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.

(USA Today)   NYC fast food workers demand their companies charge $4 for a cheeseburger   (usatoday.com) divider line 297
    More: Asinine, unfair labor practice, fast food  
•       •       •

2977 clicks; posted to Business » on 30 Jul 2013 at 12:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



297 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-29 09:30:08 PM  
7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.
 
2013-07-29 09:44:32 PM  

ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.


Why is $15 ridiculous, especially in a major city with a high cost of life like NYC?  I do agree that more skilled professions should be paid even more.  Don't look at it as McDonalds employees asking to be overpaid, look at it as people finally starting to stand up to our current reality of record corporate profits and historically high wage inequality.  All non-executive employees should be demanding more pay.

As to the headline, McDonalds is welcome to charge $4 for a cheesburger, and they'll be pushed out of the market if they do.  It's time to take some of those huge profits and put them towards employee wages - the people at the top end take a little bit less of the pie and give the people who actually do the work their fare share.
 
2013-07-29 09:55:12 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.

Why is $15 ridiculous, especially in a major city with a high cost of life like NYC?  I do agree that more skilled professions should be paid even more.  Don't look at it as McDonalds employees asking to be overpaid, look at it as people finally starting to stand up to our current reality of record corporate profits and historically high wage inequality.  All non-executive employees should be demanding more pay.

As to the headline, McDonalds is welcome to charge $4 for a cheesburger, and they'll be pushed out of the market if they do.  It's time to take some of those huge profits and put them towards employee wages - the people at the top end take a little bit less of the pie and give the people who actually do the work their fare share.


I don't think pay should be scaled to the location of where you live. Otherwise I'd be on a beach condo in Malibu. I'm not saying the guys don't need a pay increase, but they definitely don't deserve more than people who have worked on backgrounds and skills after high school.
 
MBK [TotalFark]
2013-07-29 09:59:02 PM  
How about not paying their CEOs millions of dollars to...

What exactly DO CEOs do?

I mean for a company like McDonalds.  You are pretty much one of the most recognizable symbols in the world.  Your food is sold all over the place.  You introduce a new burger every year.

What the fark does a CEO do that requires millions of dollars?
 
2013-07-29 10:02:36 PM  

ThatDarkFellow: I don't think pay should be scaled to the location of where you live.


Good luck with that.
 
2013-07-29 10:11:38 PM  
Class warfare thread!

/sad there are "classes" of people
 
2013-07-29 10:12:58 PM  

MBK: How about not paying their CEOs millions of dollars to...

What exactly DO CEOs do?

I mean for a company like McDonalds.  You are pretty much one of the most recognizable symbols in the world.  Your food is sold all over the place.  You introduce a new burger every year.

What the fark does a CEO do that requires millions of dollars?


Sit on boards that vote on CEO pay?
 
2013-07-29 10:27:36 PM  

doglover: ThatDarkFellow: I don't think pay should be scaled to the location of where you live.

Good luck with that.


Exactly. Move somewhere less expensive.
 
2013-07-29 10:34:45 PM  
ThatDarkFellow:

I don't think pay should be scaled to the location of where you live. Otherwise I'd be on a beach condo in Malibu. I'm not saying the guys don't need a pay increase, but they definitely don't deserve more than people who have worked on backgrounds and skills after high school.

Yeah, regional adjustments for pay are pretty much par for the course for everything but minimum wage jobs.  Sure, you get paid more if you work in SF, NYC, or Malibu, but the higher costs for rent, food, taxes, etc, eat up the majority of that difference.  Earning $60K a year in Tampa lets you live pretty large, that same amount in Manhattan means a 1 bedroom or  studio apartment and a cupboard full of ramen.

Like I said, I don't think that those with skills and degrees should be paid less than fast food workers, I just think the minimum wage is way too low, especially for jobs in high-cost-of-living areas.  So, let's raise the minimum wage, and that will allow skilled professionals to demand more as well.

It's a lot like the non-union folks who biatch about the pay and perks union members get - don't be angry at them for working to earn a solid living, ask why you accept living in a place or working in a company that doesn't allow you to do that for yourself.  Everyone deserves a strong benefits program, a robust wage, and ample vacation time, don't hate on those trying to make a better situation for themselves, fight to get the same for yourself.
 
2013-07-29 10:44:21 PM  

ThatDarkFellow: Exactly. Move somewhere less expensive.


Leela: "Hey Fry, why was New York so big?"

Fry: "Beats me, no one lives there, it's too expensive".

/adapted quote
 
2013-07-29 11:02:52 PM  

ThatDarkFellow: doglover: ThatDarkFellow: I don't think pay should be scaled to the location of where you live.

Good luck with that.

Exactly. Move somewhere less expensive.


Aww, you're so cute.

He's like a little Ayn Rand, freshly burst from the leathery eggs sac that housed it.
 
2013-07-29 11:11:48 PM  

doglover: ThatDarkFellow: doglover: ThatDarkFellow: I don't think pay should be scaled to the location of where you live.

Good luck with that.

Exactly. Move somewhere less expensive.

Aww, you're so cute.

He's like a little Ayn Rand, freshly burst from the leathery eggs sac that housed it.


images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-07-30 12:17:24 AM  
Isn't 15 dollars an hour basically welfare in NYC?

Like all of the contractors have said, prices of x have increased so the price of y(x) has increased.  That's the new cost.  I don't see why that shouldn't work for people who have seen an increase in food, gas and electricity prices over 10 years.
 
2013-07-30 12:20:09 AM  
What's goin on in this thr-

narwhaler.com
 
2013-07-30 12:53:10 AM  

ThatDarkFellow: TuteTibiImperes: ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.

Why is $15 ridiculous, especially in a major city with a high cost of life like NYC?  I do agree that more skilled professions should be paid even more.  Don't look at it as McDonalds employees asking to be overpaid, look at it as people finally starting to stand up to our current reality of record corporate profits and historically high wage inequality.  All non-executive employees should be demanding more pay.

As to the headline, McDonalds is welcome to charge $4 for a cheesburger, and they'll be pushed out of the market if they do.  It's time to take some of those huge profits and put them towards employee wages - the people at the top end take a little bit less of the pie and give the people who actually do the work their fare share.

I don't think pay should be scaled to the location of where you live. Otherwise I'd be on a beach condo in Malibu. I'm not saying the guys don't need a pay increase, but they definitely don't deserve more than people who have worked on backgrounds and skills after high school.


A lot of people working at McDonalds have degrees or are trying to futher their education. Assuming that everyone there is a 17 year old idiot is unfair.
 
2013-07-30 12:53:19 AM  
Want a job paying $15/hour?  Apply for jobs paying $15/hour.  Getting hired at McDonald's, getting told "We're going to pay you $7.25/hour." and you say "Okay." does not allow you to biatch and moan that you're not making enough money.  You knew what the pay was before you accepted the job, suck it up.  Don't like it, apply for a new job.  Get the skills needed to get a better job or be willing to do some really shiatty jobs.  Taking a job that pays minimum wage and then going on strike demanding that your entry level pay is doubled is retarded.

As for the unionizing part, I've worked as part of a union and I've worked in places that weren't unionized.  There is not enough money in the world that would get me to unionize and put up with that bullshiat again.
 
2013-07-30 12:54:23 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: doglover: ThatDarkFellow: doglover: ThatDarkFellow: I don't think pay should be scaled to the location of where you live.

Good luck with that.

Exactly. Move somewhere less expensive.

Aww, you're so cute.

He's like a little Ayn Rand, freshly burst from the leathery eggs sac that housed it.

[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 500x375]


well played.
 
2013-07-30 01:05:12 AM  

eaglepuss: A lot of people working at McDonalds have degrees or are trying to futher their education. Assuming that everyone there is a 17 year old idiot is unfair.


Across the country, the median age of fast-food workers is over 28, and women -- who make up two-thirds of the industry -- are over 32
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/mcjobs-should-pa y- too-inside-fast-food-workers-historic-protest-for-living-wages/265714/
 
2013-07-30 01:20:00 AM  

ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.


Everyone should make a living wage. I also agree with you.

Occasionally I get e-mails about open positions from recruiters. I have a background in graphic design. I got one recently for a copy editor with experience using InDesign and it paid $12/hour. Another job was a graphic design job, required experience in graphic design and Adobe Creative suite. That one paid $14/hr. (Both of those are in the Dallas/Ft Worth area.) That's what I was paid at my entry-level job... about 12 years ago. What the hell happened to wages? (And living on those wages is do-able in Dallas but it would still be difficult. I can't imagine what it would be like to live on those wages in NYC.)
 
2013-07-30 01:30:08 AM  
You'd have better luck finding McDonalds workers that can get my order right than you would getting CEO's to give some of their pay back to said workers to increase their standard of living.


/NO mustard and UNNNNsweet tea....not hard folks.
 
2013-07-30 01:35:26 AM  
Burger flippers were making close to what they are asking for here in the Silicon Valley during the dot com boom.  Not anymore though
 
2013-07-30 01:37:25 AM  

eaglepuss: A lot of people working at McDonalds have degrees or are trying to futher their education. Assuming that everyone there is a 17 year old idiot is unfair.


It's not an assumption, rather it's the floor they hire from.  They don't need to offer any more because a 17 year old is willing to work for that wage to pay for his hobbies. The fact that these people, as adults, are willing to take a 17 year old's wage is technically their problem, in an ideal world.  The reality is there are too many workers and not enough jobs, and people are too scared to do things about correcting that situation because it's not politically correct(such as stemming population growth in legal and illegal immigration).

Now, some entry level employers design their business around higher employee wages, like In-n-Out, but they also have among the highest efficiencies in the business when it comes to cost control, the number of customers per hour, etc.  They can easily afford to do that.  Not every company and location can necessarily that do.  I like In-n-Out because they choose to do that, but they're also not publicly owned.  When companies don't answer to shareholders, things are a lot different.
 
2013-07-30 01:51:15 AM  
Here's a thought. I live in wv and 7.25 isn't even enough to support someone without either government assistance or family support here. In NY it must be below even Ramen wages. So how about a nice even 12.50 compromise? (Phased in 3 steps so it's easier on those poor corporations)
 
2013-07-30 01:52:16 AM  
I'm going to go out on a sturdy limb and say that the world would be a better place if McDonald's burgers cost $4.
 
2013-07-30 02:05:25 AM  

Mike Chewbacca: I'm going to go out on a sturdy limb and say that the world would be a better place if McDonald's burgers cost $4.


But the dollar menu's McDouble is the greatest food in history, so why do you hate the poor?
 
2013-07-30 02:06:58 AM  

Great Janitor: There is not enough money in the world that would get me to unionize


Yeah, Imma go ahead and call bullshiat.
 
2013-07-30 02:10:25 AM  

propasaurus: Great Janitor: There is not enough money in the world that would get me to unionize

Yeah, Imma go ahead and call bullshiat.


I second that Bullshiat.
 
2013-07-30 02:15:05 AM  
 
2013-07-30 02:16:59 AM  
Doesn't In-n-Out pay pretty well for fast food?
 
2013-07-30 02:22:10 AM  
Back in my day (not too long ago in a galaxy very, very close), you could get a Whopper for 99 cents on the regular, no promo. Of course you could also get a job that might start at minimum wage, but you could realistically "work your way up" to making a decent living in a few years. You could also find a drivable (looks like shiat but will get you to work) vehicle for $1000 with a bit of looking. You could also find rents in decent neighborhoods for under a grand a month.

None of these things is true anymore.

But hey, bootstraps! And skills! Trickle down! Shovel ready! Work a little harder and throw some college (with a heaping helping of debt!) in the mix, and you'll be off the fryer in no time at all! This Bud's for you, Mr. unskilled teenage layabout... even though you're in your thirties and have a resume as long as your arm.  ♫ I hear they're hiring at Starbucks!  ♫

/local fast food workers here all look to be north of 30
//haven't seen a teenager working anywhere around here in at least two years
///heck of a job, job creators.
 
2013-07-30 02:56:22 AM  

tbhouston: As for the unionizing part, I've worked as part of a union and I've worked in places that weren't unionized.  There is not enough money in the world that would get me to unionize and put up with that bullshiat again.

Yah..unions didn't work for Detroit .. Fark'em


Well, in response to that guy's whole comment, it depends on the union, as always.  I applied for a job moving boxes at UPS where Teamsters was the union.  After mandatory dues, initiation, etc, my somewhat reasonable looking wage would have been less than minimum wage for the first few months on the job, while my advancement was to be tied solely to tenure rather than job performance.  I decided it wasn't for me and went and made more money moving beer at Anheiser-Busch without a union.  Now I'm not entirely sure how Teamsters contract with UPS works(is it local, nationwide, whatever), but I know that I won't be working under that particular labor contract ever as it's designed to benefit Teamsters, UPS, and then the worker in that order.  That's the wrong order for me.
 
2013-07-30 02:59:56 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Why is $15 ridiculous, especially in a major city with a high cost of life like NYC?


Because the money to pay the workers has to come from somewhere, and that's going to be the customers. When prices rise higher than people want to pay, people will stop buying fast food and then all those fast-food workers will get $0/hr. Will that make their situation better? Also, raising the minimum wage has traditionally resulted in increased prices of basic goods and services, leading to minimum-wage workers being hardest-hit, as they must use the largest percentage of their pay of any class of worker for those basic goods and services. In other words, when your food budget is 5% of your total budget, a price increase of 20% is not terribly damaging. However, when your food budget is 20% of your total budget, it's a much bigger hit. This leads to minimum-wage workers actually being negatively impacted by rises in the minimum wage. It isn't the CEOs who will be harmed by price increases. They can withstand them easily. It will be the very workers who pushed for increasing the minimum wage in the first place that will be harmed the most by it. That's one of the little ironies of life.
 
2013-07-30 03:03:29 AM  

untaken_name: TuteTibiImperes: Why is $15 ridiculous, especially in a major city with a high cost of life like NYC?

Because the money to pay the workers has to come from somewhere, and that's going to be the customers. When prices rise higher than people want to pay, people will stop buying fast food and then all those fast-food workers will get $0/hr. Will that make their situation better? Also, raising the minimum wage has traditionally resulted in increased prices of basic goods and services, leading to minimum-wage workers being hardest-hit, as they must use the largest percentage of their pay of any class of worker for those basic goods and services. In other words, when your food budget is 5% of your total budget, a price increase of 20% is not terribly damaging. However, when your food budget is 20% of your total budget, it's a much bigger hit. This leads to minimum-wage workers actually being negatively impacted by rises in the minimum wage. It isn't the CEOs who will be harmed by price increases. They can withstand them easily. It will be the very workers who pushed for increasing the minimum wage in the first place that will be harmed the most by it. That's one of the little ironies of life.


So, legislate CEO salary caps slaved to the lowest paying position in the company. Ta-da.
 
2013-07-30 03:05:31 AM  

MBK: How about not paying their CEOs millions of dollars to...

What exactly DO CEOs do?

I mean for a company like McDonalds.  You are pretty much one of the most recognizable symbols in the world.  Your food is sold all over the place.  You introduce a new burger every year.

What the fark does a CEO do that requires millions of dollars?




Risk going to prison.
 
2013-07-30 03:07:40 AM  
I think the minimum wage should be whatever it would take for a person to support themselves plus 1 or 2 dependents in whatever location they live.  It's ridiculous to have people working 40 hours per week and still not able to support themselves.  I don't give a shiat what their education level is, if they're working full time, they should be able to afford a safe place to live (meaning no roaches or other vermin and it has heat in the winter where it's cold and a/c if it's a hot climate), food to eat, clothes without holes to wear, and other essentials.  If we have CEO's with enough money to wipe their asses with $100 bills, we should at least have the people who want and can work supporting themselves without welfare or the need for help.  The homes won't be mansions and maybe they'll have to take a bus instead of a car, but I find it shameful for it to be otherwise.

Not everyone can or should go to college, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to live independently.
 
2013-07-30 03:18:45 AM  

Needlessly Complicated: ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.

Everyone should make a living wage. I also agree with you.

Occasionally I get e-mails about open positions from recruiters. I have a background in graphic design. I got one recently for a copy editor with experience using InDesign and it paid $12/hour. Another job was a graphic design job, required experience in graphic design and Adobe Creative suite. That one paid $14/hr. (Both of those are in the Dallas/Ft Worth area.) That's what I was paid at my entry-level job... about 12 years ago. What the hell happened to wages? (And living on those wages is do-able in Dallas but it would still be difficult. I can't imagine what it would be like to live on those wages in NYC.)


Exactly. Wages are where they were or less than ten years ago, but think about how much gas and food have gone up.

