Reardon's comment history

Reardon said...

In response to Al:

"I can see that argument during the starting up phase of a business establishment. But what about after the business has been operating for five years, profitably all the way?

There are businesses with stiff competition that have slimmer profit margins than others, but fast food is not one with slim margins at all. Profits are quite extensive."

That's what you don't understand; profits are the net result of the risk taken by the investor -- the profits are HIS proceeds for putting his assets and personal name on the line.

Now what HE decides to do to pay his employees is HIS business. Not yours.

Remember, his employees can walk away with zero risk and financial responsibility from problems the company is having anytime.

"Whatever happened to loyalty in this nation. Everyone has this attitude that if you don't like it, leave. &^% that. It's time for loyalty to be restored in this country. Loyalty is what built this nation."

With a personal sales force of two dozen in a highly-competitive market, I personally agree with you regarding loyalty, and agree that I run my business with the idea of paying a premium for quality.

...But the difference between me and you is that I will not FORCE another to pay a premium if their business does not allow for it, as that is not my call to make (nor yours).

"Apparently, minimum wage workers are not valued and they are not paid what the market will bear."

Bad reading comprehension again -- An employee's economic value is equal to the wage he is paid. If the wage demand is greater than the economic limit to that job, then the job is eliminated, outsourced, or mechanized.

Sorry facts suck, but they are what they are.

"Yes...I am aware that this statement is in every Republican handbook. It's horse squeeze topped with B.S."

No, it's Economics 101. To demonstrate this fact, I would like you to tell me what the effects of a $50 minimum wage would be. Obviously it is an absurd notion, but that's not the point.

All businesses have costs to sell goods, and an increase in any of those costs will effect in some way how profitably the business operates.

"Not too many people will take a pay cut from an income that requires them to do nothing for it, to one that pays less for having to do who knows what to earn it.

Your hopes are too high for most people on welfare."

Right. But it is not the burden of the business community to provide a higher wage to folks who have the capability but lack the motivation to provide for themselves -- that's my point.

September 5, 2014 at 5:10 p.m.
Reardon said...


Point 1:

Who defines fair?

The employer? He's intrinsically at personal financial risk if his business fails.

The employee? The employee with a work ethic has options if he is unsatisfied with his current position, whether that's working elsewhere or getting another job.

Additionally, supply and demand (read facts, not fiction or subjective concepts like "fair") dictate positive wage increases where the supply of open positions is greater than the jobs, or where high-paying industry lifts the average wage for all (Subway and Walmart workers are paying $15-$20 an hour in North Dakota due to the Fracking Boom).

Bottom line -- You are paid on a combination of the value of your work and what the market will bare, nothing more.

Artificial means to increase the minimum wages causes distortions in the economy, which ends up hurting both small businesses and entry-level workers without any marketable skill-sets.

Point 2:

You mis-read my point -- Employers take financial risks on hiring, especially if things go south.

It is well documented the cost of mis-hires to the business.

My point is this -- increasing wages increases the risk on hiring new people without minimal or no skills. Which in return causes employers to seek alternative ways to operate the business to reduce or eliminate the cost.

Your last point avoids the problem; it is not an employer's responsibility to compete with welfare. It is the welfare recipient's responsibility to motivate themselves at the long-term benefit of work to rise out of welfare.

September 5, 2014 at 9:14 a.m.
Reardon said...

Employment is a contractual arrangement between the employee and the employer.

Why the government feels it has the right to dictate the terms of a volitional contract is beyond me.

And anyway, it is all an arbitrary decision -- $10, $15, $150 -- who can say with certainty what a job is worth beyond what the employer and employee negotiate it to be?

What is beyond Socialists like Alprova (and why Fairmon you continue to engage and argue with him after all these years is beyond me!) is that there are unintended consequences to forceful intervention in free market decisions.

Economics 101 -- an government demand to increase wages has the unintended consequence of (a) having businesses resort to more economical means to control costs (raising prices on customers, eliminating operations, mechanizing the workforce, etc.), and (b), it makes it harder for unskilled workers without skills the opportunity to work an economically-sensible job to prove their value and advance up the career ladder.

Look -- if you want to better your lot in life and you get paid minimum wage, either (a) get another job, or (b) work two jobs and create a plan of action to better your career.

You are NOT my responsibility; you are YOUR responsibility.

Now excuse me while I have to get ready to work, as millions on welfare depend on me.

September 5, 2014 at 8:04 a.m.
Reardon said...

As a small business owner, I pay $825 a month for myself, my wife, and 3 kids for a $11,000 deductible Obamacare plan.

