Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   You know that story we ran Monday about a university study saying McDonald's could easily double their worker's hourly wage? We may have been a tad off in our reporting. It was actually a term paper written by an undergrad, and it gets an F   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Mcdonald, Columbia Journalism Review, employee benefit, minimum wages, wages, Bonnie Riggs, Dean Baker, salary  
•       •       •

4491 clicks; posted to Business » on 01 Aug 2013 at 9:07 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



119 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-08-01 04:42:54 PM  
The good news is the correction will never stop the 17% from being cited in arguments.
 
2013-08-01 04:47:32 PM  
that's some FOX News style fact checking, Lou.
 
2013-08-01 04:56:11 PM  

Mrbogey: The good news is the correction will never stop the 17% from being cited in arguments.


Better bookmark the correction article, because it will be cited until the end if time around here.
 
2013-08-01 05:03:30 PM  
I actually don't expect Huffington Post to be any paragon of journalistic standards. Then again I don't read it either.
 
2013-08-01 05:09:26 PM  

Mrbogey: The good news is the correction will never stop the 17% from being cited in arguments.


A great line from the original paper was that if the corporation double everyone's salary except the CEO, it would only cause a negligible rise in food costs.

Because the $8.5 million the CEO gets paid is such a huge component of their $4.5 billion payroll
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-08-01 05:26:46 PM  
FTFA: The story drew on data presented by Arnobio Morelix, an undergraduate student from The University Of Kansas

That's why you don't use research from a university whose graduates are known for being too stupid to work at Mickey D's.
 
2013-08-01 08:13:59 PM  
"The institute estimates that small-business owners who run McDonald's franchises spend about a third of their income on wages, which would mean the price of a Big Mac would go up by $1.28 to $5.27."

From $3.99 to $5.27 is kind of a big jump. But I also don't know of many restaurants that keep their labor costs to one third. That was the model when I was coming up in the 80s but it's been much higher for quite some time now.
 
2013-08-01 08:20:01 PM  
So he included sales from all stores but only salaries and wages from company owned stores?  That's some fine research there.  Mighty fine research.
 
2013-08-01 08:32:46 PM  
BTW the point is still valid, doubling McDonald's employees pay would cause a huge increase in the prices of what they sell.
 
2013-08-01 08:52:27 PM  

BizarreMan: So he included sales from all stores but only salaries and wages from company owned stores?  That's some fine research there.  Mighty fine research.


I don't think so. The data used was from McDonald's annual report. It's only their revenue, but they do get in income from franchised stores. He's still an idiot.
 
2013-08-01 08:57:54 PM  

ArkAngel: He's still an idiot.


And his point is still valid. Course it's not like it's original to him.
 
2013-08-01 09:07:11 PM  

WhyteRaven74: ArkAngel: He's still an idiot.

And his point is still valid. Course it's not like it's original to him.


No it's not. Absolutely basic entry-level work does not deserve living wage levels of income.
 
2013-08-01 09:24:59 PM  
So are all of you volunteering to take pay cuts so your company can make more money?

If it's valid for McDonald's workers it's valid for you.
 
2013-08-01 09:26:38 PM  
So... where's the part where the Huffington Post admits they got trolled by an undergrad... did no subsequent research... rushed to post an inflammatory story... and then apologized for it?

Did I miss it?
 
2013-08-01 09:29:29 PM  

ArkAngel: WhyteRaven74: ArkAngel: He's still an idiot.

And his point is still valid. Course it's not like it's original to him.

No it's not. Absolutely basic entry-level work does not deserve living wage levels of income.


keep an underclass of people unable to live by working and see what you eventually get.
www.rjgeib.com
 
2013-08-01 09:30:15 PM  

jbc: FTFA: The story drew on data presented by Arnobio Morelix, an undergraduate student from The University Of Kansas

That's why you don't use research from a university whose graduates are known for being too stupid to work at Mickey D's.


Spoken like a true slaver
 
2013-08-01 09:30:27 PM  

ArkAngel: WhyteRaven74: ArkAngel: He's still an idiot.

And his point is still valid. Course it's not like it's original to him.

No it's not. Absolutely basic entry-level work does not deserve living wage levels of income.


When you are required to keep a certain percentage unemployed in order to control inflation, you have a moral obligation to support those people. "They aren't smart/good/deserving/hard-working/Christian/white enough" isn't a good enough to excuse to keep them at subsistence levels.

