lmakeppleave

6 ms·

1.
by lmakeppleave 12y ago
It wasn't demonstrated, it was assumed. Mostly because you will need broad understanding of economics. I'll try to do my best to demonstrate it. Imagine a smaller economy where there is only 1 firm. They have complete power to set
2.
by lmakeppleave 12y ago
Take the argument to the extreme, is it OK for every employer in every industry to agree on wages and no-poach? What about on child labor? Minimum Wage? What about colluding on prices? Aren't these all the same infringement? The truth
3.
by lmakeppleave 13y ago
2982 (increase in sales) x .15 (assumed tip amount) = + $447 divided by all tipped employees. But you have to remember even many small chain restaurants have 15-25 tipped employees this nets to very little increase in income per tipped empl
4.
by lmakeppleave 13y ago
You don't have to agree with it for it to be happening. Though, understanding that side of the argument can help solve the problem for both sides of the equation.
5.
by lmakeppleave 13y ago
Nothing ever comes for free. $2,982 x .15 = 447.3 (best case) I don't have any good numbers but its safe to say that the amount of theft prevented (the amount the their income has decreased since this was implemented) is greater than t
6.
by lmakeppleave 14y ago
^This a million times. I'm so sick of all the irrelevant arguments made by ALL the parties involved. There is only ONE product type that can hold an artificially high value for any extended period of time; a status symbol. By definition sta
7.
by lmakeppleave 14y ago
good luck on getting a hold of the unique visitors. I ran into this and suspected the exact same "gaming"
8.
by lmakeppleave 14y ago
Quite a few friends of mine took this test. 4 of the 6 of us who felt we almost certainly choose google could not load the results page. Not exactly a scientific study but I thought it was fishy. Anyone run into similar results?