I receive no subsidy, but my uninsurable 29-year old wife is covered, so I am grateful.

Point is -- these teachers just don't know how easy they have it, and should express some appreciation at the quality of their taxpayer-funded benefits compared to us in the private sector.

September 1, 2014 at 7:17 a.m.
Reardon said...

Like many Americans, I'd buy "American" (someone define that for me please) if the quality of the car wasn't complete garbage.

Who in their right mind would buy a GM car nowadays?

July 15, 2014 at 7:11 a.m.
Reardon said...

The UAW is smart.

What's the best way to eat an elephant?

One bite at a time.

Any good salesperson knows that getting any sort of small foothold in a large account is the first step to winning to whole she-bang.

If the UAW only gets in the door, it will be a matter of time before they work their way into the account (VW) wider and deeper.

July 11, 2014 at 6:39 a.m.
Reardon said...


What conditions brought about the loss of your limb (correct me if I'm wrong)? Serious question.

Health care was reasonably accessible to indigents pre-AFA -- just ask Erlanger's CFO.

Reform doesn't mean, "Throw more of someone else's money at the problem" without regard to WHO's money is being thrown at, and WHY it is or isn't ethical to do so in the first place. That's typically the Progressive solution.

Unfortunately, Republicans, who are constantly outmaneuvered by Democrats and always on the defensive, continue to bumble and fail to produce any sort of alternative, creative, liberty-minded solution to the health care problem.

July 9, 2014 at 6:21 a.m.
Reardon said...

Here's the inherent problem with the Climate Change believers.

Let's say they are completely right -- Man-made global warming is true and preventable.

Further, let's say America initiates laws and regulatory action to cut emissions 50% within the next 10 years.

The inherent problem is STILL not solved. Why? Because GLOBAL climate change is a GLOBAL problem.

And with countries such as China, Russia, and other rising powers concerned with growing their power internationally, the last thing they care about is diminishing its strength by dismantling its infrastructure, to maybe make a marginal decrease in global warming/cooling/climate change.

And the bottom line is this will NEVER happen under current geo-political conditions, thus, the argument to dismantle our current fossil-fuel-driven power infrastructure is moot.

June 19, 2014 at 7:06 a.m.
Reardon said...

Clay is right!

After 50 years and billions of dollars, we STILL need MORE of your money to fight this "war!" (which has no definable end-point or limits).

Pay no attention that the multitude of those in poverty have the highest of living standards relative to the WORLD, where our "poor" live better than ROYALTY of the past, and better than the mass impoverished of the present.

Walk into 95% of those considered "living in poverty" and you will find:

1) TVs (mostly big screens) 2) Cable/Direct TV 3) Running water 4) Electricity to heat and cool 5) Access to food -- be it through food subsidies or our effective charitable groups 6) Insurance -- Medicare for those on disability, over 65, and Medicaid to pay for most of the difference, and for those younger with children.

WHAT ELSE does someone who is "poor" need to have that JUSTIFIES the involuntary seizure of other people's property (money)?

How is this even debatable?

At what point is ENOUGH? Is there no limit to what these programs need?

Bottom line is for 95% of people, poverty is a mindset, developed over a LIFETIME, a set behavior patterns, much like the pattern of violence in the hood. Like violence, poverty is an outcome that mostly is dependent on non-prudent decisions -- what you see in propaganda pieces is the outcome of a lifetime of bad decisions. My question is why should I or anyone who sacrifices to succeed be FORCED to pay for someone who didn't?

Adversity MUST be overcome individually for there to be any resounding, permanent changes. Ain't no Road to Cibola that's going to solve inherent, internal, individual problems.

June 4, 2014 at 6:57 a.m.
Reardon said...


I get what you're saying. You feel you are being called out unfairly and unethically.

Let's say none of what Easy and Al saying about your past is true. Guess what? It's still... THE INTERWEBS!

It's not the real world!

Do you realize that, for the first 1 or 2 years I contributed to this forum, I would waste my valuable time objecting to Al and his hardcore Maobama Socialism?

After those years and the last 3 I've more or less spent away from here doing something actually productive with my life, he's still the same person; nothing I say or anyone else has said is going to change his opinion, or anyone else's opinion.

My point is -- why would you (or anyone for that matter) waste valuable breath and mental occupation over an Internet feud?

This forum bares no impact on REALITY -- it is a distraction away from more important matters. Who cares what Al (or anyone) thinks of you? You could walk away, never come back, and this forum would have ZERO practical effect on your reality (not including what effect YOU let it have on yourself).

May 30, 2014 at 11:39 p.m.

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.