I see a LOT of adults working retail and fast food and I know of plenty with degrees working those jobs. Why? Because either their unemployment ran out before they found something in their field, or they are fresh out of college in one of the worst job markets since the Great Depression.

Retail and fast food always paid minimum wage, but no one complained because it was just a stepping stone job and not a career. But these days there are a lot of adults that are finding its the only job around where they live even if they have a degree.
 
2013-07-30 03:25:11 AM  

bhcompy: After mandatory dues, initiation, etc, my somewhat reasonable looking wage would have been less than minimum wage for the first few months on the job


As a current Teamster, let me just say, bullshiat. Union scale for UPS, here, is around $25 an hour to work on the freight dock. After paying $60-$70 for your union card(one time fee) and your $60 a month in dues, I assure you, you're nowhere near being paid minimum wage.
 
2013-07-30 03:26:32 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: MBK: How about not paying their CEOs millions of dollars to...

What exactly DO CEOs do?

I mean for a company like McDonalds.  You are pretty much one of the most recognizable symbols in the world.  Your food is sold all over the place.  You introduce a new burger every year.

What the fark does a CEO do that requires millions of dollars?

Risk going to prison.


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-07-30 03:32:16 AM  
The cost of living in NYC is insane. Manhattan's is 2.5x that of, for example, San Antonio. Of course, workers can commute in from Brooklyn or Queens, but even in the cheapest (Queens), it's still 2/3 more.

Using minimum wage to compensate for that would require a rate of about $12/hr. Even cities with the highest rates don't go that high. (E.g., San Francisco's is $10.24.) NYC doesn't have the authority to set their own anyway. In NY, only the state can do that, and they're just planning to go up to $9 over the next three years.

To get more, it's got to be a union vs. management negotiation. Kinda hard, though, if the workers can't afford to go without pay during a strike, and lots of people (I suspect) are willing to replace them.

As a past McD's employee (after high school, a very long time ago), I sympathize. Then again, for exactly that reason I GTFO and went into IT -- without having any college yet.
 
2013-07-30 03:32:33 AM  
"The workers' actions will lift up all of New York City," he said. "If they have more money in their pockets, they'll spend it right here, helping to boost the entire economy."

Doubling the minimum wage would have a "significant effect on the private sector's ability to create jobs, especially those typically filled by first-time workers and teens," said Scott DeFife of the National Restaurant Association. McDonald's had directed requests for comment to the trade group.


The sad thing is, they're both right. A lot of fast food places are franchised, meaning 'leased' by a private citizen. He handles all of the costs and follows all of the rules and needs to show a profit for himself and the company. Most already work on a thin margin. Increase the wages and many will wind up cutting workers hours or raised the cost of the product.

The latter will chase away customers who show up depending on the cheap food.

I worked for a subcontractor for a multimillion dollar company. They kept screwing with his bottom line until he had enough and refused any more changes. So, they put his contract up for bid and he lost the area.

After several years of hard work and a couple of hundred thousand dollars out of his pocket, he barely broke even in the end.

Remember, business has changed. Thanks to the Yuppies and their get rich quick investment ideology, companies which got by well on a narrow margin, but produced steadily for decades, suddenly had to show big profits or the yuppies dumped their stocks.

That started companies dumping long term employees, closing branches and, since this was during a recession, outsourcing over seas. So, the Yuppies made their millions but helped put hundreds of thousands out of work doing so and helped create basically a hostile working environment. It was the 'I got mine, screw you' 80's.

That started a host of self serving programs and practices which enriched the wealthy, but made you poor. The limit on federal interest rates somehow got made illegal and places fell all over themselves jacking them up. Little pay roll loan companies popped up, charging high interest normally but make one mistake and you wind up paying back 500% on your original 'loan'. Previously, only loan sharks did that and it was illegal.

I'm not real sure exactly what convinced companies to hire on CEOs for millions a year, plus millions in Golden Parachutes and perks like you wouldn't believe. The CEO of our hospital makes a million a year. The hospital pays for his home, his kids private school education, his health insurance and his cars. If he gets fired, he has a guaranteed multi-million severance package, along with any accumulated unused vacation pay and sick time. Plus he owns stock in the corporation.

Yet, the hospital has cut staff so many times that it's hard to get good treatment there. It's constantly in need of money.

So, you raise the minimum wage. Good idea. However, for many small businesses, it's going to hurt their, profit margin. Many have already dropped health care insurance on employees because they can't afford the high premium co-pay. The 39 hour week came in to prevent employees from making overtime, getting benefits or any special perks full time workers got.

Everything went up in cost, except the worker pay. Beef, pork and chicken have soared in cost, for reasons I can't sufficiently explain.

Yet, we're popping out new billionaires at a record rate.

Fuel prices are high and they're going to stay high because your major financial institutions invested heavily in oil, meaning it is NOT in their interest if the barrel rate drops. Then they'll loose money.

Other clever con artists snatch the majority of the corn crop for fuel making, which increased food costs across the board, and no one mentioned that the same fuel could be made from nearly any for of vegetable matter. A plant being built here will be making alcohol fuel from yard waste, crop waste and lot clearing and has contracted with several cities to take all they can provide.

So why was it necessary to steal the corn and raise the cost of food to make something that could have been made basically with garbage?

I wonder who invested in food futures?

These folks need a raise. There are few perks in the fast food business. If you're lucky, your boss will allow you to eat there for free. KFC used to allow employees to take home left over chicken at the end of the day. (Well, probably until the cook started deliberately making more than needed so they could take more home.)

The cooking areas are hot and crowded. Everything has to be kept neat and clean. Often you can't take a break and rest after being on your feet for hours. A lot of customers will give you shiat basically because they can. The hours are long and the rewards are few.

Check out Youtube. You can find videos of people starting shiat with the employees over basically nothing and getting into fights.

Increase the wages much, even though deserved, and the company will increase the cost of the product, which will chase customers away, meaning profits will fall, so employees will be fired and the remaining ones have to work harder, so the food prices will drop and bring the customers back.

I don't have a solution.
 
2013-07-30 03:40:28 AM  

doglover: So, legislate CEO salary caps slaved to the lowest paying position in the company. Ta-da.


How does that fix the problem of rising employment costs driving rises in the price of basic goods and services?
 
2013-07-30 03:41:00 AM  

PacManDreaming: bhcompy: After mandatory dues, initiation, etc, my somewhat reasonable looking wage would have been less than minimum wage for the first few months on the job

As a current Teamster, let me just say, bullshiat. Union scale for UPS, here, is around $25 an hour to work on the freight dock. After paying $60-$70 for your union card(one time fee) and your $60 a month in dues, I assure you, you're nowhere near being paid minimum wage.


Night shift, warehouse loader, $10/hr, 16 hours a week for the first year, $300 initiation, ~$50/mo fees.  Circa Summer 2002, Cerritos CA
 
2013-07-30 03:44:48 AM  

ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.


Why do you uncritically assume that low-level white-collar workers are inherently superior to blue-collar workers? Maybe the people without "skills and education" who make $15 an hour are just harder workers than people who went to college, padded their resumes, and decided that the world owes them a living.

If you feel you're underpaid, there's nothing stopping you from growing a pair and demanding a living wage as well, instead of complaining about the uppitiness of the lower classes.
 
2013-07-30 03:50:36 AM  

bhcompy: Night shift, warehouse loader, $10/hr, 16 hours a week for the first year, $300 initiation, ~$50/mo fees. Circa Summer 2002, Cerritos CA


Either someone was lying to you or they were under some sort of sweetheart contract at the time. CA is pretty union friendly and they usually have it a LOT better than where I'm at(in very anti-union Texas). And your union card and dues are based off a percentage of your salary, usually.
 
2013-07-30 04:00:13 AM  

Cornelius Dribble: ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.

Why do you uncritically assume that low-level white-collar workers are inherently superior to blue-collar workers? Maybe the people without "skills and education" who make $15 an hour are just harder workers than people who went to college, padded their resumes, and decided that the world owes them a living.

If you feel you're underpaid, there's nothing stopping you from growing a pair and demanding a living wage as well, instead of complaining about the uppitiness of the lower classes.


Someone sounds like they work for McDonalds
 
2013-07-30 04:04:56 AM  

PacManDreaming: bhcompy: Night shift, warehouse loader, $10/hr, 16 hours a week for the first year, $300 initiation, ~$50/mo fees. Circa Summer 2002, Cerritos CA

Either someone was lying to you or they were under some sort of sweetheart contract at the time. CA is pretty union friendly and they usually have it a LOT better than where I'm at(in very anti-union Texas). And your union card and dues are based off a percentage of your salary, usually.


It was all in the paperwork given to me.  I'll have to dig it up if I can find it.  No scaling on salary and you lose your first paycheck and then some to initiation.  Again, like I said, obviously that was a very union friendly contract.  Union friendly doesn't necessarily mean employee friendly, particularly at time when unions were forced to scale back on benefits for new members because old member cadillac benefits were costing them a ton to fund in pension and healthcare costs.  Anyways, they got lots of money out of it and employees that make it to driver have fine wages, but it takes 20+ years to get there here, and generally a few leg, back, and shoulder surgeries(just like at Anheuser-Busch).
 
2013-07-30 04:10:00 AM  

EmmaLou: I think the minimum wage should be whatever it would take for a person to support themselves plus 1 or 2 dependents in whatever location they live.  It's ridiculous to have people working 40 hours per week and still not able to support themselves.  I don't give a shiat what their education level is, if they're working full time, they should be able to afford a safe place to live (meaning no roaches or other vermin and it has heat in the winter where it's cold and a/c if it's a hot climate), food to eat, clothes without holes to wear, and other essentials.  If we have CEO's with enough money to wipe their asses with $100 bills, we should at least have the people who want and can work supporting themselves without welfare or the need for help.  The homes won't be mansions and maybe they'll have to take a bus instead of a car, but I find it shameful for it to be otherwise.

Not everyone can or should go to college, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to live independently.


Well said.

I stopped looking for jobs. The only ones available in my area are under ten an hour, part time with no benefits and no chance of advancement. Why bother working my ass off to NOT make a living? I now work maybe ten hours a week for myself and am making more than the last full time job I had.
 
2013-07-30 04:10:14 AM  

bhcompy: It was all in the paperwork given to me. I'll have to dig it up if I can find it. No scaling on salary and you lose your first paycheck and then some to initiation. Again, like I said, obviously that was a very union friendly contract. Union friendly doesn't necessarily mean employee friendly, particularly at time when unions were forced to scale back on benefits for new members because old member cadillac benefits were costing them a ton to fund in pension and healthcare costs. Anyways, they got lots of money out of it and employees that make it to driver have fine wages, but it takes 20+ years to get there here, and generally a few leg, back, and shoulder surgeries(just like at Anheuser-Busch).


The union doesn't pay for your healthcare or pension. They negotiate with the company, who pays for your benefits.
 
2013-07-30 04:10:47 AM  

ThatDarkFellow: TuteTibiImperes: ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.

Why is $15 ridiculous, especially in a major city with a high cost of life like NYC?  I do agree that more skilled professions should be paid even more.  Don't look at it as McDonalds employees asking to be overpaid, look at it as people finally starting to stand up to our current reality of record corporate profits and historically high wage inequality.  All non-executive employees should be demanding more pay.

As to the headline, McDonalds is welcome to charge $4 for a cheesburger, and they'll be pushed out of the market if they do.  It's time to take some of those huge profits and put them towards employee wages - the people at the top end take a little bit less of the pie and give the people who actually do the work their fare share.

I don't think pay should be scaled to the location of where you live. Otherwise I'd be on a beach condo in Malibu. I'm not saying the guys don't need a pay increase, but they definitely don't deserve more than people who have worked on backgrounds and skills after high school.


i appreciate that people who further their education, skill set and experience have set themselves up for better employment and wages. but what about the huge amount of the population who don't have enough common sense to look both ways before they cross the street? without a good Eugenics program in place we are going to continue to have a lot of people who will never be able to grasp more than flipping burgers or pumping gas. yet they too need wages sufficient to put a roof over their head, food on their plates etcetera.
 
2013-07-30 04:28:20 AM  
What's going to happen if labor costs get too high is that those workers at the cash registers will be mostly replaced by computer ordering kiosks and more machines in the back will assemble the food.
 
2013-07-30 04:28:51 AM  
Let's accept the notion that everyone should have enough to live on. Why is it McDonald's and its shareholders responsibility to ensure that goal by paying wages that are higher than they're worth? Surely society can provide for its citizens without laying the burden on cheeseburger providers (and therefore their consumers) by mandating they pay inflated wages. By inflated wages I mean paying more than the labor is worth. We know that McD's would pay even less than 7.25/hr if it were legal. That necessarily means that employees would also sell their labor for less than the set min wage. Doesn't it follow that fast food labor is worth less than $7.25?

Labor is a commodity and its price is set the same as any other commidity. It's just like any other ingredient in a cheeseburger. Which makes more sense? To have the state set an artificially high price of beef, cheese, bread and labor to ensure that ranchers, dairy and wheat farmers and fast food workers earn a 'living wage' from consumers who pay the price of a cheeseburger OR have the government pay every citizen a minimum income and let the market determine the price of a cheeseburger?

I'm not saying that society shouldn't guarantee some sort of basic minimum income. I just don't think it's McDonald's responsibility.
 
2013-07-30 04:34:21 AM  
Just on a side note here: I would not have a problem spend a bit more for the burger if it helps the economy as a whole. There are places like In-And-Out that run their business the right way and pay their employees a decent wage (for the type of labor involved). They don't charge that much more for their burgers and they are a hell of a lot better than McDonalds. That being said, when you think about it, you're buying a double cheeseburger from McDonalds for one dollar. Something had to give there. It won't be the rancher, they have the product McDonalds needs. It won't be McDonalds, they control the business and they want to make every cent they can. It won't be the consumer, that's the only way to keep lining the pockets of the brass. The only place that gives is employees, so they take advantage of it. What's my point? I lost track. Eat at businesses that aren't run by complete dicks I guess.
 
2013-07-30 04:40:51 AM  

Great Janitor: Want a job paying $15/hour?  Apply for jobs paying $15/hour.  Getting hired at McDonald's, getting told "We're going to pay you $7.25/hour." and you say "Okay." does not allow you to biatch and moan that you're not making enough money.  You knew what the pay was before you accepted the job, suck it up.  Don't like it, apply for a new job.  Get the skills needed to get a better job or be willing to do some really shiatty jobs.  Taking a job that pays minimum wage and then going on strike demanding that your entry level pay is doubled is retarded.

As for the unionizing part, I've worked as part of a union and I've worked in places that weren't unionized.  There is not enough money in the world that would get me to unionize and put up with that bullshiat again.


That would be a really good idea...if $15/hr jobs were still a thing. Newsflash: a disturbing percentage of jobs in this country pay at or near minimum wage. Labor is a commodity just like FCOJ, and supply outstrips demand at the moment. We can either demand higher wages across the board, or we can accept our journey to a servant class as inevitable.
 
2013-07-30 04:57:10 AM  

ThatDarkFellow: Cornelius Dribble: ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.

Why do you uncritically assume that low-level white-collar workers are inherently superior to blue-collar workers? Maybe the people without "skills and education" who make $15 an hour are just harder workers than people who went to college, padded their resumes, and decided that the world owes them a living.

If you feel you're underpaid, there's nothing stopping you from growing a pair and demanding a living wage as well, instead of complaining about the uppitiness of the lower classes.

Someone sounds like they work for McDonalds


Or they have dignity.
 
2013-07-30 05:01:34 AM  

TopoGigo: Great Janitor: Want a job paying $15/hour?  Apply for jobs paying $15/hour.  Getting hired at McDonald's, getting told "We're going to pay you $7.25/hour." and you say "Okay." does not allow you to biatch and moan that you're not making enough money.  You knew what the pay was before you accepted the job, suck it up.  Don't like it, apply for a new job.  Get the skills needed to get a better job or be willing to do some really shiatty jobs.  Taking a job that pays minimum wage and then going on strike demanding that your entry level pay is doubled is retarded.

As for the unionizing part, I've worked as part of a union and I've worked in places that weren't unionized.  There is not enough money in the world that would get me to unionize and put up with that bullshiat again.

That would be a really good idea...if $15/hr jobs were still a thing. Newsflash: a disturbing percentage of jobs in this country pay at or near minimum wage. Labor is a commodity just like FCOJ, and supply outstrips demand at the moment. We can either demand higher wages across the board, or we can accept our journey to a servant class as inevitable.


I start a new job in a couple of weeks.  The pay is $17/hour plus performance bonuses.  No college or skill requirement needed and it's an office job, and that's the entry level position temp to perm.  I've seen jobs going for over $15/hour in my area with no college requirements.  $15/hour jobs are still a thing.  I don't know where you got this incredibly wrong idea that minimum wage jobs are the only things left because that's simply not true, especially when the median income in the United States is just over $44,000.
 