/and if you don't think those adjectives have anything to do with each other, you probably don't understand social engineering either
 
2013-08-01 09:30:39 PM  

mrlewish: So are all of you volunteering to take pay cuts so your company can make more money?

If it's valid for McDonald's workers it's valid for you.


gamersmafia.com
 
2013-08-01 09:32:43 PM  

feckingmorons: I actually don't expect Huffington Post to be any paragon of journalistic standards.


It's almost like there's a reason Google News tends to identify their articles as satire.
 
2013-08-01 09:34:56 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: So... where's the part where the Huffington Post admits they got trolled by an undergrad... did no subsequent research... rushed to post an inflammatory story... and then apologized for it?

Did I miss it?


If you'd read the first paragraph of TFA you'd already have your answer. They pulled down the original, posted this in its place and said the original was full of errors.

What did you need to have happen? A video of the editor getting 40 lashes from Sarah Palin?
 
2013-08-01 09:35:29 PM  

ArkAngel: WhyteRaven74: ArkAngel: He's still an idiot.

And his point is still valid. Course it's not like it's original to him.

No it's not. Absolutely basic entry-level work does not deserve living wage levels of income.


Yeah, fark all those support staff, maintenance guys, and general backbones of our entire work and economic structure.
 
2013-08-01 09:37:58 PM  

pdieten: Pray 4 Mojo: So... where's the part where the Huffington Post admits they got trolled by an undergrad... did no subsequent research... rushed to post an inflammatory story... and then apologized for it?

Did I miss it?

If you'd read the first paragraph of TFA you'd already have your answer. They pulled down the original, posted this in its place and said the original was full of errors.

What did you need to have happen? A video of the editor getting 40 lashes from Sarah Palin?


I want them to accept some responsibility... AND not blame the farking undergrad for their failure. Which is precisely what they did.
 
2013-08-01 09:40:39 PM  

Peki: ArkAngel: WhyteRaven74: ArkAngel: He's still an idiot.

And his point is still valid. Course it's not like it's original to him.

No it's not. Absolutely basic entry-level work does not deserve living wage levels of income.

When you are required to keep a certain percentage unemployed in order to control inflation, you have a moral obligation to support those people. "They aren't smart/good/deserving/hard-working/Christian/white enough" isn't a good enough to excuse to keep them at subsistence levels.

/and if you don't think those adjectives have anything to do with each other, you probably don't understand social engineering either


I support a social safety net, though the one we have now needs tweaking. But when you have people who literally flip burgers asking for more money at hire than the average wage for EMTs, pharmacy techs, preschool teachers, and press operators (all jobs that require some post-secondary education), then you are crazy.
 
2013-08-01 09:40:47 PM  
Subby, where, exactly, in the TFA does it say that the original article was based on a term paper, let alone that it got an "F"? I can't find that part. What happened was that an undergraduate student represented himself as a researcher.


Nabb1: Mrbogey: The good news is the correction will never stop the 17% from being cited in arguments.

Better bookmark the correction article, because it will be cited until the end if time around here.


No, it won't. HuffPo not only posted a retraction (unlike, oh, say, Fox News), they actually replaced the original erroneous article with the retraction! Any site anywhere, whether blog post or comment or whatever, that has linked to that article now already has the link going to the retraction.

While I'm dismayed that they allowed such a thing to happen in the first place, they handled this very well and very ethically.
 
2013-08-01 09:44:28 PM  

ArkAngel: Peki: ArkAngel: WhyteRaven74: ArkAngel: He's still an idiot.

And his point is still valid. Course it's not like it's original to him.

No it's not. Absolutely basic entry-level work does not deserve living wage levels of income.

When you are required to keep a certain percentage unemployed in order to control inflation, you have a moral obligation to support those people. "They aren't smart/good/deserving/hard-working/Christian/white enough" isn't a good enough to excuse to keep them at subsistence levels.

/and if you don't think those adjectives have anything to do with each other, you probably don't understand social engineering either

I support a social safety net, though the one we have now needs tweaking. But when you have people who literally flip burgers asking for more money at hire than the average wage for EMTs, pharmacy techs, preschool teachers, and press operators (all jobs that require some post-secondary education), then you are crazy.


So answer is to say no to the burger flipper?

Yeah, that makes sense.
 
