"Social Justice" gets hit upside the head with the 2x4 of Real Economics
A couple of observations:
1. The pizza shop had to be subsidized in the first place - a bad sign for anyone who knows how to create a business plan.
2. "Pizza with a purpose" is fine, as long as the primary purpose is to stay in business!
3. "“I don’t think anyone is looking at it as a failure. It’s an experiment..." Reality speaking: if the experiment didn't work, it's a failure. Your refusal to admit this means you have learned nothing.
1. The pizza shop had to be subsidized in the first place - a bad sign for anyone who knows how to create a business plan.
2. "Pizza with a purpose" is fine, as long as the primary purpose is to stay in business!
3. "“I don’t think anyone is looking at it as a failure. It’s an experiment..." Reality speaking: if the experiment didn't work, it's a failure. Your refusal to admit this means you have learned nothing.
That is all you have to read in the article.
They haven't a clue how to run a free market business.
Give everyone a trophy because they showed up to the job regardless of performance. Failure (whether acknowledged or not) will always be the result.
I would like to start a campaign using the Progressives' own arguments for the minimum wage from the 1910s when it was being enacted, state by state. They quite openly said that a minimum wage would drive "the stupid, the vicious, and the ugly" (in other words, handicapped people) out of the labor market, thus forcing those people to be institutionalized. And it worked! And still does, except that most of those institutions are now closed, making those people homeless.
I dare say that if today's Progressives can be made to face that fact, they'll repeal the stupid law.
If you could do that, you could return this nation to a solid foundation of liberty. The Progressive agenda lives solely because its chief adherents buy into the lies and refuse to face the very facts that it is a morally and in all other ways bankrupt ideology.
sidizing the wages of the people in the place.
When I was a carhop on $.75 an hour (plus tips)', I was very angry about Nixon's wage/price
controls, not because of its holding down my wages (I believe I would never have received a raise in that place anyhow), but because of his
presumptuous interference with free (or relative-
ly free) enterprise. And it did remind me of Directive 10-289.
Oops. Too Late.
I'm not sure what, if true, this revelation portends. Is there a beware notification needed so you can be sure not to be squeezed by the old war hero/president? I wonder how many past presidents copped a feel while standing (or sitting) next to a pretty lady. No doubt about Clinton. FDR? Seems likely. (What's with these guys in wheelchairs?) Hold it! Is this a conversation we really need to have?