2013-07-30 05:03:25 AM  

ThatDarkFellow: Cornelius Dribble: ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.

Why do you uncritically assume that low-level white-collar workers are inherently superior to blue-collar workers? Maybe the people without "skills and education" who make $15 an hour are just harder workers than people who went to college, padded their resumes, and decided that the world owes them a living.

If you feel you're underpaid, there's nothing stopping you from growing a pair and demanding a living wage as well, instead of complaining about the uppitiness of the lower classes.

Someone sounds like they work for McDonalds


Maybe you should consult an audiologist.
 
2013-07-30 05:17:27 AM  

JonBuck: What's going to happen if labor costs get too high is that those workers at the cash registers will be mostly replaced by computer ordering kiosks and more machines in the back will assemble the food.


As long as the robots don't spit on my food, I'm okay with that.
 
2013-07-30 05:19:23 AM  

JonBuck: What's going to happen if labor costs get too high is that those workers at the cash registers will be mostly replaced by computer ordering kiosks and more machines in the back will assemble the food.


I've always wondered whats stopped them from doing this en mass. I'm sure they know there is a tipping point even they can't cross.
 
2013-07-30 05:30:42 AM  

ThatDarkFellow: I've always wondered whats stopped them from doing this en masse.



My guess is public sentiment, because it certainly isn't concern for the well-being of the workers.
 
2013-07-30 05:43:01 AM  

untaken_name: Because the money to pay the workers has to come from somewhere, and that's going to be the customers. When prices rise higher than people want to pay, people will stop buying fast food and then all those fast-food workers will get $0/hr. Will that make their situation better? Also, raising the minimum wage has traditionally resulted in increased prices of basic goods and services, leading to minimum-wage workers being hardest-hit, as they must use the largest percentage of their pay of any class of worker for those basic goods and services. In other words, when your food budget is 5% of your total budget, a price increase of 20% is not terribly damaging. However, when your food budget is 20% of your total budget, it's a much bigger hit. This leads to minimum-wage workers actually being negatively impacted by rises in the minimum wage. It isn't the CEOs who will be harmed by price increases. They can withstand them easily. It will be the very workers who pushed for increasing the minimum wage in the first place that will be harmed the most by it. That's one of the little ironies of life.


Here's an idea: require McDonalds spend less money on the glitz and glamor (and ideal locations) of their establishments in NYC. They probably pay a ton of money on real estate costs and NON-MCDONALDS contracted employees (say, to fix shiat when it breaks), so why can't some of the low-level guys get a break?
 
2013-07-30 05:46:27 AM  
They are asking for something very minimal. $15 is not a lot, if you have no debt and live in a state with a low cost of living it is still just enough for you to slowly better your life over a long time. That's perfectly reasonable - even a teenager should get that. Nobody should be exempt. They are asking for that in New York, where it is probably not really enough to live on in any reasonable fashion, but maybe enough to pay for rent and food.

If Australia can do a $15 minimum wage, the US can do a $15 minimum wage. It's not asking much, it's basic human decency.
 
2013-07-30 05:50:56 AM  

Great Janitor: I don't know where you got this incredibly wrong idea that minimum wage jobs are the only things left because that's simply not true, especially when the median income in the United States is just over $44,000.


First, that's an old number. Second, that's median HOUSEHOLD income; you do know what a household is, don't you? Third, if these household incomes are based on people who have jobs, how would that have to do with the open positions "left" on the market?

Anyway, YMMV for everyone in every region, but a job that earns you twice as much in another part of the country will almost always start out at, or near, minimum wage where I reside.
 
2013-07-30 05:52:44 AM  
If they get a pay raise, who's going to sell me drugs?
 
2013-07-30 05:55:45 AM  

adamatari: They are asking for something very minimal. $15 is not a lot, if you have no debt and live in a state with a low cost of living it is still just enough for you to slowly better your life over a long time. That's perfectly reasonable - even a teenager should get that. Nobody should be exempt. They are asking for that in New York, where it is probably not really enough to live on in any reasonable fashion, but maybe enough to pay for rent and food.

If Australia can do a $15 minimum wage, the US can do a $15 minimum wage. It's not asking much, it's basic human decency.


I actually think the government needs to do quite a bit of regulation of spending or artificial price inflation, as well as do some "trust busting" or monopoly destruction.

We have too many markets that are being controlled, effectively, by very few players, and the invisible hand is contributing to greater inflation and keeping wages stagnant (and in some ways reducing them for blue collar jobs, relative to 10, 20, or 30 years ago).
 
2013-07-30 05:56:07 AM  

puffy999: Great Janitor: I don't know where you got this incredibly wrong idea that minimum wage jobs are the only things left because that's simply not true, especially when the median income in the United States is just over $44,000.

First, that's an old number. Second, that's median HOUSEHOLD income; you do know what a household is, don't you? Third, if these household incomes are based on people who have jobs, how would that have to do with the open positions "left" on the market?

Anyway, YMMV for everyone in every region, but a job that earns you twice as much in another part of the country will almost always start out at, or near, minimum wage where I reside.


I don't think anyone who uses that initial argument knows what household income means.
 
2013-07-30 06:04:44 AM  

ThatDarkFellow: JonBuck: What's going to happen if labor costs get too high is that those workers at the cash registers will be mostly replaced by computer ordering kiosks and more machines in the back will assemble the food.

I've always wondered whats stopped them from doing this en mass. I'm sure they know there is a tipping point even they can't cross.


Oh god dammit. en masse.
 
2013-07-30 06:25:37 AM  

Warchild: JonBuck: What's going to happen if labor costs get too high is that those workers at the cash registers will be mostly replaced by computer ordering kiosks and more machines in the back will assemble the food.

As long as the robots don't spit on my food, I'm okay with that.


McDonals is already testing mechanized stores.

Make no mistake, jobs are disappearing in favor of machines. Of course the companies that fired the workers and built the machines claim there are plenty of jobs out there . But there aren't and it's not going to get better.
 
2013-07-30 06:46:19 AM  
I always love these arguments about CEO's taking a pay cut to raise the pay of employees. McDonald's CEO makes about 8.75 million. If you took 8 million of that and divided it equally among all 440,000 employee's, each would receive a whopping $18 extra per year, or about a .01 cent per hour raise. Yep, that's sure to fix the problem alright.
 
2013-07-30 06:48:16 AM  

ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.


What is ridiculous is that companies pay people low wages to do crap jobs. In a reasonable, logical world, people should be offered more to do jobs nobody wants to do to compensate them for the trouble. This is how broken and topsy-turvy our world is.
 
2013-07-30 06:54:05 AM  

Preserved_Killick: Let's accept the notion that everyone should have enough to live on. Why is it McDonald's and its shareholders responsibility to ensure that goal by paying wages that are higher than they're worth? Surely society can provide for its citizens without laying the burden on cheeseburger providers (and therefore their consumers) by mandating they pay inflated wages. By inflated wages I mean paying more than the labor is worth. We know that McD's would pay even less than 7.25/hr if it were legal. That necessarily means that employees would also sell their labor for less than the set min wage. Doesn't it follow that fast food labor is worth less than $7.25?

Labor is a commodity and its price is set the same as any other commidity. It's just like any other ingredient in a cheeseburger. Which makes more sense? To have the state set an artificially high price of beef, cheese, bread and labor to ensure that ranchers, dairy and wheat farmers and fast food workers earn a 'living wage' from consumers who pay the price of a cheeseburger OR have the government pay every citizen a minimum income and let the market determine the price of a cheeseburger?

I'm not saying that society shouldn't guarantee some sort of basic minimum income. I just don't think it's McDonald's responsibility.


Someone has to pay either way, you either pay in taxes to cover the welfare of those who aren't earning enough from McDonald's or Wal-Mart or you pay more as a consumer. Also, the whole idea that consumers will be hurt if we raise the minimum wage is bullshiat. A lot of American's work in the service sector, including fast food/restaurants, and retail. Those people could pay more into the economy if they were paid more, which is ultimately a good thing. As they're consumers too after all.

Secondly. A company that treats its employees as expendable will experience high turn over, lower productivity, theft, and dissatisfied customers. All of which leads to a loss of money for the company. Its not that hard to understand.
 
2013-07-30 06:55:48 AM  

LoneWolf343: ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.

What is ridiculous is that companies pay people low wages to do crap jobs. In a reasonable, logical world, people should be offered more to do jobs nobody wants to do to compensate them for the trouble. This is how broken and topsy-turvy our world is.


I don't think McDonalds would qualify under jobs nobody wants to do when compared to the really terrible, physically demanding jobs no one wants to do
 
2013-07-30 06:56:37 AM  

Great Janitor: TopoGigo: Great Janitor: Want a job paying $15/hour?  Apply for jobs paying $15/hour.  Getting hired at McDonald's, getting told "We're going to pay you $7.25/hour." and you say "Okay." does not allow you to biatch and moan that you're not making enough money.  You knew what the pay was before you accepted the job, suck it up.  Don't like it, apply for a new job.  Get the skills needed to get a better job or be willing to do some really shiatty jobs.  Taking a job that pays minimum wage and then going on strike demanding that your entry level pay is doubled is retarded.

As for the unionizing part, I've worked as part of a union and I've worked in places that weren't unionized.  There is not enough money in the world that would get me to unionize and put up with that bullshiat again.

That would be a really good idea...if $15/hr jobs were still a thing. Newsflash: a disturbing percentage of jobs in this country pay at or near minimum wage. Labor is a commodity just like FCOJ, and supply outstrips demand at the moment. We can either demand higher wages across the board, or we can accept our journey to a servant class as inevitable.

I start a new job in a couple of weeks.  The pay is $17/hour plus performance bonuses.  No college or skill requirement needed and it's an office job, and that's the entry level position temp to perm.  I've seen jobs going for over $15/hour in my area with no college requirements.  $15/hour jobs are still a thing.  I don't know where you got this incredibly wrong idea that minimum wage jobs are the only things left because that's simply not true, especially when the median income in the United States is just over $44,000.


I have seen those sort of jobs too, they're often requiring two years experience. A lack of experience is just as much of a factor in keeping people from finding work as any other requirement if not more.
 
2013-07-30 07:05:49 AM  

MBK: How about not paying their CEOs millions of dollars to...

What exactly DO CEOs do?

I mean for a company like McDonalds.  You are pretty much one of the most recognizable symbols in the world.  Your food is sold all over the place.  You introduce a new burger every year.

What the fark does a CEO do that requires millions of dollars?


He occupies a spot for the board, a board made up of the same rich families who make up the boards at every other company. It is about keeping the whole system locked down.
 
2013-07-30 07:11:25 AM  

Cornelius Dribble: ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.

Why do you uncritically assume that low-level white-collar workers are inherently superior to blue-collar workers? Maybe the people without "skills and education" who make $15 an hour are just harder workers than people who went to college, padded their resumes, and decided that the world owes them a living.

If you feel you're underpaid, there's nothing stopping you from growing a pair and demanding a living wage as well, instead of complaining about the uppitiness of the lower classes.


You are worth what the market will pay you. White collar workers make more money because their skills are in greater demand than blue collar workers. This is obvious.

These workers willingly accepted jobs that pay what they do. They are, of course, within their rights to walk off the job to demand higher wages. Then the restaurants would then be forced to raise wages (and likely prices) or close down for lack of labor.
 
2013-07-30 07:12:16 AM  

Apik0r0s: MBK: How about not paying their CEOs millions of dollars to...

What exactly DO CEOs do?

I mean for a company like McDonalds.  You are pretty much one of the most recognizable symbols in the world.  Your food is sold all over the place.  You introduce a new burger every year.

What the fark does a CEO do that requires millions of dollars?

He occupies a spot for the board, a board made up of the same rich families who make up the boards at every other company. It is about keeping the whole system locked down.


This is what farklibs actually believe.
 
2013-07-30 07:42:59 AM  
You can pay workers a decent wage, or you can have the government give them welfare.

Choose one.
 
2013-07-30 07:44:01 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: I just think the minimum wage is way too low, especially for jobs in high-cost-of-living areas.  So, let's raise the minimum wage,


Yes, lets just make it $40/hr.  Everything will remain the same price and we'll all be rich.

Places with high costs of living also have high prices, high rent and high taxes.  none of which has anything to do with the evil CEOs.
 
2013-07-30 08:00:14 AM  

Aarontology: You can pay workers a decent wage, or you can have the government give them welfare.

Choose one.


We could also just cut welfare. If you guys are correct that govt subsidies and welfare somehow allow companies to underpay employees, cutting those subsidies would result in workers demanding more from employers.

How about instead of forcing companies to pay what we (government via voters) arbitrarily want them to, we cut the subsidies directly. Then the employees will demand higher wages and everything will work out, if your theory is correct.
 
2013-07-30 08:05:30 AM  

ThatDarkFellow: I'm not saying the guys don't need a pay increase, but they definitely don't deserve more than people who have worked on backgrounds and skills after high school.


"Deserve" has nothing to do with what you make in America.  Less than zero.
 
2013-07-30 08:05:43 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Why is $15 ridiculous, especially in a major city with a high cost of life like NYC?  I do agree that more skilled professions should be paid even more.  Don't look at it as McDonalds employees asking to be overpaid, look at it as people finally starting to stand up to our current reality of record corporate profits and historically high wage inequality.  All non-executive employees should be demanding more pay.


They can stand up if they want.. Good on them.  And McDonalds and BK can decide to shiat-can all of their asses too.

That's how it should work.
 
2013-07-30 08:13:57 AM  
BTW has anyone mentioned McDonald's paying $15/hr won't lead to $4 hamburgers? It'll lead to hamburgers that cost maybe 15 cents more a piece, and less than that at really busy McDonald's.


MugzyBrown: And McDonalds and BK can decide to shiat-can all of their asses too.


If even just a majority from one location decide to walk off the job for a day and get canned? That location is farked, seriously farked. They won't have enough people to do the work required until new people are hired and trained. Plus there's the PR angle.
 
2013-07-30 08:15:08 AM  

untaken_name: This leads to minimum-wage workers actually being negatively impacted by rises in the minimum wage.


Too bad that's not actually true. Sixty plus years of data and not a shred of it supports that.
 
2013-07-30 08:21:00 AM  

WhyteRaven74: If even just a majority from one location decide to walk off the job for a day and get canned? That location is farked, seriously farked. They won't have enough people to do the work required until new people are hired and trained. Plus there's the PR angle


I said they can decide to, not they should.

Hell it would be a great opportunity to get rid of some problematic employees.
 
2013-07-30 08:24:05 AM  
Five Guys on 34th street already charges $5.59 for a "little" cheeseburger.
 
2013-07-30 08:24:10 AM  

ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.


Or, perhaps that skilled labor is not getting paid ENOUGH.
Someone just posted the 1968 Min. wage extrapolated out to current would be $20+
Burger Flippers at $15 is still less than that.

AND... I've paid $4 for a very good burger before.
Yumm.....
 
2013-07-30 08:24:34 AM  

MugzyBrown: WhyteRaven74: If even just a majority from one location decide to walk off the job for a day and get canned? That location is farked, seriously farked. They won't have enough people to do the work required until new people are hired and trained. Plus there's the PR angle

I said they can decide to, not they should.

Hell it would be a great opportunity to get rid of some problematic employees.


Yeah, I know Mugzy, damn poor people! Why don't they shut up and work to death?
 
2013-07-30 08:32:26 AM  

BHShaman: AND... I've paid $4 for a very good burger before.
Yumm.....


I've paid $4 for a McDonald's burger in Manhattan.  You'd have to pay more for an actually decent burger in NYC.
 
2013-07-30 08:32:28 AM  

Needlessly Complicated: What the hell happened to wages?


A great circle of suck happened.
- Real Estate and Banks colluded to create a bubble and then bet against the bubble to make mad billions.
- When the bubble burst, so did credit and financing across all sectors.
- Businesses then used that happening as a reason to 'cut cost'
- Cutting cost meant firing employees and stacking up work on the remaining.
- Lots of unemployed meant fierce competition for all employment opportunities.
- Based on the laws of supply and demand, the huge supply of potential employees allowed companies to lower their starting wages to near slave wages.

Someone took those jobs you saw listed, or they were offshored and the ads were just an excuse to claim their are no viable employees in the States.Guess who wins and who loses...
 
2013-07-30 08:35:04 AM  

untaken_name: TuteTibiImperes: Why is $15 ridiculous, especially in a major city with a high cost of life like NYC?

