That's a very rational, coherent argument... not. The risks of going for it outweighed the benefits. The way Rivera ran it, we had a shot to take the lead and, even if that failed, if our defense held we'd still have a good 25-30 seconds or so to try again. That's about as good as you can get in that situation.
No. The first two runs were to goad the Falcons into burning timeouts. The third down run was pure idiocy. We should have played for the first down at that point. No field goal is automatic, but wouldn't the chances of winning improve if it were, say a 38 yarder with 31 seconds left vs. a 46 yarder with 90 seconds left?
like do y'all see how i even formally stated that i support the troops in a very prominent way before posting the article and noted that it's important to consider the effects of prevailing cultural attitudes, but carolinacoolin ignored all that and got really mad and wants me to own up to veteran-bashing?
What I read was that he wanted you to confess that the article is stupid.
Costco's is a model and a choice and not a forced model. Could Wal-Mart absorb that cost and still be profitable? Absolutely, however I'd it's a forced move the guys at the top aren't just going to be cool with making less money when their labor cost just DOUBLED.
The move would cost Walmart $3.2 billion if applied to all workers in the U.S. – which amounts to about 1 percent of the company’s annual sales. Even if Walmart passed the entire cost of the wage increase on to consumers, we estimate shoppers would pay about $12.50 more per year, or 46 cents per shopping trip--less than the cost of a pack of Tic Tacs at the check-out stand.