath, but the system has delays; thus a pure oxygen environment leads to slower breathing cycles than even a 99.6% oxygen to 0.4% CO2 ratio would, permitting more time for oxygen to proceed through the reduction process before being expleled and replaced with fresh oxygen.  This doesn't prevent toxicity, but does delay it as more of the oxygen ions are expelled with the rest of the breath.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

Sure. Care to point out where in this:


You found this?


'cause I don't see it. I do see a lot of pulmonary effects, most notably irritation, but I also see references to "48 hours on pure oxygen..." Is that on sleep deprivation, as well?

Nonsense.  I wasn't making any comment about whatever topic he was referring to, other than to point out that he was factually incorrect in his use of it.  I do not, and have not, made an judgement about the topic at hand.


You didn't actually read either his post, nor all of my response, did you?  Read what you quoted, from him above, and all of what you didn't quote from my response, and you'll discover that your not even arguing in the same room.

Well, I meant "that they have competitive prices," but from everything I've heard, they definitely are worth the additional cost.

Not to me.  They make damn good burgers.  Zero comparison to McD's or Burger King.  They're competitive for the same reason true "restaurant" burger joints are competitive.

Every time I take a trip through CA, I make sure I stop at an In-N-Out at least once.

Your logical fallacy is...

Oxygen makes up slightly less than 21% of Earth's atmosphere. CO2 less than .04%. Even replacing all CO2 with oxygen wouldn't be enough to noticeably change the percentage of O2 in the atmosphere.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_gases_make_up_the_earth%27s_atmosphere

100% Oxygen however, is lethal, not because we'd fail to breathe, but because the oxygen itself would kill us.

This is factually inaccurate.  Pure oxygen, particularly at the partial pressures that would occur anywhere near Earth atmostpheric (~14.5 pounds per square inch) is poisonous, very dangerous, and potentially fatal.  Particularly for someone who might pass out.  We humans (not all animals can do this, BTW, most actually cannot) have a great deal of mental control over out own breathing, but only while awake.  CO2 is used by the body to determine when to actually cycle breath, but the presence of pure oxygen in the lungs, and the lack of CO2 of some small percentage, tricks the system into waiting to breath until the CO2 that is coming back from the bloodstream is high enough to trigger a breath.  The problem is that the detection of CO2 is delayed for many reasons, so while the lungs aren't really running low on oxygen, the stagnation of the oxygen in the lungs, combined with it's elevated concentration in the bloodstream, contributes to oxygen toxicity syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity

While I know that this is off-topic, I can't stand to see falsehoods go unchallenged.  Please return to your regularly scheduled topic thread.

To be fair, some of those higher costs are food costs, since the owner is committed to buying local. That they're competitive at all is a minor wonder, IMO.

I do wonder, though, which products were you speaking about, FirstAscent?

Oh, so, you mean higher wages DOES mean higher costs and thus higher prices? Well, that example just got busted

lol... No. Well, probably not. Efficient workers mean efficient production. Efficient production means you can make more burgers, faster. More burgers, faster, means you can price them cheaper, and thus sell more. And the prices aren't exactly lower than the competition. A double-double (two meat, two cheese) is ~$3.00 (source). A Double (two meat, two cheese) from McDonalds is ~$1.29. I haven't tasted In-N-Out's burgers, but it's probably worth the extra $1.70.

EDIT: it's up to $3.15...http://www.ocregister.com/articles/prices-297781-costs-year.html

None of which still answers how they can sell good burgers, with good service, and pay high wages, while still selling burgers cheaper than the competition. Something somewhere simply doesn't add up. Maybe they have the same business plan as Los Pollos Hermanos?

There are a lot of people who simply aren't worth hiring at minimum wage. The result is that they end up not working. Therefore they end up sponging off the government and therefore voting Democrat. It's win-win for the left.

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect. This:
Does not follow this:
In fact, firing or not hiring lazy and dishonest workers, and doing full background checks would lead to exactly the opposite. The drug testing is sort of a wash, since off-duty activities don't necessarily alter on-duty ones. But it's their prerogative.

Ever think that maybe the superior service came from the fact that they only hire people worth hiring?

I should also point out that their business model is based on biblical principles. They don't hire lazy/dis-honest workers. They also do drug testing and full background checks. The business model would fail if it didn't include superior service.

And the fact that they pay higher than minimum wage starting wages indicates that they hire (or keep) only skilled and efficient workers. Which is backed up by their speed and quality. Go into your local In-n-Out. Ask 'em what their turnover rates are, and if they hire 14-year old kids.

They do have a distribution center in Texas for In-n-Outs in Texas. Their business model works. And they are expanding. And believe me, it works like crazy.

Very limited range. Specifically, a 1-day drive from the distribution center. Understandable, since it allows them to use refrigerated trucks instead of freezer trucks, keeps their food fresh, and limits transportation costs. Pretty good business plan, actually, but it sux that I can't have one in Texas. It's OK. we have BBQ.

Best and freshest fast food burgers around. Best service around. $11 an hour starting wage. Fast food business model. Cheeseburger, soda and fries for $5.

Food quality: http://www.in-n-out.com/menu/food-quality.aspx

I'm not familiar with In-n-Out, so you'll have to be more specific about their wages (more than $7.25/h?), their burgers (higher quality?), and their business (walk-in restaurant? Amenities?)