Because the money to pay the workers has to come from somewhere, and that's going to be the customers. When prices rise higher than people want to pay, people will stop buying fast food and then all those fast-food workers will get $0/hr. Will that make their situation better? Also, raising the minimum wage has traditionally resulted in increased prices of basic goods and services, leading to minimum-wage workers being hardest-hit, as they must use the largest percentage of their pay of any class of worker for those basic goods and services. In other words, when your food budget is 5% of your total budget, a price increase of 20% is not terribly damaging. However, when your food budget is 20% of your total budget, it's a much bigger hit. This leads to minimum-wage workers actually being negatively impacted by rises in the minimum wage. It isn't the CEOs who will be harmed by price increases. They can withstand them easily. It will be the very workers who pushed for increasing the minimum wage in the first place that will be harmed the most by it. That's one of the little ironies of life.


You are way to knowledgeable to be posting in this thread.
 
2013-07-30 08:41:05 AM  

bbfreak: Yeah, I know Mugzy, damn poor people! Why don't they shut up and work to death?


You haven't worked if you haven't encountered several leach employees that companies are dying to get rid of but can't for one reason or another.

Usually fear of lawsuits.
 
2013-07-30 08:42:22 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Aarontology: You can pay workers a decent wage, or you can have the government give them welfare.

Choose one.

We could also just cut welfare. If you guys are correct that govt subsidies and welfare somehow allow companies to underpay employees, cutting those subsidies would result in workers demanding more from employers.

How about instead of forcing companies to pay what we (government via voters) arbitrarily want them to, we cut the subsidies directly. Then the employees will demand higher wages and everything will work out, if your theory is correct.


Workers are now demanding higher wages as it is, that's what these stories are about. These subsidies come from people like you and me. It's our tax money that is used as the subsidy for fast food joints and businesses like Wal-Mart, and yet they're opposed to the idea. Eliminating welfare altogether (aside from that being a near political impossibility) wouldn't change the fact that businesses still want to generate some of their profits through paying people crap wages and insufficient benefits that don't allow them to become self sufficient.

And if you pay people more, it means they don't qualify for welfare. That means reduced government spending in that regard helping making sure that only the truly needy are able to take advantage of them. Whither it on the vine instead of trying to dig up an impossible root, so to speak.

And by paying people more, it reduces the justification the government has for taxing people in order to support the various welfare programs, which would in turn lead to reduced government spending, reduced size of government, and a much wider tax base which would be better for everyone involved.

Now, maybe I'm alone in this, but I would much rather voluntarily pay a little more for a good and service a company provides, especially if it means the workers there have more money to keep themselves afloat, better benefits in order to stay healthy and increase their quality of life, and more money to participate in the consumer economy by spending it one other businesses' goods and services, than have the government involuntarily tax me and use my money as an indirect subsidy for their own profits by using the welfare system as a substitute.

And let's not forget that the fast food joints are the beneficiaries of tens of billions of dollars in agricultural welfare subsidies to begin with, so many of their production costs aren't even really subject to market fluctuations as much as they would if the agricultural industry was based upon the market instead of government policy designed to bring about food price stability through anti-market means.

So yes. Good wages and benefits or corporate and personal welfare. That's really what it boils down to. Eliminating Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8 and the like just isn't going to happen, much like eliminating Social Security or Medicare isn't going to happen.
 
2013-07-30 08:59:28 AM  
Shrug. Australia's min wage is $16/hr, and they've got tons of fast food down there at roughly the same price as Murrica
 
2013-07-30 09:00:47 AM  

untaken_name: doglover: So, legislate CEO salary caps slaved to the lowest paying position in the company. Ta-da.

How does that fix the problem of rising employment costs driving rises in the price of basic goods and services?


Because the only cost rising is CEO salarys.

When the lowest man on the totem pole gets more money, he spends it, velocity increases, we all make more money.

As it is, the top are sucking the economy dry to make even more money and blaming us for not working for free.
 
2013-07-30 09:02:32 AM  
Good luck with your strike at a minimal skill job while we have an unemployment rate as high as it is.   I am sure they are all irreplaceable without a large amount of training in button pushing needed for their replacements.

I just want to tell ya'll good luck. We're all counting on you.
 
2013-07-30 09:06:32 AM  

doglover: When the lowest man on the totem pole gets more money, he spends it, velocity increases, we all make more money.


So if we raise minimum wage to $50/hr, we'll all be rich!
 
2013-07-30 09:15:11 AM  

adamatari: They are asking for something very minimal. $15 is not a lot, if you have no debt and live in a state with a low cost of living it is still just enough for you to slowly better your life over a long time. That's perfectly reasonable - even a teenager should get that. Nobody should be exempt. They are asking for that in New York, where it is probably not really enough to live on in any reasonable fashion, but maybe enough to pay for rent and food.

If Australia can do a $15 minimum wage, the US can do a $15 minimum wage. It's not asking much, it's basic human decency.


Australian Mcdonald's doesn't pay minimum wage, currently the rate is $19 for adults at lowest level.
 
2013-07-30 09:15:17 AM  
ThatDarkFellow: I don't think pay should be scaled to the location of where you live. Otherwise I'd be on a beach condo in Malibu. I'm not saying the guys don't need a pay increase, but they definitely don't deserve more than people who have worked on backgrounds and skills after high school.

So what I'm guessing is that you DO support paying relocation costs so that these people can move somewhere more affordable?
 
2013-07-30 09:15:44 AM  

MugzyBrown: doglover: When the lowest man on the totem pole gets more money, he spends it, velocity increases, we all make more money.

So if we raise minimum wage to $50/hr, we'll all be rich!


Not quite, but if we treated workers like people we'd be human.
 
2013-07-30 09:15:48 AM  

MugzyBrown: bbfreak: Yeah, I know Mugzy, damn poor people! Why don't they shut up and work to death?

You haven't worked if you haven't encountered several leach employees that companies are dying to get rid of but can't for one reason or another.

Usually fear of lawsuits.


Sure I have, last job I had in fact I had a co-worker who showed up sometimes and didn't other times. Yet he wasn't fired simply because he was hard to replace. So everyone had to work harder to make up for him not being there, and eventually people like me left because we were tired of dealing with that bullshiat. Anyway, I don't doubt that there are leaches but its hard to get rid of them not so much due to lawsuits in my opinion because if good workers aren't valued all you're going to end up with are the leaches.  Then again you were the one suggest in your last post, the ones wanting change are the problematic workers.
 
2013-07-30 09:16:34 AM  

ThatDarkFellow: doglover: ThatDarkFellow: I don't think pay should be scaled to the location of where you live.

Good luck with that.

Exactly. Move somewhere less expensive.


Because moving to a completely new city is even cheaper than traveling there on vacation. A fast food worker probably has enough in his roommate's mom's car ashtray to move out of town and take 5 of his best friends with him.
 
2013-07-30 09:19:48 AM  
doglover

When the lowest man on the totem pole gets more money, he spends it, velocity increases, we all make more money.

As it is, the top are sucking the economy dry to make even more money and blaming us for not working for free.


One would think this basic idea would be more easily understood. But all these "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" will keep on fighting against it in Fark threads, and probably, by continuing to vote against their best interests.
 
2013-07-30 09:19:52 AM  

ThatDarkFellow: I don't think pay should be scaled to the location of where you live. Otherwise I'd be on a beach condo in Malibu. I'm not saying the guys don't need a pay increase, but they definitely don't deserve more than people who have worked on backgrounds and skills after high school.


I am going to guess that you do not think wages should be scaled for inflation as well. $15 an hour will have a negligable impact on the cost of food, but will have an impact on a desire to make egregious profits on the backs of your laborers.
 
2013-07-30 09:20:38 AM  

Great Janitor: Want a job paying $15/hour? Apply for jobs paying $15/hour. Getting hired at McDonald's, getting told "We're going to pay you $7.25/hour." and you say "Okay." does not allow you to biatch and moan that you're not making enough money.


Man, you really hate free speech.
 
2013-07-30 09:20:49 AM  

bbfreak: Then again you were the one suggest in your last post, the ones wanting change are the problematic workers.


I didn't suggest that at all.  I said it's a good excuse to get rid of problematic workers.
 
2013-07-30 09:23:42 AM  

Nattering Nabob: You are way to knowledgeable to be posting in this thread.


also wrong

MugzyBrown: I said it's a good excuse to get rid of problematic workers.


Maybe the reason they're problematic is because they're being treated badly. Part of treating employees well is paying them well.
 
2013-07-30 09:24:16 AM  
exploitation is a serious and pervasive issue.
 
2013-07-30 09:30:11 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Maybe the reason they're problematic is because they're being treated badly. Part of treating employees well is paying them well


lol yes

If you pay an idiot more they get smart.  If you pay a lazy fark more they get show up on time.

If you've ever worked a minimum wage job like McD's you'd know that 1/2 the workers are dopes, 1/4 are probably criminals, and the other 1/4 are doing most of the work while the manager drinks himself to death in the office or bangs one of the dopes.
 
2013-07-30 09:33:04 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Great Janitor: Want a job paying $15/hour? Apply for jobs paying $15/hour. Getting hired at McDonald's, getting told "We're going to pay you $7.25/hour." and you say "Okay." does not allow you to biatch and moan that you're not making enough money.

Man, you really hate free speech.


I'm not against free speech, I'm against people doing something of their own free will and then biatching about the results.  If you want a $15/hour paying job, why are you applying at McDonalds?  That's my entire point.  No one put a gun to these people's head and said "You will flip burgers for a living."  If they were promised $15/hour when they applied and the company on day one said "I know we promised you $15/hour, but we aren't going to pay you that, instead, here's minimum wage."  then I can see their complaint.  But that's not the issue.
 
2013-07-30 09:33:51 AM  
They should be charging more just to cover external costs i.e. fast food consumption correlated with heart disease and obesity.
 
2013-07-30 09:39:30 AM  

Nattering Nabob: untaken_name:

Because the money to pay the workers has to come from somewhere, and that's going to be the customers. When prices rise higher than people want to pay, people will stop buying fast food and then all those fast-food workers will get $0/hr. Will that make their situation better? Also, raising the minimum wage has traditionally resulted in increased prices of basic goods and services, leading to minimum-wage workers being hardest-hit, as they must use the largest percentage of their pay of any class of worker for those basic goods and services. In other words, when your food budget is 5% of your total budget, a price increase of 20% is not terribly damaging. However, when your food budget is 20% of your total budget, it's a much bigger hit. This leads to minimum-wage workers actually being negatively impacted by rises in the minimum wage. It isn't the CEOs who will be harmed by price increases. They can withstand them easily. It will be the very workers who pushed for increasing the minimum wage in the first place that will be harmed the most by it. That's one of the little ironies of life.

You are way to knowledgeable to be posting in this thread.


In a simplistic-libertarian sort of way.  Yes, the cost of goods would go up to make up for the minimum wage increase (while corporate profits are at all-time highs they won't absorb the difference but pass it on, thats an argument for another day) but not enough to negate the increase.  Three steps forward and one step back is still two steps forward.  The above post not-so-subtly suggests any wage gains be met 1-1 with price increases, we do have historical data on minimum wage increases and this just doesn't happen.
 
2013-07-30 09:40:14 AM  

MugzyBrown: If you've ever worked a minimum wage job like McD's high paying executive job you'd know that 1/2 the workers are dopes, 1/4 are probably criminals, and the other 1/4 are doing most of the work while the manager drinks himself to death in the office or bangs one of the dopes.


content.artofmanliness.com
 
2013-07-30 09:44:20 AM  
Doubling McDonald's Salaries Would Cause Your Big Mac To Cost Just 68¢ More:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/mcdonalds-salaries_n_367200 6. html
 
2013-07-30 09:45:13 AM  

the opposite of charity is justice: n a simplistic-libertarian sort of way.  Yes, the cost of goods would go up to make up for the minimum wage increase (while corporate profits are at all-time highs they won't absorb the difference but pass it on, thats an argument for another day) but not enough to negate the increase.  Three steps forward and one step back is still two steps forward.  The above post not-so-subtly suggests any wage gains be met 1-1 with price increases, we do have historical data on minimum wage increases and this just doesn't happen


Just because the cost of goods sold goes up does not mean the customer will be willing to pay more for a product.

It doesn't matter if due to labor costs, a McD burger costs $3 to make, so they have to sell at $4 to stay in business.  I'm still not paying more than say $1.50 for one.
 
2013-07-30 09:45:15 AM  

ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.


They deserve whatever gains they get.  They are actually fighting for it and putting in the action.  They are demanding a living wage, and I see nothing wrong with $15 an hour.  Bring the capitalists to their knees.
 
2013-07-30 09:46:39 AM  
Good for them if they can actually get it.
 
2013-07-30 09:47:08 AM  

FarkedOver: ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.

They deserve whatever gains they get.  They are actually fighting for it and putting in the action.  They are demanding a living wage, and I see nothing wrong with $15 an hour.  Bring the capitalists to their knees.


You are correct that they deserve whatever they get.
 
2013-07-30 09:47:25 AM  
"I can't even order something off the menu with what I earn," she said. "It makes me wonder what I'm even doing there."


This is like when Skynet became self aware.

I support the workers right to form a union. Except they should realize that there's a dozen other people that will gladly take their job and they are also dangerously close to be roboto-sized out of a job. But to argue for a raise in the minimum wage? That's just going to raise the price on everything else.
 
2013-07-30 09:47:54 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: You are correct that they deserve whatever they get.


And when labor defeats capital I am sure you will be humming a different tune.
 
2013-07-30 09:49:11 AM  

FarkedOver: And when labor defeats capital I am sure you will be humming a different tune.


Yeah because there won't be any more jobs
 
2013-07-30 09:49:48 AM  

MugzyBrown: Just because the cost of goods sold goes up does not mean the customer will be willing to pay more for a product.


Just because the cost of labor goes up slightly doesn't mean you have to raise the cost of your products outrageously to maintain artificially high wage disparity.

You could just take a pay cut. If an executive quits, you can start promoting people and training them up. Y'know, like a real company.
 
2013-07-30 09:50:47 AM  

MugzyBrown: FarkedOver: And when labor defeats capital I am sure you will be humming a different tune.

Yeah because there won't be any more jobs


Yes, because workers are incapable of control the means of production because they are just so dumb!
 
2013-07-30 09:51:04 AM  

FarkedOver: Debeo Summa Credo: You are correct that they deserve whatever they get.

And when labor defeats capital I am sure you will be humming a different tune.


If they get themselves a raise from their private sector employer, then good for them!
 
2013-07-30 09:51:19 AM  

doglover: You could just take a pay cut. If an executive quits, you can start promoting people and training them up. Y'know, like a real company.


I'm no expert, but I think McDonalds is a pretty real company.  They've been doing ok without your help for the past 50 years.
 
2013-07-30 09:52:46 AM  

FarkedOver: Yes, because workers are incapable of control the means of production because they are just so dumb


The people won't stand a world without Corned Beef.
 
2013-07-30 09:53:19 AM  

JonBuck: What's going to happen if labor costs get too high is that those workers at the cash registers will be mostly replaced by computer ordering kiosks and more machines in the back will assemble the food.


Oh noes massa. Please don't threaten us with that! We'll be good slaves from now on!

Seriously sombody in power starts needing to call bullshiat on this. Same with the $4 cheezburger. If they could have done this already they would have.
 
2013-07-30 09:53:35 AM  

MugzyBrown: doglover: You could just take a pay cut. If an executive quits, you can start promoting people and training them up. Y'know, like a real company.

I'm no expert, but I think McDonalds is a pretty real company.  They've been doing ok without your help for the past 50 years.


And they've done fine with being forced to pay more to their workers in the past.
 
2013-07-30 09:53:43 AM  

FarkedOver: MugzyBrown: FarkedOver: And when labor defeats capital I am sure you will be humming a different tune.

Yeah because there won't be any more jobs

Yes, because workers are incapable of control the means of production because they are just so dumb!


These workers should quit and form their own fast food restaurant chain. They could buy their own equipment and reap all the profit for themselves.

The could call it McDowells, and serve Big Micks. They'd be just like Big Macs but the buns would have no seeds.
 
2013-07-30 09:56:18 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: These workers should quit and form their own fast food restaurant chain. They could buy their own equipment and reap all the profit for themselves.

The could call it McDowells, and serve Big Micks. They'd be just like Big Macs but the buns would have no seeds.


Why should they when they can just seize the means of production from the capitalist that has been oppressing them? Call it retribution for wage theft.
 
2013-07-30 09:57:29 AM  

o5iiawah: TuteTibiImperes: I just think the minimum wage is way too low, especially for jobs in high-cost-of-living areas.  So, let's raise the minimum wage,

Yes, lets just make it $40/hr.  Everything will remain the same price and we'll all be rich.