2013-08-01 09:44:31 PM  

ginandbacon: "The institute estimates that small-business owners who run McDonald's franchises spend about a third of their income on wages, which would mean the price of a Big Mac would go up by $1.28 to $5.27."


And they sell how many of these an hour? And how many other products? I never see more than ten people working at McDs. Let's say (because it is) that McDonald's average pay is $8 an hour. Double that and they have to sell about eight sandwiches to cover it. But wait ten people means 80 sandwiches. Does a given McDonald's only sell 80 items in a hour?

Burger World says average is about 1600 customers per day and assuming they only bought a single item, that would be a 20 hour day.

No. I really doubt this $1.28 figure. Spread that across all items and the original estimate is probably pretty good.
 
2013-08-01 09:45:28 PM  
What is the cost when you increase the labor cost of the entire of the supply chain?
 
2013-08-01 09:46:46 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: ArkAngel: WhyteRaven74: ArkAngel: He's still an idiot.

And his point is still valid. Course it's not like it's original to him.

No it's not. Absolutely basic entry-level work does not deserve living wage levels of income.

Yeah, fark all those support staff, maintenance guys, and general backbones of our entire work and economic structure.


You do realize AA's 'job' is a part time, barely above minimum wage crossing guard, right?
 
2013-08-01 09:49:45 PM  
It smelled like bullshiat from the start, like that claim that domestic violence spikes on Superbowl Sunday.
 
2013-08-01 09:53:17 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: pdieten: Pray 4 Mojo: So... where's the part where the Huffington Post admits they got trolled by an undergrad... did no subsequent research... rushed to post an inflammatory story... and then apologized for it?

Did I miss it?

If you'd read the first paragraph of TFA you'd already have your answer. They pulled down the original, posted this in its place and said the original was full of errors.

What did you need to have happen? A video of the editor getting 40 lashes from Sarah Palin?

I want them to accept some responsibility... AND not blame the farking undergrad for their failure. Which is precisely what they did.


Right. Because that's always something that 21st century media organizations do when they run fact-challenged stories, and HuffPo behaved in a uniquely unethical manner here. </sarcasm> Get real.
 
2013-08-01 09:59:53 PM  

ArkAngel: WhyteRaven74: ArkAngel: He's still an idiot.

And his point is still valid. Course it's not like it's original to him.

No it's not. Absolutely basic entry-level work does not deserve living wage levels of income.


So, people at that level don't deserve to make enough to pay their bills, eat.

They aren't good enough to be considered human, really.

Christ, you people are assholes.
 
2013-08-01 10:03:52 PM  
ArkAngel:
I support a social safety net, though the one we have now needs tweaking. But when you have people who literally flip burgers asking for more money at hire than the average wage for EMTs, pharmacy techs, preschool teachers, and press operators (all jobs that require some post-secondary education), then you are crazy.

Uh, I think the basic idea is that those jobs should pay better too.
 
2013-08-01 10:07:48 PM  

ArkAngel: Peki: ArkAngel: WhyteRaven74: ArkAngel: He's still an idiot.

And his point is still valid. Course it's not like it's original to him.

No it's not. Absolutely basic entry-level work does not deserve living wage levels of income.

When you are required to keep a certain percentage unemployed in order to control inflation, you have a moral obligation to support those people. "They aren't smart/good/deserving/hard-working/Christian/white enough" isn't a good enough to excuse to keep them at subsistence levels.

/and if you don't think those adjectives have anything to do with each other, you probably don't understand social engineering either

I support a social safety net, though the one we have now needs tweaking. But when you have people who literally flip burgers asking for more money at hire than the average wage for EMTs, pharmacy techs, preschool teachers, and press operators (all jobs that require some post-secondary education), then you are crazy.


Wait, first you said that they don't deserve a living wage. Now you are back peddling that and saying that they don't deserve to make more than more skilled professions.

You know a highly skilled job that makes shiat wages? Airline pilots. some are even on food stamps. So, seems capitalism is OK with the idea.

But that still doesn't excuse the idea that these burger flippers shouldn't make enough to live, unless you prefer the money allowing them to eat comes from you tax dollars?

At least they have jobs. That should count for something.
 
2013-08-01 10:09:35 PM  
B..b...but knee jerk is what HuffPo does best.
 
