It is good to know that about derailing techniques like "JAQing off" and "sealioning" in order to avoid structuring your responses to appear like them. For example, those people will use phrases like "I've mainly asked questions" as a distraction tactic, because for very little effort - a single line of text - it's possible to 'escape the burden of proof behind extraordinary claims' (quoting RationalWiki) or get people to spend time on writing a response which is then ignored. I'm glad I had this opportunity to highlight an unfortunate aspect of your autodidact learning style, and hope it might help in the future.

I did not address your points because you wanted to switch the conversation to another topic without resolving any of the earlier topics. I feel no need to let you be in charge of steering the conversation to only those things you want to bring up, when I feel you have ignored my earlier points. Rhetorically, why should I spend more time on the new topic with the expectation that it will also be ignored?

I notice the use of the phrase '"I posted links, why can't you read them" strawman'. I have not heard of a logical fallacy based on not reading primary or secondary references. My suggestion was and is that you should ask the questions which remain after reading those materials, instead of insisting that people like me do your research for you. That is not a fallacy. It is a suggestion of how you might make better use of the limited time and patience of others.

Since you wish to use those PPP tables, perhaps you can explain why Belarus stands at 4,520.37 and Indonesia at 3,939.56. Using your interpretation, that means it costs $3,939.56 to buy the same unit of goods and services in Indonesia as it does in the US? Indonesia is a very expensive country. (Hint: it does not require a home loan for most US citizens to spend two weeks on vacation in Denmark or Indonesia.)

If you instead look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity you would see Denmark as only being about 20% more expensive than the US. That same page shows that a Big Mac in Denmark cost $5.37 in 2012. While more expensive than the US, it's hardly the 7x that you suggest. I suggest therefore that you have misunderstood the underlying economics.

Indeed, your first link says "A purchasing power parity (PPP) between two countries, A and B, is the ratio of the number of units of country A’s currency needed to purchase in country A the same quantity of a specific good or service as one unit of country B’s currency will purchase in country B." In Denmark it costs 7.6 DKK to purchase what in the US would cost 1 USD. As the current exchange rate is 1US = 6.68 DKK, this means the Denmark is 14% more expensive than the US, in rough agreement with the Wikipedia page on PPP.

I'm glad I could help clear up your understanding how how to interpret those tables.

"To me, this is "once removed" relationship. What else can it be, and why else would they do it other than to expose the contracting/franchising corporate entity to unionization?"

The decision makes clear what is meant by 'joint-employer', which is a concept which has long been part of US labor law:

> the Board typically treated the right to control the work of employees and their terms of em- ployment as probative of joint-employer status. The Board did not require that this right be exercised, or that it be exercised in any particular manner. Thus, the Board’s joint-employer decisions found it probative that employers retained the contractual power to reject or terminate workers;22 set wage rates;23 set working hours;24 approve overtime;25 dictate the number of work- ers to be supplied;26 determine “the manner and method of work performance”;27 “inspect and approve work,”28 and terminate the contractual agreement itself at will.29 The Board stressed that “the power to control is present by virtue of the operating agreement.”30 Reviewing courts expressly endorsed this approach.31 ...

etc. There is no need for me to give my personal views of "what else can it be" when you can read the actual reasoning yourself. My interpretation is that your analysis only considers contract law - hence, 'once-removed' - and leaving out the common-law definition of the employment relationship - hence, 'joint-employer'. It is possible to be both once-removed and a joint-employer.

You may of course hold your personal views on the topic, but the issue at hand is the interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act, which is the US law that among other things, yes, 'guarantees basic rights of private sector employees to organize into trade unions.' It's almost as if I had the ideology that people should be able to exercise their legal right to unionize!