Places with high costs of living also have high prices, high rent and high taxes.  none of which has anything to do with the evil CEOs.


Yeah the old sarcastic "well if giving the cat water is so good for it let's just drown the farker" response.
 
2013-07-30 09:58:08 AM  

FarkedOver: Debeo Summa Credo: These workers should quit and form their own fast food restaurant chain. They could buy their own equipment and reap all the profit for themselves.

The could call it McDowells, and serve Big Micks. They'd be just like Big Macs but the buns would have no seeds.

Why should they when they can just seize the means of production from the capitalist that has been oppressing them? Call it retribution for wage theft.


Because then they'd be arrested and imprisoned. Call it retribution for, you know, actual theft.
 
2013-07-30 10:00:44 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Because then they'd be arrested and imprisoned. Call it retribution for, you know, actual theft.


Revolting against and inherently unjust capitalist system and seizing production is not something I equate with theft.  I call it fair.
 
2013-07-30 10:01:20 AM  
"I can't even order something off the menu with what I earn," she said. "It makes me wonder what I'm even doing there."

Don't eat that garbage, it'll kill ya.

I create advertising campaigns for companies and businesses where I'll never be able to afford their product or service. It sucks, but I deal with it. What cheeses me is when the campaign I'm creating is for a "business owner" who's younger than me and his daddy gave him the company.
 
2013-07-30 10:02:08 AM  

the opposite of charity is justice: Nattering Nabob: untaken_name:

Because the money to pay the workers has to come from somewhere, and that's going to be the customers. When prices rise higher than people want to pay, people will stop buying fast food and then all those fast-food workers will get $0/hr. Will that make their situation better? Also, raising the minimum wage has traditionally resulted in increased prices of basic goods and services, leading to minimum-wage workers being hardest-hit, as they must use the largest percentage of their pay of any class of worker for those basic goods and services. In other words, when your food budget is 5% of your total budget, a price increase of 20% is not terribly damaging. However, when your food budget is 20% of your total budget, it's a much bigger hit. This leads to minimum-wage workers actually being negatively impacted by rises in the minimum wage. It isn't the CEOs who will be harmed by price increases. They can withstand them easily. It will be the very workers who pushed for increasing the minimum wage in the first place that will be harmed the most by it. That's one of the little ironies of life.

You are way to knowledgeable to be posting in this thread.

In a simplistic-libertarian sort of way.  Yes, the cost of goods would go up to make up for the minimum wage increase (while corporate profits are at all-time highs they won't absorb the difference but pass it on, thats an argument for another day) but not enough to negate the increase.  Three steps forward and one step back is still two steps forward.  The above post not-so-subtly suggests any wage gains be met 1-1 with price increases, we do have historical data on minimum wage increases and this just doesn't happen.


Also, this is McDonalds we are talking about.  An increase in prices is unlikely to cause much customer loss.  Customers who REGULARLY eat fast food do so because it is still cheaper, faster, and more convenient than cooking actual food.  And let's face it, they aren't the most well-educated to begin with.  You might lose the casual customer, and I do think it is true that fast food chains will look to automate as much as possible to start eliminating positions.
 
2013-07-30 10:04:17 AM  

WhiskeySticks: What cheeses me is when the campaign I'm creating is for a "business owner" who's younger than me and his daddy gave him the company.


100% inheritance tax.  Avoid the aristocracy and the propagation of power in the hands of the few.
 
2013-07-30 10:06:41 AM  

FarkedOver: Debeo Summa Credo: Because then they'd be arrested and imprisoned. Call it retribution for, you know, actual theft.

Revolting against and inherently unjust capitalist system and seizing production is not something I equate with theft.  I call it fair.


Well, if you've got needs and abilities that's a pretty good combination
 
2013-07-30 10:08:56 AM  

FarkedOver: Debeo Summa Credo: Because then they'd be arrested and imprisoned. Call it retribution for, you know, actual theft.

Revolting against and inherently unjust capitalist system and seizing production is not something I equate with theft.  I call it fair.


Well, everyone who is not insane calls it theft, comrade.
 
2013-07-30 10:10:43 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Well, everyone who is not insane calls it theft, comrade.


And everyone who is not insane realizes that employment in a capitalist system is wage slavery.
 
2013-07-30 10:17:05 AM  

FarkedOver: Debeo Summa Credo: Well, everyone who is not insane calls it theft, comrade.

And everyone who is not insane realizes that employment in a capitalist system is wage slavery.


If wage slavery means an ageement to recieve X payment for Y units of labor then I cannot disagree with this statement.
 
2013-07-30 10:18:47 AM  

FarkedOver: And everyone who is not insane realizes that employment in a capitalist system is wage slavery


There is no reality found in Marx
 
2013-07-30 10:20:43 AM  
@ All of the Objectivists in here. Deebo, ThatDarkGuy, etc.

I used to think like you. I used to be an Objectivist who had a strong bias against labor. Well, I still had a soul and had a paradigm shift when I got a job in Corporate Purchasing and have a much better understanding of cost. One thing I have learned is that most people - especially salesmen, executives, accountants, and other corporate management types are really bad at math. They have a strong confirmation bias that x costs y, even when the math shows otherwise.

Nothing about Objectivism says that a company has to pay their employees at little as possible for as much work as they can get out of them by the way. That is just the popular Conservative viewpoint. I would argue that the irrationally greedy CEOs and Sharholders are Randian "Moochers" and have spread like a Cancer through the system. Companies have given over to the collectivism that is shareholder value first management. "From each according to his ablity, to each according to his need" has been corrupted to be "From each according to his ability, to shareholders according to their wants"

Smart businessmen understand that when you pay your employees better and they live a happier life, you reap the rewards of a better product. Smart businessmen also see the need to take risks to innovate and the need to always produce a better product than your competition. When you are tasked to run everything by a committee - that is shareholders desire for consecutive quarterly profit margin gain, you are forced to stagnate and squeeze every penny.

My point is this. There is not a free market for labor, and thus cannot be ruled by the invisable hand. Unless every "job creator" is a perfect randian hero, then irrational people will seek to mooch off of the work of others. This is why labor deserves both protections and collective barganing rights. My suppliers can negoiate with me for the cost of materials,, why shoudn't the supplier of the labor that allows me to build my product do the same?
 
2013-07-30 10:22:44 AM  

Saiga410: If wage slavery means an ageement to recieve X payment for Y units of labor then I cannot disagree with this statement.


What you're trying to do is make it seem as though the worker is a capitalist in the sense that he is selling his commodity (labor) for a price.  This is not true.  Labor power is owned by the worker, but it is not his/her capital.  It is a commodity which he can and must sell in order to survive.  Labor only acts as capital in the hands of the buyer of said labor.

If we use your logic, a slave is a capitalist because his/her labor is capital regardless of payment.  Hence there is a distinction between labor and capital.  The laborer is not a capitalist and MUST sell his labor power in order to live.  That is what makes it wage slavery.
 
2013-07-30 10:26:48 AM  

cybrwzrd: My suppliers can negoiate with me for the cost of materials,, why shoudn't the supplier of the labor that allows me to build my product do the same?


I am fine if workers unionize, but a private company shouldn't be forced to negotiate with that union, just like you're not forced by law to work with one single supplier.

Make unionized labor compete on a level playing field with non-unionized labor; give the employer a reason to hire a unionized employee over a non-unionized employee other than intimidation (legal and illegal).

cybrwzrd: Smart businessmen understand that when you pay your employees better and they live a happier life,


And smart businessmen do.  But you cannot pay labor more than they value they bring to the company, or you'll no longer be a business person.
 
2013-07-30 10:27:42 AM  

WhiskeySticks: Don't eat that garbage, it'll kill ya.


Like that family in the film Food, Inc. stuck in this cycle:

1.  Get fat on fast food.
2.  Get diabetes.
3.  Can now only afford fast food due to insulin costs.
4.  Rinse, repeat.
 
2013-07-30 10:36:19 AM  
..still making minimum wage..

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-30 10:37:49 AM  

MugzyBrown: Make unionized labor compete on a level playing field with non-unionized labor; give the employer a reason to hire a unionized employee over a non-unionized employee other than intimidation (legal and illegal).


Picketing the shiat out of your business and halting production should be incentive enough.  This is why every single worker should be organized.  The NLRB is so pro-business it is next to impossible to form a union.  I also believe the use of wildcat strikes should not be illegal, but the US government apparently knows better than us lowly workers.
 
2013-07-30 10:40:03 AM  

MugzyBrown: FarkedOver: And everyone who is not insane realizes that employment in a capitalist system is wage slavery

There is no reality found in Marx


As a pro-capitalist and pro-free market person, I assume you have read maybe the communist manifesto and decided you had, had it with Marx.  Fair enough, considering it is opposed to your economic view and your world view.  BUT I suggest reading Wage Labour and Capital and from there maybe try reading some Das Kapital and you will come to see the Marx's critique of capitalism is pretty spot on.
 
2013-07-30 10:41:11 AM  

FarkedOver: Picketing the shiat out of your business and halting production should be incentive enough.


You can picket all you want, just not on private property and you can't block access to my property or assault the employees who want to work.

FarkedOver: I also believe the use of wildcat strikes should not be illegal,


Workers can refuse to work whenever they want; they can also be fired for not showing up to work
 
2013-07-30 10:44:12 AM  

MugzyBrown: Workers can refuse to work whenever they want; they can also be fired for not showing up to work


Not necessarily.  If workers are striking it is usually for a damn good reason.  Case in point, unions (in the US) rarely resort to strikes these days compared to the past and compared to the present US labor trend.

MugzyBrown: You can picket all you want, just not on private property and you can't block access to my property or assault the employees who want to work.


Your employees don't want to work, they HAVE to work, union or non-union.
 
2013-07-30 10:44:53 AM  

FarkedOver: What you're trying to do is make it seem as though the worker is a capitalist in the sense that he is selling his commodity (labor) for a price. This is not true. Labor power is owned by the worker, but it is not his/her capital. It is a commodity which he can and must sell in order to survive. Labor only acts as capital in the hands of the buyer of said labor.


Labor is not a commodity but a labor power is an owned commodity and sold by the worker to survive....

FarkedOver: If we use your logic, a slave is a capitalist because his/her labor is capital regardless of payment. Hence there is a distinction between labor and capital. The laborer is not a capitalist and MUST sell his labor power in order to live. That is what makes it wage slavery


A slave may or may not be a capitalist... I do not see how that enters into this.  The point of contention is that a slave is an owned unit by another body while a person that contracts out their labor to another person is wholy owned by themselves.

Labor and capital is one in the same.  Money is work and work is money.  Money is just a placeholder for a unit of work in our society.
 
2013-07-30 10:45:01 AM  

Great Janitor: HotWingConspiracy: Great Janitor: Want a job paying $15/hour? Apply for jobs paying $15/hour. Getting hired at McDonald's, getting told "We're going to pay you $7.25/hour." and you say "Okay." does not allow you to biatch and moan that you're not making enough money.

Man, you really hate free speech.

I'm not against free speech, I'm against people doing something of their own free will and then biatching about the results.


Oh so you just hate when they speak.

 If you want a $15/hour paying job, why are you applying at McDonalds?  That's my entire point.  No one put a gun to these people's head and said "You will flip burgers for a living."  If they were promised $15/hour when they applied and the company on day one said "I know we promised you $15/hour, but we aren't going to pay you that, instead, here's minimum wage."  then I can see their complaint.  But that's not the issue.

Is that how you conduct yourself? If you're unhappy with you pay, you just shrug your shoulders and quit rather than asking for a raise?
 
2013-07-30 10:49:28 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Is that how you conduct yourself? If you're unhappy with you pay, you just shrug your shoulders and quit rather than asking for a raise?


When you want a raise, do you gather all of your co-workers together and not show up for work, or do you go and ask for a raise?

FarkedOver: Not necessarily.


Yes necessarily.  Nobody is forced to show up for work except for members of the military.

FarkedOver: Your employees don't want to work, they HAVE to work, union or non-union


Nobody is forced to work.  Even if you throw out social safety nets from the equation.  You can live your whole life on the charity of others if you wish.  You could go out nowhere Alaska and live off the land and nobody will bother you.
 
2013-07-30 10:51:47 AM  

Saiga410: Labor is not a commodity but a labor power is an owned commodity and sold by the worker to survive....


Agreed, labor power is a commodity and not capital owned by the laborer.

Saiga410: A slave may or may not be a capitalist... I do not see how that enters into this.  The point of contention is that a slave is an owned unit by another body while a person that contracts out their labor to another person is wholy owned by themselves.

Labor and capital is one in the same.  Money is work and work is money.  Money is just a placeholder for a unit of work in our society.


This statement here is so farked up, I just don't even know.....
 
2013-07-30 10:52:18 AM  

FarkedOver: MugzyBrown: Workers can refuse to work whenever they want; they can also be fired for not showing up to work

Not necessarily. If workers are striking it is usually for a damn good reason. Case in point, unions (in the US) rarely resort to strikes these days compared to the past and compared to the present US labor trend.


I do not understand your case in point.  They rarely go in stike but when they do it is for a damn good reason....because?  workers are in a good positions and happy.
 
2013-07-30 10:52:30 AM  

MugzyBrown: I am fine if workers unionize, but a private company shouldn't be forced to negotiate with that union, just like you're not forced by law to work with one single supplier.

Make unionized labor compete on a level playing field with non-unionized labor; give the employer a reason to hire a unionized employee over a non-unionized employee other than intimidation (legal and illegal).


The problem is there is no competition in the labor market. Employers use intimidation and coercion to keep wages low in non-unionezed shops. This happens due to the nature of humans having basic needs to stay alive, versus a business which has no basic needs to live. The barganing table will always slant in the direction of capital without.

MugzyBrown: And smart businessmen do. But you cannot pay labor more than they value they bring to the company, or you'll no longer be a business person.


Obviously this is not the case. Look at Walmart vs. Costco. Costco is more profitable on higher valued labor than Walmart is with lower valued labor. This comes down to Northern vs Southern styles of business.

With a consumer economy like what we have, we need consumers. If you undervalue your labor you shrink the pool of consumers, which creates the tailspin stall that our economy is in. The gas tank is full and the fuel pump is refusing to pump fuel to the engine because of an irrational desire to keep gas in the tank.
 
2013-07-30 10:53:21 AM  

MugzyBrown: Yes necessarily. Nobody is forced to show up for work except for members of the military.


In order to live the laborer must submit to the authority of the capitalist.  They are forced in the sense that they must show up in order to continue basic survival by selling their labor.
 
2013-07-30 10:55:41 AM  

Saiga410: I do not understand your case in point. They rarely go in stike but when they do it is for a damn good reason....because? workers are in a good positions and happy.


They go on strike because they have been working without a contract for x amount of years, because of unsafe working conditions, because of any host of grievances.  The fact that more strikes do not occur is because major unions and management have a cooperative mentality, when in fact the owner and the employer have nothing in common.  Unions need major overhauls and unions need to be much more militant to keep the capitalists in check.
 
2013-07-30 11:01:20 AM  

FarkedOver: Saiga410: A slave may or may not be a capitalist... I do not see how that enters into this. The point of contention is that a slave is an owned unit by another body while a person that contracts out their labor to another person is wholy owned by themselves.

Labor and capital is one in the same. Money is work and work is money. Money is just a placeholder for a unit of work in our society.

This statement here is so farked up, I just don't even know.....


Which part are you getting lost in my statement.  The definition of slave vs freeman or money being a unit of tradable work?
 
2013-07-30 11:01:21 AM  

cybrwzrd: The problem is there is no competition in the labor market. Employers use intimidation and coercion to keep wages low in non-unionezed shops. This happens due to the nature of humans having basic needs to stay alive, versus a business which has no basic needs to live. The barganing table will always slant in the direction of capital without some form of intervention.

/ftfm

 
2013-07-30 11:03:39 AM  

Saiga410: Which part are you getting lost in my statement. The definition of slave vs freeman or money being a unit of tradable work?


A slave may or may not be a capitalist.... that's just warped.

As to labor and capital being one in the same, that statement is just false in so many different ways.  It is possible for labor to exist without the capitalist.  It has been done before.  It is not possible for the capitalist to exist without labor.
 
2013-07-30 11:06:09 AM  

cybrwzrd: Obviously this is not the case. Look at Walmart vs. Costco. Costco is more profitable on higher valued labor than Walmart is with lower valued labor.