2013-08-01 10:13:39 PM  
Well, you can pay more for a burger, or you can pay more in taxes to support a larger police force and permanent prison population to manage all the crime that inevitably comes from keeping a permanent underclass of people who have to steal to survive. You have to pick one or the other
 
2013-08-01 10:20:18 PM  
I did some back-of-the-envelope figures based on the brief figures from Google finance. I figured McDonalds makes about $3 per hour per employee, on average. That might just be what corporate profits, but it's still not much.

Now, someone explain why I need to know Spanish to order at McDonalds in Dallas, but Wendy's and In-n-out are run by high school and college students. ICE could wipe out McD's in Dallas.
 
2013-08-01 10:23:12 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Well, you can pay more for a burger, or you can pay more in taxes to support a larger police force and permanent prison population to manage all the crime that inevitably comes from keeping a permanent underclass of people who have to steal to survive. You have to pick one or the other


Yup.

The only people that can't afford more expensive burgers are the poor. Everyone else just prefers to keep their money. Greed based distribution of resources, not need based.

Hey, that's cool, capitalism and all.

Which is why we need higher taxes. If you aren't willing to pay more to support the poor one way, you'll pay it another way.
 
2013-08-01 10:25:43 PM  

wildcardjack: I did some back-of-the-envelope figures based on the brief figures from Google finance. I figured McDonalds makes about $3 per hour per employee, on average. That might just be what corporate profits, but it's still not much.

Now, someone explain why I need to know Spanish to order at McDonalds in Dallas, but Wendy's and In-n-out are run by high school and college students. ICE could wipe out McD's in Dallas.


If they are illegal immigrants, and not just poor minorities that people like you discriminate against.

Why are you assuming that they are illegals?
 
2013-08-01 10:28:01 PM  

ArkAngel: press operators

requiring post-secondary education

God bless the folks running the dies, but no. Having post-secondary education in actually making dies from raw metal I can tell you that it's as simple as loading a part and pressing two buttons. (So both of your hands are out of the machine when it cycles.) We even assume the people putting them together are functional retards, so we offset dowel pins just a little so that it only fits in one way.

I'm just glad I never had to run them for long. I don't have a single doubt that I'd go postal if that was all I could do. It's a shame you can get really good at running them, but paid minumum. Each time the die hits home you've made a $20 part, and you can make them every two seconds, but your pay is only $1.00 over minimum. All day long, pinging and hissing.

CSB: Automated boring machines are pretty dangerous, much more so when they didn't have emergency stop buttons. Some guy at a carburetor plant a few decades back got really good at his machine. One day, he put in the blank, forgot to take his hand out, and hit the button. A boring bar came crashing through his hand, and then he had to ride it until the machine was done boring out the carb throat. The next week all the dangerous machines got two start buttons.
 
2013-08-01 10:30:22 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Well, you can pay more for a burger, or you can pay more in taxes to support a larger police force and permanent prison population to manage all the crime that inevitably comes from keeping a permanent underclass of people who have to steal to survive. You have to pick one or the other


False dichotomy. For the most part, many fast food workers aren't there permanently and/or they aren't the primary wage-earners in their household. Many are students who need part-time work with flexible scheduling. They eventually graduate from school and get a better paying job. Or they're living with someone else, such as a parent or spouse, and their fast-food income is only a small supplement to their total household income. Or they're elderly, and already have another source of income such as Social Security or a small retirement package. Your two scenarios are absurd oversimplifications.
 
2013-08-01 10:31:18 PM  

edmo: ginandbacon: "The institute estimates that small-business owners who run McDonald's franchises spend about a third of their income on wages, which would mean the price of a Big Mac would go up by $1.28 to $5.27."

And they sell how many of these an hour? And how many other products? I never see more than ten people working at McDs. Let's say (because it is) that McDonald's average pay is $8 an hour. Double that and they have to sell about eight sandwiches to cover it. But wait ten people means 80 sandwiches. Does a given McDonald's only sell 80 items in a hour?

Burger World says average is about 1600 customers per day and assuming they only bought a single item, that would be a 20 hour day.

No. I really doubt this $1.28 figure. Spread that across all items and the original estimate is probably pretty good.


I am really unfamiliar with this model. I only ever worked in higher end restaurants and catering. But poking around, it doesn't look like a great proposition for the franchise owners. Corporate takes 4% of profits and charges rent depending on the size. This is all on top of the purchase price which is enough to hurt an owner.

I'm not saying I think they are a fabulous employer. But you have to understand that a good cook who's been in the industry for years can really only expect to make between $9-15 an hour. And benefits are basically unheard of. McDonald's pay of $8 whatever an hour isn't that bad all things considering.

