Forbidden Donut

That's stupid.

Don't care.

Personally I don't think it should be the store's job to house non-employees, but I don't think it is really clear cut. I can't think how this would be against the constitution, so that rules out upset from constitutionalist conservatives, and this was handled by city government which means it falls well within the realm of the more common states-rights conservatism. I'm not really sure if this would be opposed by neoconservatives because I have never really heard of a set of consistent ideals that they support, but I don't really consider them to be conservative at all, so that's kind of a moot point.

I think this would be AWESOME if Lowes or Home Depot made this an internal initiative, but as far as making this a legislative initiative is concerned it's complete BS. But I don't see it as a Liberal/Conservative issue.

Social Liberals would be fine with this, but would probably suggest that legislating this kind of shit is dumb.
Social Conservatives would say this is stupid legislature and add that it will destroy America, and that it's a slippery slope.
Fiscal Liberals would see this as a drop in the bucket, which it is. Albeit a stupid waste of time and effort.
Fiscal Conservatives would see this as a sill waste, but also note that it's not a huge deal. Then they would bitch about how this is an added burden to these businesses operating in the free market because they now have to share their money with people who haven't earned it.
Constitutional Liberals and Conservatives would both agree: Why are we wasting time on this shit?

/the only big expense will be shelter... and I don't think they want to build the day laborers condominiums with a view. Probably a large bus stop style place outside or in, where they can chill but still solicit work.

I've got a six-man tent I don't use anymore

The Los Angeles City Council unanimously approved an ordinance Wednesday requiring certain home improvement stores to develop plans for dealing with day laborers who congregate nearby in search of jobs.


Yes Councilman we have a plan. It involves automatic weapons and tear gas. If you want a shelter you can build the damn thing yourself. And while your at it, run down to the Quik-E-Mart and build something for the poor crackheads hanging out front so they will have a nice place to hang out while they bum money.

I wonder if this would actually shutdown a few of these places or not. I don't think that the stores will shut down in protest, but I could see Lowes/Home Depot shutting down some of their stores that were closer together so that they didn't have to spend as much money on monthly housing.

Hexen seems to have no idea what he's talking about. Which I don't get, because I think he's a smart guy.

You must know what day laborers do right? Hang out outside all summer while people who have enough money to renovate their existing house run in and out of the store getting shit. Then these people who want to improve their house realize on their way out of the store that they have no fucking idea how to build a deck, they know there are some Mexicans outside who will be happy to help out for cheap.

If you can find a group that doesn't think this deal is sweet, you get a cookie next time I see you. And maybe a hug.

/the lowes might be a bit miffed for a while, but if they have a brain they'll be pissed at their lawmakers, and not the group of people who tend to attract yuppies to your store to buy shit they don't need.

Oh and about stores shutting down, on another slightly more sane note. It's far more likely that the number of day laborers will drop at the place that doesn't have a nice shady bench to sit on, than it is for a multi billion company like lowes (pulled that number out of my ass, it's a lot of money) to shut down a store that makes a shit load of money because it has to absorb pretty minimal costs.

hah ANunes you proved me correct you lib ;x

Meh. I don't necessarily agree with it, but this is such a fringe issue I just don't get excited enough about it that I can't see that it isn't a bad thing.

libslibsliblibslibslibslibslibslibslibs

/edit: speaking of which, What's with the fringe issue? You seriously aren't up in arms about either of the people we're going to be voting for's tax plan? What about their healthcare plans? What about their foreign policy? Things that effect all of us and not just a couple of hardware stores in LA?

fine ill add some stuff about obama and taxes.
he would let the bush tax cuts expire- effectively increasing taxes. he would increase the capital gains tax from like 14 to 28% (not exactly sure), even though all evidence proves that cutting that tax increases revenue. he would increase the social security tax for people making over $100,000 (currently you pay ss on the first 100k you earn and nothing above that, but he would tax ppl for ss on their whole paycheck over 100k).
aaand mccain would keep the bush tax cuts in place which is what i want.

I don't think anyone on this board can claim to support tax cuts as much as I do, and I definitely think both tax plans are retarded, but I believe Obama's tax plan is far more fiscally responsible than McCain's.

We are spending far beyond our means, and since neither candidate is taking any serious stance to decrease those spending levels, at the very least Obama's plan is taking [extraordinarily tiny] steps to fund them.

ANunes I have no problem whatsoever with the day laborers frequenting an area such as a Home Depot. As a matter of fact that is a very good area for them to go. Many home owners and business will make use of them. This is not the issue as I see it.

The issue I have is that just because I have a business and some non-employees hang out in the parking lot. People that I as a business/property owner did not invite to frequent my parking lot. If they so desire to seek employment from individuals on my while on my property, possibly uninvited yet accepted. WHY should I the business be FORCED to provide anything for them. My issue is the FORCED portion, it has nothing to do with the individuals being provided for.

I fear I have a rather laissez faire attitude about this situation. I feel it is not the responsibility of the business to provide shelter for the citizens of the city. I feel that it is the responsibility of the governing body to provide for the citizens. If there is a bus stop in front of a business, is the business required to build and maintain the bus stop kiosk? Citizens frequent the bus stop in all kinds of weather do they not? Admittedly the time a person waits at the bus stop is shorter than the wait the day laborers experience. However I don't think that any city REQUIRES businesses to provide the kiosk at a bus stop at their location.

What would be next? Going up to private home owners and telling them "The neighborhood kids all agree that you have a nice front yard. Therefore you must build at your own expense a playground area in your front yard for the children." Yes I admit this is a fairly stupid example, however if you will look back on some governmental decisions local and federal, you will find that they have at one time or another made a stupid decision in "The best interests of the people".

Saying "Hey this sounds like a good idea, what do you think Home Depot?" is a much better way of doing this. Saying "Home Depot you must do this thing because we like the idea." is not a good answer.

In that case, Hex, I think we're totally on the same page. Knowing that you have your own business gives me a sense of perspective regarding what I perceived to be mouth-frothingly retarded hyperbole. Fuck this law, and what it implies if we think it's a slippery slope. But I find it hard to get outraged about stuff like this. Small potatoes in the large scheme of our eroding liberties.

As far as taxes are concerned. I think that the notion that trickle down economics works is the way that our leadership keeps us in economic slavery. Tax cuts don't stimulate the economy. Rich people don't buy shit, they save, that's how they got rich. If you cut taxes for the top 1%, they aren't going to invest with that money, they are going to ship it overseas. If you want to stimulate the economy, then you want to give money to people that provide the value to the companies which rich people invest in. The group that provides this value is the middle to upper middle class (<100k/year) when they have disposable income.

History doesn't support the lower taxes = better economy meme.

We can have a nice, long, well-informed tax discussion some other place besides a thread about day labor laws in LA. There will be punch and pie-graphs.

Here's my plan instead:

Home Depot should hire security, who would tell these people to leave the property as they are loitering. If said people do not immediately take steps to leave the property, they can be arrested for trespassing. Eventually the people stop coming inside the property line to wait around for jobs.

Now it becomes the city's initiative to provide these people with shelter outside the home Depot's property line while they wait around, as it should have been to begin with.

The day laborers provide no value to the municipality. They do provide value to the home depot. Not to justify, but this isn't the cities job any more than it's the home depot's job. Meanwhile, your plan would probably result in this law just not getting passed, or not getting enforced.