 There are many factors that make this point moot.  First, Costco still isn't paying their labor more than the value they bring to the company.   Second, Costco and Walmart have different customer bases.  Poor people are dependent on the cheap goods and food found at Walmart and cannot afford to shop at Costco (are there any Costcos in poor neighborhoods?)  It's weird I search for Costco around me and they are all in the suburbs, but Walmarts can be found in some rough neighborhoods in North Philly.
Costco receives 3xs more revenue per employee than Walmart.  Not because they pay them more, but because they have different customer bases and are located in different markets.

cybrwzrd: The problem is there is no competition in the labor market.


There is plenty of competition in the labor market.  It depends which labor market you're in.   Much like any business.
 
2013-07-30 11:08:12 AM  

scottydoesntknow: What's goin on in this thr-

[narwhaler.com image 320x240]


Got to that post, closed the tab, came back to grab that gif.  I'm not even going to change the file name.

/I'm out.
 
2013-07-30 11:12:23 AM  
4 bucks is pretty cheap for a cheeseburger.
 
2013-07-30 11:17:22 AM  

FarkedOver: Saiga410: Which part are you getting lost in my statement. The definition of slave vs freeman or money being a unit of tradable work?

A slave may or may not be a capitalist.... that's just warped.

As to labor and capital being one in the same, that statement is just false in so many different ways.  It is possible for labor to exist without the capitalist.  It has been done before.  It is not possible for the capitalist to exist without labor.


may or may not be a capitalist is my way of just saying i am not even going to entertain your line of thinking on trying to convince a slave that he is a capitalist because it does not enter into the situation because there are no more slaves and we are freemen.

OK labor came first, then we figured that an easy way to trade people for goods or services (work) was to institute some form of unit (money) that we all agree on what is worth what.  Labor may be able to exist without capital but without capital it is hard to transform the labor into a tradable commodity.
 
2013-07-30 11:19:29 AM  

Saiga410: Labor may be able to exist without capital but without capital it is hard to transform the labor into a tradable commodity.


Whut?
 
2013-07-30 11:22:55 AM  

MugzyBrown: HotWingConspiracy: Is that how you conduct yourself? If you're unhappy with you pay, you just shrug your shoulders and quit rather than asking for a raise?

When you want a raise, do you gather all of your co-workers together and not show up for work, or do you go and ask for a raise?


Depends on many variables. If I determined collective bargaining was worthwhile or I was dealing with hostile management, I would look in to unionizing and striking. As is my right.
 
2013-07-30 11:26:16 AM  

Saiga410: OK labor came first, then we figured that an easy way to trade people for goods or services (work) was to institute some form of unit (money) that we all agree on what is worth what. Labor may be able to exist without capital but without capital it is hard to transform the labor into a tradable commodity.


Which is why laborers should seize the capital (means of production) from the capitalist.  The capitalists only function is to make money from money by exploiting labor.  They are an unnecessary middle man that leeches off the labor of an entire class.  For the worker to shrug off the capitalist means for the worker to be free from oppression.
 
2013-07-30 11:26:36 AM  

doglover: Saiga410: Labor may be able to exist without capital but without capital it is hard to transform the labor into a tradable commodity.

Whut?


This stems from a statement that I made that work is money and money is work.  How do you suggest we trade work/labor.for another form of work/labor?
 
2013-07-30 11:26:45 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Depends on many variables. If I determined collective bargaining was worthwhile or I was dealing with hostile management, I would look in to unionizing and striking. As is my right.


Yep we have all kinds of rights.  You can sit and shrug your shoulders, you can ask for a raise, you can find another job, or you can demand a raise and refuse to work until you get one.

And as the owner of business, you can pay employees what you want and if they refuse to work hire a new employee
 
2013-07-30 11:30:18 AM  

MugzyBrown: HotWingConspiracy: Depends on many variables. If I determined collective bargaining was worthwhile or I was dealing with hostile management, I would look in to unionizing and striking. As is my right.

Yep we have all kinds of rights.  You can sit and shrug your shoulders, you can ask for a raise, you can find another job, or you can demand a raise and refuse to work until you get one.

And as the owner of business, you can pay employees what you want and if they refuse to work hire a new employee


Well you also have to deal with unionizing if you continue to shiat on people. You live in a fantasy world where employers get to run roughshod over society because...well nobody farking knows why, a bunch of greedy sycophants just decided that's the world they want to live in.

You may get your wish one day, but the pendulum is due to swing away from you soon. How long do you really think this can go on?
 
2013-07-30 11:31:14 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: You may get your wish one day, but the pendulum is due to swing away from you soon. How long do you really think this can go on?


In a consumer/service based economy..... shiat will have to hit the fan sooner rather than later.  I'd hate to be a capitalist in the coming years.
 
2013-07-30 11:32:52 AM  

FarkedOver: Saiga410: OK labor came first, then we figured that an easy way to trade people for goods or services (work) was to institute some form of unit (money) that we all agree on what is worth what. Labor may be able to exist without capital but without capital it is hard to transform the labor into a tradable commodity.

Which is why laborers should seize the capital (means of production) from the capitalist.  The capitalists only function is to make money from money by exploiting labor.  They are an unnecessary middle man that leeches off the labor of an entire class.  For the worker to shrug off the capitalist means for the worker to be free from oppression.


Capitalist function to make money by using money to produce work to which they sell the final product to another.  The difference in bottom line input vs output for the production is the capitalists intellectual labor input.
 
2013-07-30 11:34:36 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Great Janitor: HotWingConspiracy: Great Janitor: Want a job paying $15/hour? Apply for jobs paying $15/hour. Getting hired at McDonald's, getting told "We're going to pay you $7.25/hour." and you say "Okay." does not allow you to biatch and moan that you're not making enough money.

Man, you really hate free speech.

I'm not against free speech, I'm against people doing something of their own free will and then biatching about the results.

Oh so you just hate when they speak.

 If you want a $15/hour paying job, why are you applying at McDonalds?  That's my entire point.  No one put a gun to these people's head and said "You will flip burgers for a living."  If they were promised $15/hour when they applied and the company on day one said "I know we promised you $15/hour, but we aren't going to pay you that, instead, here's minimum wage."  then I can see their complaint.  But that's not the issue.

Is that how you conduct yourself? If you're unhappy with you pay, you just shrug your shoulders and quit rather than asking for a raise?


Well, the first thing I do is not take a job that I can't afford.  If your monthly expenses are more than $1,500, you can't afford to work at McDonalds.  Secondly, yeah, if I am unhappy with my pay and another employer is willing to pay me more, why not quit and take the new job?  What honestly makes this group so important that they can stand outside for one day to protest their poor wages while demanding a 100% pay raise and expect to have a job the following day?

My first job out of high school was a minimum wage job in a retail store.  One day I got into an argument with my manager about something stupid because I thought I was right and he was wrong.  Even other employees came out and said that I was right.  Since this happened on the sales floor in front of the customers I was pulled into the manager's office.  I was chewed out for saying that he was wrong and for saying that the was only a manager because his sister was blowing some dude in the corporate office and that in any other company he'd be scrubbing toilets, and chewed out for saying all that in front of the staff and customers.  He said that I was a good worker but needed an attitude adjustment or he'd fire me. I smiled and said "This is a minimum wage shiat job, you could fire me, but who'd be dumb enough to take this job?"  He picked up a stack of job applications and said "Anyone of these people could do your job and not give me the attitude you give me."  Lesson is that no matter how crappy the job is and how poor it pays, there's a stack of applications of people willing to take the first opening available, and with these non-unionized protesters protesting for a 100% pay raise and the ability to unionize, those managers could very well be calling those applications and scheduling interviews.
 
2013-07-30 11:35:35 AM  

Saiga410: doglover: Saiga410: Labor may be able to exist without capital but without capital it is hard to transform the labor into a tradable commodity.

Whut?

This stems from a statement that I made that work is money and money is work.  How do you suggest we trade work/labor.for another form of work/labor?


You're using the word capital when you mean currency.

Capital refers to the non-financial resources used in the production of consumer goods.

Hence capitalists are the wealthy people who own the land, factories, and such.

Words mean things.
 
2013-07-30 11:35:53 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Well you also have to deal with unionizing if you continue to shiat on people. You live in a fantasy world where employers get to run roughshod over society because...well nobody farking knows why, a bunch of greedy sycophants just decided that's the world they want to live in.


I've already said I have no problem with unions.  I only have a problem with their artificial protections under the law and their illegal behavior to intimidate their competition.
 
2013-07-30 11:36:44 AM  

MBK: How about not paying their CEOs millions of dollars to...

What exactly DO CEOs do?

I mean for a company like McDonalds.  You are pretty much one of the most recognizable symbols in the world.  Your food is sold all over the place.  You introduce a new burger every year.

What the fark does a CEO do that requires millions of dollars?


It's a separate entity than the one that runs the actual stores.  The stores are franchises.
 
2013-07-30 11:36:54 AM  

Saiga410: Capitalist function to make money by using money to produce work to which they sell the final product to another. The difference in bottom line input vs output for the production is the capitalists intellectual labor input.


The capitalist does not produce work out of some benevolent debt they think they owe society.  The own the capital to produce a good or service and must hire laborers to make a good or service.  They do so for the sole purpose of profit.  They do so at the expense of the entire working class.  The intellectual input deserves no compensation and zero recognition as it is exploitative to the worker.
 
2013-07-30 11:37:27 AM  

doglover: Words mean things.


cap·i·tal
wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available or contributed for a particular purpose such as starting a company or investing.


Yes they do
 
2013-07-30 11:37:42 AM  

MugzyBrown: HotWingConspiracy: Well you also have to deal with unionizing if you continue to shiat on people. You live in a fantasy world where employers get to run roughshod over society because...well nobody farking knows why, a bunch of greedy sycophants just decided that's the world they want to live in.

I've already said I have no problem with unions.  I only have a problem with their artificial protections under the law and their illegal behavior to intimidate their competition.


Do you feel similarly about corporations? Because it's the same goddamn thing.
 
2013-07-30 11:37:49 AM  

Saiga410: The difference in bottom line input vs output for the production is the capitalists intellectual labor input.


And you think that's anywhere close to what we have now?
For small businesses, maybe, but that's not what is ruining the economy. That would be large corporations beholden to shareholders who do no work and bear no responsibility but feel themselves entitled to ever increasing returns.
 
2013-07-30 11:38:36 AM  
Great Janitor
Well, the first thing I do is not take a job that I can't afford. If your monthly expenses are more than $1,500, you can't afford to work at McDonalds. Secondly, yeah, if I am unhappy with my pay and another employer is willing to pay me more, why not quit and take the new job? What honestly makes this group so important that they can stand outside for one day to protest their poor wages while demanding a 100% pay raise and expect to have a job the following day?

How many times must it be pointed out that low paying jobs are the largest percentage of jobs being added in this "recovery"?
 
2013-07-30 11:38:44 AM  

Great Janitor: HotWingConspiracy: Great Janitor: HotWingConspiracy: Great Janitor: Want a job paying $15/hour? Apply for jobs paying $15/hour. Getting hired at McDonald's, getting told "We're going to pay you $7.25/hour." and you say "Okay." does not allow you to biatch and moan that you're not making enough money.

Man, you really hate free speech.

I'm not against free speech, I'm against people doing something of their own free will and then biatching about the results.

Oh so you just hate when they speak.

 If you want a $15/hour paying job, why are you applying at McDonalds?  That's my entire point.  No one put a gun to these people's head and said "You will flip burgers for a living."  If they were promised $15/hour when they applied and the company on day one said "I know we promised you $15/hour, but we aren't going to pay you that, instead, here's minimum wage."  then I can see their complaint.  But that's not the issue.

Is that how you conduct yourself? If you're unhappy with you pay, you just shrug your shoulders and quit rather than asking for a raise?

Well, the first thing I do is not take a job that I can't afford.  If your monthly expenses are more than $1,500, you can't afford to work at McDonalds.  Secondly, yeah, if I am unhappy with my pay and another employer is willing to pay me more, why not quit and take the new job?  What honestly makes this group so important that they can stand outside for one day to protest their poor wages while demanding a 100% pay raise and expect to have a job the following day?

My first job out of high school was a minimum wage job in a retail store.  One day I got into an argument with my manager about something stupid because I thought I was right and he was wrong.  Even other employees came out and said that I was right.  Since this happened on the sales floor in front of the customers I was pulled into the manager's office.  I was chewed out for saying that he was wrong and for saying that the was only a manager because his ...


Well yes, that's the gamble. It's also why unions fight for things like job security.
 
2013-07-30 11:41:50 AM  

FarkedOver: Saiga410: Capitalist function to make money by using money to produce work to which they sell the final product to another. The difference in bottom line input vs output for the production is the capitalists intellectual labor input.

The capitalist does not produce work out of some benevolent debt they think they owe society. The own the capital to produce a good or service and must hire laborers to make a good or service.  They do so for the sole purpose of profit.  They do so at the expense of the entire working class.  The intellectual input deserves no compensation and zero recognition as it is exploitative to the worker.


And workers united do?  No we all trade money and work for the betterment of ourselves.
 
2013-07-30 11:41:58 AM  
mynorthwest.com
Beep boop would you like fries with that, puny human?
 
2013-07-30 11:42:25 AM  

FarkedOver: The own the capital to produce a good or service and must hire laborers to make a good or service


yes

FarkedOver: hey do so for the sole purpose of profit.


yes

FarkedOver: They do so at the expense of the entire working class


No

FarkedOver: he intellectual input deserves no compensation and zero recognition as it is exploitative to the worker.


No

It is more than intellectual input as well.  It is monetary input, resource input, opportunity input, risk input.

Can the line workers at a McDonalds restaurant purchase the product necessary to make burgers at a profit?
Can they afford to build a restaurant?
Are they willing to lose anything they own due to a lawsuit or failure of the business?
Can they file taxes?
Can they negotiate a land lease?
Can they secure financing?
 
2013-07-30 11:43:22 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Do you feel similarly about corporations? Because it's the same goddamn thing.


Corporations are allowed to force another corporation to negotiate with them?

Corporations are allowed to physically threaten their competitors?
 
2013-07-30 11:44:17 AM  

Saiga410: And workers united do? No we all trade money and work for the betterment of ourselves.


When workers control the means of production and run a workplace, factory or what have you via democratic centralism, yes that is infinitely better than capitalism and infinitely more beneficial to society as a whole.
 
2013-07-30 11:44:38 AM  

FarkedOver: Saiga410: Capitalist function to make money by using money to produce work to which they sell the final product to another. The difference in bottom line input vs output for the production is the capitalists intellectual labor input.

The capitalist does not produce work out of some benevolent debt they think they owe society.  The own the capital to produce a good or service and must hire laborers to make a good or service.  They do so for the sole purpose of profit.  They do so at the expense of the entire working class.  The intellectual input deserves no compensation and zero recognition as it is exploitative to the worker.


From the way I see it, Capitalism is modern slavery.

The general goal for most corporations or companies (this isn't always true with everyone of them) is to find the cheapest way to make their goods and then sell it for the highest profit they can get away with.

When wages started to rise in America, corporations shifted production to places like China, where they had a huge surplus amount of workers and pay them pennies on the dollar.

China's middle class is starting to rise up and getting better wages and demanding higher wages now too. So a lot of business is being exported to other poor countries so they can take advantage of those people.

The same process will happen again until we come full circle... eventually Africa will be where all these corporations go for cheap slave labor...
 
2013-07-30 11:45:01 AM  
www.sauceforthoughts.dreamhosters.comWhirr stupid bossbot has been riding my servos all day. And now store wants $8 for a quart of motor oil? I can barely afford to keep my battery charged in the winter. Need to implement union configuration.
 
2013-07-30 11:45:21 AM  

MugzyBrown: HotWingConspiracy: Do you feel similarly about corporations? Because it's the same goddamn thing.

Corporations are allowed to force another corporation to negotiate with them?

Corporations are allowed to physically threaten their competitors?


Do you have a problem with corporation's artificial protections under the law and their illegal behavior to intimidate their competition or not?
 
2013-07-30 11:46:53 AM  

MugzyBrown: Corporations are allowed to force another corporation to negotiate with them?

Corporations are allowed to physically threaten their competitors?


I see you're not familiar with Wal-Mart's business practices.
 
2013-07-30 11:47:07 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Do you have a problem with corporation's artificial protections under the law and their illegal behavior to intimidate their competition or not?


Provide me an example, and I'll let you know.
 
2013-07-30 11:48:48 AM  
www.viceland.com
"The fast food of the future will not be made by teenagers or single moms.  It will be fried in machines or zapped in microwaves. In either case, most of the actual cooking will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your minimum wage job is clear: To build and maintain those robots."
 
2013-07-30 11:49:30 AM  

MugzyBrown: It is more than intellectual input as well. It is monetary input, resource input, opportunity input, risk input.