Is it a living wage? No. But I'm not sure it's fair to single out these franchise owners as evil robber barons. They actually do seem to be paying on the higher end of the scale for food prep. And I'm not sure people would pay even $4.99 for a Big Mac. I don't really know as I don't eat there. Until ALL Americans make more, I don't see why anyone would expect the bottom to raise the wages of their employees. The real battle is to raise the wages for skilled workers so that they don't care if their burger costs $4 or $6.

OTOH, what do I know? This is not my background as I said. I just know that when I started out, you could earn a living as a cook and now? Not so much. I would still do it all over again though. It's a great job if you have that temperament.
 
2013-08-01 10:35:55 PM  

Atomic Spunk: Lost Thought 00: Well, you can pay more for a burger, or you can pay more in taxes to support a larger police force and permanent prison population to manage all the crime that inevitably comes from keeping a permanent underclass of people who have to steal to survive. You have to pick one or the other

False dichotomy. For the most part, many fast food workers aren't there permanently and/or they aren't the primary wage-earners in their household. Many are students who need part-time work with flexible scheduling. They eventually graduate from school and get a better paying job. Or they're living with someone else, such as a parent or spouse, and their fast-food income is only a small supplement to their total household income. Or they're elderly, and already have another source of income such as Social Security or a small retirement package. Your two scenarios are absurd oversimplifications.


Where do you live that fast food is run by teenagers? In northern Virginia, with it's high cost of living, fast food places are all staffed with brown people. 30 year old brown people. Spanish and Indian, mostly.

I guess they should have made better choices in life, like not being brown or foreign?
 
2013-08-01 10:39:22 PM  

sendtodave: ArkAngel: Peki: ArkAngel: WhyteRaven74: ArkAngel: He's still an idiot.

And his point is still valid. Course it's not like it's original to him.

No it's not. Absolutely basic entry-level work does not deserve living wage levels of income.

When you are required to keep a certain percentage unemployed in order to control inflation, you have a moral obligation to support those people. "They aren't smart/good/deserving/hard-working/Christian/white enough" isn't a good enough to excuse to keep them at subsistence levels.

/and if you don't think those adjectives have anything to do with each other, you probably don't understand social engineering either

I support a social safety net, though the one we have now needs tweaking. But when you have people who literally flip burgers asking for more money at hire than the average wage for EMTs, pharmacy techs, preschool teachers, and press operators (all jobs that require some post-secondary education), then you are crazy.

Wait, first you said that they don't deserve a living wage. Now you are back peddling that and saying that they don't deserve to make more than more skilled professions.

You know a highly skilled job that makes shiat wages? Airline pilots. some are even on food stamps. So, seems capitalism is OK with the idea.

But that still doesn't excuse the idea that these burger flippers shouldn't make enough to live, unless you prefer the money allowing them to eat comes from you tax dollars?

At least they have jobs. That should count for something.


According to the government, pilots average $128,760 a year.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000

Petey4335: SN1987a goes boom: ArkAngel: WhyteRaven74: ArkAngel: He's still an idiot.

And his point is still valid. Course it's not like it's original to him.

No it's not. Absolutely basic entry-level work does not deserve living wage levels of income.

Yeah, fark all those support staff, maintenance guys, and general backbones of our entire work and economic structure.

You do realize AA's 'job' is a part time, barely above minimum wage crossing guard, right?


Actually, I'm a cook now. Full time. I still do the crossing guard thing when there's a need for me. And it pays over $12 an hour. But hey you did get my initials right.
 
2013-08-01 10:39:33 PM  

Atomic Spunk: Lost Thought 00: Well, you can pay more for a burger, or you can pay more in taxes to support a larger police force and permanent prison population to manage all the crime that inevitably comes from keeping a permanent underclass of people who have to steal to survive. You have to pick one or the other

False dichotomy. For the most part, many fast food workers aren't there permanently and/or they aren't the primary wage-earners in their household. Many are students who need part-time work with flexible scheduling. They eventually graduate from school and get a better paying job. Or they're living with someone else, such as a parent or spouse, and their fast-food income is only a small supplement to their total household income. Or they're elderly, and already have another source of income such as Social Security or a small retirement package. Your two scenarios are absurd oversimplifications.


So are yours. Most of the workers at my local Micky Ds (that's plural, I live in L.A. where there is one every mile or so) are over 40, with one or two being teens, and the others managers in their late 20s-early 30s.

I would have worked at one, but they tossed me out because of my degree.

/"you'll get a better job when the economy recovers."
 
2013-08-01 10:42:36 PM  
I think I should say duh.  Yeah, duh is about right.
 
2013-08-01 10:47:04 PM  
If our government were serious about trying to "increase livable wages", they would consider the elimination of taxes and withholding on those making $10 or less per hour. Such action would increase take home pay almost 15 to 20%.

It isn't like these those making less than $10 an hour wouldn't get the income tax withholding back in a refund anyway. I can't see the government logic.
 
2013-08-01 10:48:50 PM  

ArkAngel: sendtodave: ArkAngel: Peki: ArkAngel: WhyteRaven74: ArkAngel: He's still an idiot.

And his point is still valid. Course it's not like it's original to him.

No it's not. Absolutely basic entry-level work does not deserve living wage levels of income.

When you are required to keep a certain percentage unemployed in order to control inflation, you have a moral obligation to support those people. "They aren't smart/good/deserving/hard-working/Christian/white enough" isn't a good enough to excuse to keep them at subsistence levels.

/and if you don't think those adjectives have anything to do with each other, you probably don't understand social engineering either

I support a social safety net, though the one we have now needs tweaking. But when you have people who literally flip burgers asking for more money at hire than the average wage for EMTs, pharmacy techs, preschool teachers, and press operators (all jobs that require some post-secondary education), then you are crazy.

Wait, first you said that they don't deserve a living wage. Now you are back peddling that and saying that they don't deserve to make more than more skilled professions.

You know a highly skilled job that makes shiat wages? Airline pilots. some are even on food stamps. So, seems capitalism is OK with the idea.

But that still doesn't excuse the idea that these burger flippers shouldn't make enough to live, unless you prefer the money allowing them to eat comes from you tax dollars?

At least they have jobs. That should count for something.

According to the government, pilots average $128,760 a year.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000

Petey4335: SN1987a goes boom: ArkAngel: WhyteRaven74: ArkAngel: He's still an idiot.

And his point is still valid. Course it's not like it's original to him.

No it's not. Absolutely basic entry-level work does not deserve living wage levels of income.

Yeah, fark all those support staff, maintenance guys, and general backbones of our entire work and economic structure.

You do realize AA's 'job' is a part time, barely above minimum wage crossing guard, right?

Actually, I'm a cook now. Full time. I still do the crossing guard thing when there's a need for me. And it pays over $12 an hour. But hey you did get my initials right.


First year pilots make about 30k. Copilots make about 21k.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/1 7 65958/
 
2013-08-01 10:50:12 PM  

EnviroDude: If our government were serious about trying to "increase livable wages", they would consider the elimination of taxes and withholding on those making $10 or less per hour. Such action would increase take home pay almost 15 to 20%.

It isn't like these those making less than $10 an hour wouldn't get the income tax withholding back in a refund anyway. I can't see the government logic.


Um. A refund doesn't mean you didn't pay any taxes. It means you just overpaid.

/and yes, you would still owe taxes at $10/hr. I know, because I paid them.
 
2013-08-01 10:50:20 PM  

ArkAngel: WhyteRaven74: ArkAngel: He's still an idiot.

And his point is still valid. Course it's not like it's original to him.

No it's not. Absolutely basic entry-level work does not deserve living wage levels of income.


Look how stupid you are.
 
2013-08-01 10:51:30 PM  

COMALite J: Subby, where, exactly, in the TFA does it say that the original article was based on a term paper, let alone that it got an "F"? I can't find that part. What happened was that an undergraduate student represented himself as a researcher.


Nabb1: Mrbogey: The good news is the correction will never stop the 17% from being cited in arguments.

Better bookmark the correction article, because it will be cited until the end if time around here.

No, it won't. HuffPo not only posted a retraction (unlike, oh, say, Fox News), they actually replaced the original erroneous article with the retraction! Any site anywhere, whether blog post or comment or whatever, that has linked to that article now already has the link going to the retraction.

While I'm dismayed that they allowed such a thing to happen in the first place, they handled this very well and very ethically.


There's enough blogs out there that a link can be found that will support the argument.

It'll still keep getting pushed because it reinforces a belief.
 
Displayed 50 of 119 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report