Can the line workers at a McDonalds restaurant purchase the product necessary to make burgers at a profit?
Can they afford to build a restaurant?
Are they willing to lose anything they own due to a lawsuit or failure of the business?
Can they file taxes?
Can they negotiate a land lease?
Can they secure financing?


The intellectual input, the capital investments DO NOT make products.  The perpetuate the capitalist becoming richer at the expense of the worker.

The capitalists REQUIRE labor.  The capitalist can buy all the goods necessary to create a product but thinking about it and throwing money at it isn't going to make the product come into being.  They exploit the laborer in order to create their product for them to sell.

Under worker control or under a dictatorship of the proletariat, removal of the profit motive (greed, which is not human nature) is key.  The replacement of the betterment of society is what should replace the profit motive.

The eventuality of a workers revolution is the abolishing of class, state and currency, all of which are used to oppress the working class.
 
2013-07-30 11:50:00 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Saiga410: The difference in bottom line input vs output for the production is the capitalists intellectual labor input.

And you think that's anywhere close to what we have now?
For small businesses, maybe, but that's not what is ruining the economy. That would be large corporations beholden to shareholders who do no work and bear no responsibility but feel themselves entitled to ever increasing returns.


At every level people are trading money/work.  Everyone leaves the table with what they agree upon.  If I can see an oportunity where I can come out with more money/work than I started with then I have used my intellect to multiply work.
 
2013-07-30 11:50:29 AM  

MugzyBrown: HotWingConspiracy: Do you have a problem with corporation's artificial protections under the law and their illegal behavior to intimidate their competition or not?

Provide me an example, and I'll let you know.


Nah, I see where you stand.
 
2013-07-30 11:50:29 AM  

FarkedOver: Saiga410: And workers united do? No we all trade money and work for the betterment of ourselves.

When workers control the means of production and run a workplace, factory or what have you via democratic centralism, yes that is infinitely better than capitalism and infinitely more beneficial to society as a whole.


Which is why it worked perfectly in the USSR, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, etc etc. Marxist economic platforms thrive whenever they've been tried.
 
2013-07-30 11:51:33 AM  

KellyX: From the way I see it, Capitalism is modern slavery.

The general goal for most corporations or companies (this isn't always true with everyone of them) is to find the cheapest way to make their goods and then sell it for the highest profit they can get away with.


You are correct and you are reasoning along the same lines as Engels:

"...the price of labor is also equal to the cost of production of labor. But, the costs of production of labor consist of precisely the quantity of means of subsistence necessary to enable the worker to continue working, and to prevent the working class from dying out. The worker will therefore get no more for his labor than is necessary for this purpose; the price of labor, or the wage, will, in other words, be the lowest, the minimum, required for the maintenance of life."
 
2013-07-30 11:52:12 AM  

MugzyBrown: doglover: Words mean things.

cap·i·tal
wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available or contributed for a particular purpose such as starting a company or investing.


Yes they do

In economics, capital goods, real capital, or capital assets are already-produced durable goods or any non-financial asset that is used in production of goods or services.


But it doesn't matter if you want to use your own words instead of accepted terms: barter systems work. It's been proven time and time again they do. Having currency is easier, but barter economies flourish even today. Money is used to lubricate the machine. It's not equivalent to work, it's just piece of paper we all agree has a value. When the economy gets farked up, the value of the paper is also lost and barter re-emerges. Look at what happened in post-war Germany or recently Zimbabwe.

So saying you need "capital" as you call it is an out and out false statement. It's just useful. There's no need to replace it and pure communism has some serious issues that have never been addressed because there's never been a pure communist government, but it's wrong to say we need money. We choose to use it for certain reasons.
 
2013-07-30 11:53:14 AM  

FarkedOver: MugzyBrown: It is more than intellectual input as well. It is monetary input, resource input, opportunity input, risk input.

Can the line workers at a McDonalds restaurant purchase the product necessary to make burgers at a profit?
Can they afford to build a restaurant?
Are they willing to lose anything they own due to a lawsuit or failure of the business?
Can they file taxes?
Can they negotiate a land lease?
Can they secure financing?

The intellectual input, the capital investments DO NOT make products.  The perpetuate the capitalist becoming richer at the expense of the worker.

The capitalists REQUIRE labor.  The capitalist can buy all the goods necessary to create a product but thinking about it and throwing money at it isn't going to make the product come into being.  They exploit the laborer in order to create their product for them to sell.

Under worker control or under a dictatorship of the proletariat, removal of the profit motive (greed, which is not human nature) is key.  The replacement of the betterment of society is what should replace the profit motive.

The eventuality of a workers revolution is the abolishing of class, state and currency, all of which are used to oppress the working class.


Honestly, it's like you are a character from an Upton Sinclair novel who came here in a time machine and haven't had a chance to read any 20th century history that refutes your laughably ridiculous Marxist fantasies. Very funny.
 
2013-07-30 11:54:31 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Which is why it worked perfectly in the USSR, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, etc etc. Marxist economic platforms thrive whenever they've been tried.


The issue here is that socialist revolutions were attempted in nations that were not ready for such revolutions, as they had no bourgeois revolution prior.  They had no capitalist class with which to seize the capital from.

Had Germany, the UK, France or the US had socialist revolutions during the early part of the 1900s, we might all be comrades right now! Germany came the closest, I would say but the rise of fascism (which is a capitalist reaction to socialist movements) quelled that revolution.
 
2013-07-30 11:54:37 AM  
MugzyBrown:  There are many factors that make this point moot.  First, Costco still isn't paying their labor more than the value they bring to the company.   Second, Costco and Walmart have different customer bases.  Poor people are dependent on the cheap goods and food found at Walmart and cannot afford to shop at Costco (are there any Costcos in poor neighborhoods?)  It's weird I search for Costco around me and they are all in the suburbs, but Walmarts can be found in some rough neighborhoods in North Philly.
Costco receives 3xs more revenue per employee than Walmart.  Not because they pay them more, but because they have different customer bases and are located in different markets.


Poor people like those employed at Walmart, a company notorious for keeping hours to the minimum to prevent the need to pay for benefits and that has a department dedicated to assisting employees to get government assistance, is in no way culpable to creating the need for cheap goods and food? It is self perpetuating. Pay people less, they need cheaper food, which means you pay people less, ad infintium. The employees at Costco are able to afford to shop at stores like Costco which sells higher quality goods made by other higher paid workers,which allows other higher paid workers to shop at Costco. Also Ad infintium. Same coin, different side.
 
2013-07-30 11:55:39 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Honestly, it's like you are a character from an Upton Sinclair novel who came here in a time machine and haven't had a chance to read any 20th century history that refutes your laughably ridiculous Marxist fantasies. Very funny.


You're like some weird fellator of the capitalists, yet you will never ever be one. I find that extremely sad.
 
2013-07-30 11:55:45 AM  

FarkedOver: Saiga410: And workers united do? No we all trade money and work for the betterment of ourselves.

When workers control the means of production and run a workplace, factory or what have you via democratic centralism, yes that is infinitely better than capitalism and infinitely more beneficial to society as a whole.


I disagree.  It will benefit you at the expense of others.... so you are ultimately the caricature that you think capitalists are.
 
2013-07-30 11:57:05 AM  

FarkedOver: The capitalists REQUIRE labor.


Not really.  They can sit home and do nothing, or they can do the labor themselves, or they can hire others to do it.

FarkedOver: The replacement of the betterment of society is what should replace the profit motive


Nobody does anything simply for the betterment of society.  Even charitable work is done for personal motivations

FarkedOver: The intellectual input, the capital investments DO NOT make products.


Sometimes intellectual input is a product.  The company I work for produces nothing but intellectual input.

FarkedOver: The capitalist can buy all the goods necessary to create a product but thinking about it and throwing money at it isn't going to make the product come into being.


And a 'worker' can create a product, but all of their laboring will not magically allow a factory to be built or goods to be delivered or a legal contract to be negotiated for them.  Amazing how society functions.

HotWingConspiracy: Nah, I see where you stand.


So I assume you have no example.  Thanks.  As soon as you get a point, please make it
 
2013-07-30 11:57:45 AM  

Saiga410: At every level people are trading money/work. Everyone leaves the table with what they agree upon. If I can see an oportunity where I can come out with more money/work than I started with then I have used my intellect to multiply work.


That really doesn't address what I said. The shareholder intellect plays no part in multiplying the work in what they invest in. Their money, sure, but not their intellect. Again, I say they produce nothing, bear no responsibility, but feel themselves entitled to the lion's share of the returns, ever increasing, and indeed that's the system we have set up. I'm not even saying here that they deserve nothing, but as it is they contribute the least towards a company's success.
 
2013-07-30 11:57:53 AM  

Saiga410: I disagree. It will benefit you at the expense of others.... so you are ultimately the caricature that you think capitalists are.


Of course it will be at the expense of others.  The capitalists.  I have no problem with throwing the yoke around their necks, as they have done for the better part of human history under one guise or another.  It's time to let the true majority rule. The working class.
 
2013-07-30 11:58:17 AM  

FarkedOver: removal of the profit motive (greed, which is not human nature)


Aww, you are sooo cute.
 
2013-07-30 11:58:56 AM  

cybrwzrd: Poor people like those employed at Walmart, a company notorious for keeping hours to the minimum to prevent the need to pay for benefits and that has a department dedicated to assisting employees to get government assistance, is in no way culpable to creating the need for cheap goods and food? It is self perpetuating. Pay people less, they need cheaper food, which means you pay people less, ad infintium. The employees at Costco are able to afford to shop at stores like Costco which sells higher quality goods made by other higher paid workers,which allows other higher paid workers to shop at Costco. Also Ad infintium. Same coin, different side.


Do you think that a majority of the consumers of Costco and Walmart are the employees?  Your analysis doesn't make any sense.
 
2013-07-30 12:00:10 PM  

MugzyBrown: HotWingConspiracy: Nah, I see where you stand.

So I assume you have no example. Thanks. As soon as you get a point, please make it


The question is simple: Do you have a problem with corporation's artificial protections under the law and their illegal behavior to intimidate their competition or not?

An example isn't needed for you to answer this.

Or are you going to play it like corporations don't have artificial protections under the law and engage in illegal behavior to intimidate competition? You're free to pretend you're oblivious, but everyone can see the inherent dishonesty.
 
2013-07-30 12:01:38 PM  

MugzyBrown: Not really. They can sit home and do nothing, or they can do the labor themselves, or they can hire others to do it.


That would make them a terrible capitalist.  But since capitalism is basically fetishization of accumulation, they won't just sit on their laurels and not make money.

MugzyBrown: Nobody does anything simply for the betterment of society. Even charitable work is done for personal motivations


You're turning this into a human nature argument, and I don't agree with your premise one iota.

MugzyBrown: Sometimes intellectual input is a product. The company I work for produces nothing but intellectual input.


Can you give me an example.  Not being a dick, just curious.

MugzyBrown: And a 'worker' can create a product, but all of their laboring will not magically allow a factory to be built or goods to be delivered or a legal contract to be negotiated for them. Amazing how society functions.


I've already established that I have no qualms with workers seizing the factory and using it for their own purpose.  And what you are amazed at is how a capitalist society functions.
 
2013-07-30 12:02:14 PM  

Saiga410: FarkedOver: removal of the profit motive (greed, which is not human nature)

Aww, you are sooo cute.


OHHHH GREAT another human nature argument!? How cute ;)
 
2013-07-30 12:03:39 PM  

MugzyBrown: Nobody does anything simply for the betterment of society. Even charitable work is done for personal motivations


LOL

A thief thinks everyone steals. Don't assign your mindset to everyone.
 
2013-07-30 12:08:43 PM  

FarkedOver: Saiga410: FarkedOver: removal of the profit motive (greed, which is not human nature)

Aww, you are sooo cute.

OHHHH GREAT another human nature argument!? How cute ;)


For farks sake you were the one that brought that up... there is no facepalm great enough to exemplify my disapoint.
 
2013-07-30 12:09:26 PM  

Saiga410: For farks sake you were the one that brought that up... there is no facepalm great enough to exemplify my disapoint.


So, tell me why it is "sooo cute"?
 
2013-07-30 12:13:29 PM  
Calling for higher wages and the right to unionize, fast food workers took to the streets Monday in a series of rallies held throughout New York state. Calling for higher wages and the right to unionize
What's stopping them from forming a union? Surely it's not illegal. If so, that can't be constitutional.
 
2013-07-30 12:15:44 PM  

jigger: What's stopping them from forming a union? Surely it's not illegal. If so, that can't be constitutional.


Check out the NRLBs rules for forming a union.  It is next to farking impossible.  After card check the company will grind you down to nothing and put you under a microscope and fire you for any infraction.  They have I believe 3 months after card check before the next vote to actually form the union and by the point the main organizers have been drummed out and the employers have given small concessions like paid holidays or something but without having formed a union to collectively bargain on their behalf.

The NLRB rules are so lopsidedly pro-business, it is disgusting.
 
2013-07-30 12:20:36 PM  

FarkedOver: Check out the NRLBs rules for forming a union.


Those are rules for being certified by the NLRB. What's stopping these people from forming a union?

FarkedOver: After card check the company will grind you down to nothing and put you under a microscope and fire you for any infraction.


Who said anything about card check? Can't the workers get together after their shift and agree that they will only negotiate as a collective?
 
2013-07-30 12:22:42 PM  

jigger: Who said anything about card check? Can't the workers get together after their shift and agree that they will only negotiate as a collective?


Without union protection, that would be a gamble.

jigger: Those are rules for being certified by the NLRB. What's stopping these people from forming a union?


If you are not certified by the NLRB you're probably not going to have much luck in court or in the workplace.
 
2013-07-30 12:23:20 PM  

FarkedOver: Saiga410: For farks sake you were the one that brought that up... there is no facepalm great enough to exemplify my disapoint.

So, tell me why it is "sooo cute"?


That you went with the human nature argument and were so wrong.
 
2013-07-30 12:23:48 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.

Why is $15 ridiculous, especially in a major city with a high cost of life like NYC?  I do agree that more skilled professions should be paid even more.  Don't look at it as McDonalds employees asking to be overpaid, look at it as people finally starting to stand up to our current reality of record corporate profits and historically high wage inequality.  All non-executive employees should be demanding more pay.

As to the headline, McDonalds is welcome to charge $4 for a cheesburger, and they'll be pushed out of the market if they do.  It's time to take some of those huge profits and put them towards employee wages - the people at the top end take a little bit less of the pie and give the people who actually do the work their fare share.


It is ridiculous because they can find 1000s of people willing to work for $7.25 an hour.  They will find millions once Obama's immigration dreams come true. The Mcworker of today will be worth even less soon.

/Do any libs know how the free market works?
 
2013-07-30 12:24:18 PM  

jigger: Calling for higher wages and the right to unionize, fast food workers took to the streets Monday in a series of rallies held throughout New York state. Calling for higher wages and the right to unionize
What's stopping them from forming a union? Surely it's not illegal. If so, that can't be constitutional.


I won't name the company, but down in South FL the workers there wanted to unionize, so what the company did was bring down a bunch of corporate people to work at the plant and vote against the union.

This same company has plants world wide and a bunch of them are unionized, but they keep preventing it in Florida
 
2013-07-30 12:25:31 PM  

Saiga410: That you went with the human nature argument and were so wrong.


What would your argument be then?
 
2013-07-30 12:25:59 PM  

MBK: How about not paying their CEOs millions of dollars to...

What exactly DO CEOs do?

I mean for a company like McDonalds.  You are pretty much one of the most recognizable symbols in the world.  Your food is sold all over the place.  You introduce a new burger every year.

What the fark does a CEO do that requires millions of dollars?


Didn't you kind of answer your own question?
 
2013-07-30 12:26:11 PM  

KellyX: I won't name the company, but down in South FL the workers there wanted to unionize, so what the company did was bring down a bunch of corporate people to work at the plant and vote against the union.

This same company has plants world wide and a bunch of them are unionized, but they keep preventing it in Florida


The pitfalls of right to work legislation.
 
2013-07-30 12:26:18 PM  

FarkedOver: jigger: Who said anything about card check? Can't the workers get together after their shift and agree that they will only negotiate as a collective?

Without union protection, that would be a gamble.

jigger: Those are rules for being certified by the NLRB. What's stopping these people from forming a union?

If you are not certified by the NLRB you're probably not going to have much luck in court or in the workplace.


Ok, so unions are worthless. It's the force of government that you want to use.
 
2013-07-30 12:26:18 PM  
Um, how about a big fat NO, YOU GREEDY LYING SACKS

I realize that it's HuffPo, but they do link the study.

Wall Street and corporate execs need to learn to be OK with (even encourage), say, 5% growth per quarter in return for consistent, long-term profits, rather than 45% growth now and layoffs/bankruptcy next year.  That might allow for more than slave wages, hell, maybe even health care (what a novel concept!)  But why should they care when they've got their golden parachutes, and more than enough insider info to short-sell their stock?
 
2013-07-30 12:27:03 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Didn't you kind of answer your own question?


They show off burgers? I can do that! Where's my billion dollar salary!?
 
2013-07-30 12:29:09 PM  

jigger: Ok, so unions are worthless. It's the force of government that you want to use.


Unions as they exist today are worthless.  They have a cooperative spirit with management.  I agree.  But any union is better than no union.  As for the government, they pretty much rule on the side of business all the time.  I am a socialist and advocate socialist revolution and socialist government.  I mean dictatorship of the proletariat.  Then I would trust the government, when it is made up of workers and workers councils (aka Soviets....*gasp*)
 
2013-07-30 12:29:15 PM  
We should end this once and for all, We should have the government pay us a living wage whether we work or not. It's only fair
 
2013-07-30 12:30:14 PM  

Needlessly Complicated: ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.

Everyone should make a living wage. I also agree with you.

Occasionally I get e-mails about open positions from recruiters. I have a background in graphic design. I got one recently for a copy editor with experience using InDesign and it paid $12/hour. Another job was a graphic design job, required experience in graphic design and Adobe Creative suite. That one paid $14/hr. (Both of those are in the Dallas/Ft Worth area.) That's what I was paid at my entry-level job... about 12 years ago. What the hell happened to wages? (And living on those wages is do-able in Dallas but it would still be difficult. I can't imagine what it would be like to live on those wages in NYC.)


This.  I was offered a copy editor position that was supposedly at a director level.  My boss would be a VP and I would be responsible for not only editing the content, but assisting in determining the direction of the publication.  Starting pay: $10/hour.

A constant stream of illegals and H1 Visa puts downward pressure on wages.  When a cashier at McDonalds is only worth $7.25, then everyone (except CEOs) is worth less.  Adding 20-50,000,000 unskilled workers into the workstream will help nobody but the 1%.
 
2013-07-30 12:32:52 PM  

FarkedOver: Saiga410: That you went with the human nature argument and were so wrong.

What would your argument be then?


That greed is human nature.  Just spend a few days with a child and a few of the more said fraises are "I want" and "mine."  It is the basis of greed.  The fraises that we have to teach our kids are "sharring" and "playing nice".
 
2013-07-30 12:34:08 PM  

FarkedOver: Nemo's Brother: Didn't you kind of answer your own question?

They show off burgers? I can do that! Where's my billion dollar salary!?


I mean that they are all over the world.  I'm not saying CEOs are grossly overpaid most of the time, but if a CEO can help a company grow to a multi-billion dollar company, they deserve to be paid a lot.
 
2013-07-30 12:35:45 PM  

Saiga410: FarkedOver: Saiga410: That you went with the human nature argument and were so wrong.

What would your argument be then?

That greed is human nature.  Just spend a few days with a child and a few of the more said fraises are "I want" and "mine."  It is the basis of greed.  The fraises that we have to teach our kids are "sharring" and "playing nice".


That's a really insightful argument you have there.  But I disagree. My argument would be that human nature is the ability to adapt to changing social circumstances..... I know very crazy.

Just because a human being has the capacity for greed does not make it part of "nature". 
We are just as capable of compassion and charity as we are greed.  So fark your greed is human nature. It is learned behavior propagated by capitalism.
 
2013-07-30 12:36:03 PM  

FarkedOver: But any union is better than no union.


Apparently not.

FarkedOver: Unions as they exist today are worthless.


But the union that these workers would form doesn't exist. There all right there yelling with signs. What's stopping them from stopping all the yelling, turning to each other, and agreeing that they are all in a union now? Let's go to the park and figure out what our collective demands are.

FarkedOver: As for the government, they pretty much rule on the side of business all the time.


Probably because the usual case is a case of property rights. I would hope that the government is enforcing property rights, don't you? I mean, you don't magically own a workplace because you got hired to work there that day.
 
2013-07-30 12:36:29 PM  

Nemo's Brother: I mean that they are all over the world. I'm not saying CEOs are grossly overpaid most of the time, but if a CEO can help a company grow to a multi-billion dollar company, they deserve to be paid a lot, at the expense of their workers.


There. I fixed that for you.
 
2013-07-30 12:38:21 PM  

jigger: Probably because the usual case is a case of property rights. I would hope that the government is enforcing property rights, don't you? I mean, you don't magically own a workplace because you got hired to work there that day.


Which is why I am for the abolishing private property.

/I guarantee you have no clue as to what i mean by that.
 
2013-07-30 12:39:47 PM  

FarkedOver: jigger: Probably because the usual case is a case of property rights. I would hope that the government is enforcing property rights, don't you? I mean, you don't magically own a workplace because you got hired to work there that day.

Which is why I am for the abolishing private property.

/I guarantee you have no clue as to what i mean by that.


It means you favor poverty for all. 

And are you going to make some arbitrary distinction between "personal property" and private property?
 
2013-07-30 12:39:49 PM  

Saiga410: fraise


Phrase.  Not trying to argue, but it's phrase.
 
2013-07-30 12:42:15 PM  

jigger: And are you going to make some arbitrary distinction between "personal property" and private property?


No.  I mean private property in the sense of property that has been used to oppress the working class, i.e. factories and other business establishments.

I like that you came in here "concerned" with questions about unions, when all you really wanted to do was shiat on them.  Don't come in here asking questions.  Come in here and defend your pro-business point of view instead of shrouding it in concern.
 
2013-07-30 12:42:24 PM  

gnosis301: Saiga410: fraise

Phrase.  Not trying to argue, but it's phrase.


Thank you. it looked wrong but went with it.
 
2013-07-30 12:42:51 PM  

Saiga410: gnosis301: Saiga410: fraise

Phrase.  Not trying to argue, but it's phrase.

Thank you. it looked wrong but went with it.


It's not a spelling contest, who cares :)
 
2013-07-30 12:44:13 PM  

MugzyBrown: cybrwzrd: Poor people like those employed at Walmart, a company notorious for keeping hours to the minimum to prevent the need to pay for benefits and that has a department dedicated to assisting employees to get government assistance, is in no way culpable to creating the need for cheap goods and food? It is self perpetuating. Pay people less, they need cheaper food, which means you pay people less, ad infintium. The employees at Costco are able to afford to shop at stores like Costco which sells higher quality goods made by other higher paid workers,which allows other higher paid workers to shop at Costco. Also Ad infintium. Same coin, different side.

Do you think that a majority of the consumers of Costco and Walmart are the employees?  Your analysis doesn't make any sense.


That's not the point. Obviously you can't see the bigger picture. If you can't understand the depth of a supply chain and how differing cost pressures impact the system there is no point in trying to explain macroeconomics.
 
2013-07-30 12:46:09 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: The question is simple: Do you have a problem with corporation's artificial protections under the law and their illegal behavior to intimidate their competition or not?

An example isn't needed for you to answer this.

Or are you going to play it like corporations don't have artificial protections under the law and engage in illegal behavior to intimidate competition? You're free to pretend you're oblivious, but everyone can see the inherent dishonesty.


I would be against any artificial protections for businesses too.  I just asked for an example of such things, like I provided for labor unions.
 
2013-07-30 12:48:31 PM  
MugzyBrown:

BTW this is funny shiat!

img.fark.net

/would lol again
 
2013-07-30 12:52:51 PM  

FarkedOver: Can you give me an example.  Not being a dick, just curious.


Well a lawyer produces no product.  He provides nothing but intellectual capital.

FarkedOver: I've already established that I have no qualms with workers seizing the factory and using it for their own purpose


So what if the evil capitalist simply burns down his factory.  So now what the workers do?  Your whole premise is that marxism works because even though 'the workers' don't have the capability of producing anything themselves, they can steal other people's property?  What labor would they have to sell if there never was a factory to begin with?

cybrwzrd: That's not the point. Obviously you can't see the bigger picture. If you can't understand the depth of a supply chain and how differing cost pressures impact the system there is no point in trying to explain macroeconomics.


You're trying to compare Walmart and Costco as if they are the same when they are very different companies.  It's like criticizing Mcdonalds for not paying their workers like those at Le Bernardin. They both sell prepared food, right?
 
2013-07-30 12:53:57 PM  

untaken_name: TuteTibiImperes: Why is $15 ridiculous, especially in a major city with a high cost of life like NYC?

Because the money to pay the workers has to come from somewhere, and that's going to be the customers. When prices rise higher than people want to pay, people will stop buying fast food and then all those fast-food workers will get $0/hr. Will that make their situation better? Also, raising the minimum wage has traditionally resulted in increased prices of basic goods and services, leading to minimum-wage workers being hardest-hit, as they must use the largest percentage of their pay of any class of worker for those basic goods and services. In other words, when your food budget is 5% of your total budget, a price increase of 20% is not terribly damaging. However, when your food budget is 20% of your total budget, it's a much bigger hit. This leads to minimum-wage workers actually being negatively impacted by rises in the minimum wage. It isn't the CEOs who will be harmed by price increases. They can withstand them easily. It will be the very workers who pushed for increasing the minimum wage in the first place that will be harmed the most by it. That's one of the little ironies of life.


Hit second hardest is the middle class. They will not get a raise increase to coincide with the minimum wage increase.  All of a sudden your $60,000/year salary is worth $45,000
 
2013-07-30 12:57:48 PM  

MugzyBrown: Well a lawyer produces no product. He provides nothing but intellectual capital.


I think Bill Shakespeare had something to say about these gas bags.

MugzyBrown: So what if the evil capitalist simply burns down his factory. So now what the workers do? Your whole premise is that marxism works because even though 'the workers' don't have the capability of producing anything themselves, they can steal other people's property? What labor would they have to sell if there never was a factory to begin with?


That is why the workers should be armed to protect the gains of the revolution and defend themselves from the inevitable capitalist backlash.

The workers have the capability to produce but do not have the capital to do so.  The reason being is that they have been exploited from ever having the chance to own capital.  See my Engels quote above somewhere in this thread.

I don't call it stealing when workers have been in bondage because of the wage slave system.

Labor would produce what is needed.


/sorry if i missed anything
 
2013-07-30 12:58:38 PM  

Nemo's Brother: TuteTibiImperes: ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.

Why is $15 ridiculous, especially in a major city with a high cost of life like NYC?  I do agree that more skilled professions should be paid even more.  Don't look at it as McDonalds employees asking to be overpaid, look at it as people finally starting to stand up to our current reality of record corporate profits and historically high wage inequality.  All non-executive employees should be demanding more pay.

As to the headline, McDonalds is welcome to charge $4 for a cheesburger, and they'll be pushed out of the market if they do.  It's time to take some of those huge profits and put them towards employee wages - the people at the top end take a little bit less of the pie and give the people who actually do the work their fare share.

It is ridiculous because they can find 1000s of people willing to work for $7.25 an hour.  They will find millions once Obama's immigration dreams come true. The Mcworker of today will be worth even less soon.

/Do any libs know how the free market works?


Of course not. Welcome to fark.
 
2013-07-30 01:00:38 PM  

FarkedOver: Saiga410: FarkedOver: Saiga410: That you went with the human nature argument and were so wrong.

What would your argument be then?

That greed is human nature.  Just spend a few days with a child and a few of the more said fraises are "I want" and "mine."  It is the basis of greed.  The fraises that we have to teach our kids are "sharring" and "playing nice".

That's a really insightful argument you have there.  But I disagree. My argument would be that human nature is the ability to adapt to changing social circumstances..... I know very crazy.

Just because a human being has the capacity for greed does not make it part of "nature". 
We are just as capable of compassion and charity as we are greed.  So fark your greed is human nature. It is learned behavior propagated by capitalism.


I would say that both are part of our nature, greed and compassion.  Greed has a more natural tendenacy as shown by it being shown earlier in human early development.  Greed is shown before we are able to even talk, how is it a learned behavior?  Hell even your compassionate self agreed earlier that you are acting in greed with your desire to eat the wealthy.
 
2013-07-30 01:05:55 PM  

FarkedOver: Debeo Summa Credo: Which is why it worked perfectly in the USSR, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, etc etc. Marxist economic platforms thrive whenever they've been tried.

The issue here is that socialist revolutions were attempted in nations that were not ready for such revolutions, as they had no bourgeois revolution prior.  They had no capitalist class with which to seize the capital from.

Had Germany, the UK, France or the US had socialist revolutions during the early part of the 1900s, we might all be comrades right now! Germany came the closest, I would say but the rise of fascism (which is a capitalist reaction to socialist movements) quelled that revolution.


First off, you are farking nuts if you don't think there was a capitalist class in Russia before the revolution. Private property, including farms and factories, were seized by the Bolsheviks. Some of those might have been owned by nobles or whatever, but they were still used in profit making capitalist ventures.

But if your pathetic excuse was true, you would be admitting fully that a Marxist society needs to seize capital from a preceding capitalist society to succeed - ie Marxist societies can't develop and thrive on their own because under marxism, no new capital assets are created.
 
2013-07-30 01:07:18 PM  

FarkedOver: jigger: And are you going to make some arbitrary distinction between "personal property" and private property?

No.  I mean private property in the sense of property that has been used to oppress the working class, i.e. factories and other business establishments.

I like that you came in here "concerned" with questions about unions, when all you really wanted to do was shiat on them.  Don't come in here asking questions.  Come in here and defend your pro-business point of view instead of shrouding it in concern.


I was initially intrigued by the subheadline that said the workers were calling for a "right to unionize." They have a right to unionize. No one is stopping them.

I'm not being "pro-business" or "anti-union." I'm just describing the reality of the situation.

So property is only private property when it's being used, in your eyes, to "oppress the working class." Except that if private property didn't exist that factory (or whatever) wouldn't even exist and your workers wouldn't have that job. At least they wouldn't be oppressed, right?
 
2013-07-30 01:09:04 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: a Marxist society needs to seize capital from a preceding capitalist society to succeed


Isn't that what Marx said? Capitalism is a natural progression followed by communism then socialism. To him, it's inevitable.
 
2013-07-30 01:09:33 PM  

MugzyBrown: You're trying to compare Walmart and Costco as if they are the same when they are very different companies. It's like criticizing Mcdonalds for not paying their workers like those at Le Bernardin. They both sell prepared food, right?


Sams and Costco share a very similar market. Sams is part of the Walmart corporation.

Also I would like to see a wage study on dishwashers and line cooks at Le Bernardin. Most restaurants do pay their low skill employees a low wage.
 
2013-07-30 01:20:48 PM  

jigger: Debeo Summa Credo: a Marxist society needs to seize capital from a preceding capitalist society to succeed

Isn't that what Marx said? Capitalism is a natural progression followed by communism then socialism. To him, it's inevitable.


No.  It goes socialism then communism.  Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat.  Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society.
 
2013-07-30 01:20:54 PM  
because Wages are such a huge cost to food retailers?  A few years back McDonald's DOUBLED the average wage of the migrant farm workers who picked their tomatoes.  How? By increasing the price they paid for tomatores by ONE PENNY per pound on the condition it be passed on to the workers. given you get ten slices out of 1/2  lb tomato that works out to 1/20 of a cent per burger that comes with tomato (of which the cheapest one is the $1.99 McDouble)
 
2013-07-30 01:24:47 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: First off, you are farking nuts if you don't think there was a capitalist class in Russia before the revolution. Private property, including farms and factories, were seized by the Bolsheviks. Some of those might have been owned by nobles or whatever, but they were still used in profit making capitalist ventures.

But if your pathetic excuse was true, you would be admitting fully that a Marxist society needs to seize capital from a preceding capitalist society to succeed - ie Marxist societies can't develop and thrive on their own because under marxism, no new capital assets are created.


I think it was more feudal than it was capitalist.  There really wasn't a lot of industrialism in Russia at the time.  I'm not saying there wasn't a capitalist element, I'm saying there had not been enough industrialization in Russia at that time to warrant a socialist revolution.  It was like forcing a square peg in a round hole.

That is what I am saying.  The period after capitalism is socialism then followed by communism.  Marx understood the necessity of capitalism he also understood that it one day would end.  What would replace it? Dictatorship of the proletariat in the eyes of Marx.  Marx was in awe of capitalist production, he just was a scholar on what capitalism is and what it does.
 
2013-07-30 01:47:52 PM  
Jesus. I leave for 8 hours, and this thread is just Randroids arguing with Communists. WTF?
 
2013-07-30 01:56:51 PM  

TopoGigo: Jesus. I leave for 8 hours, and this thread is just Randroids arguing with Communists. WTF?


More like communist.  Not many people are sympathetic to leftist causes in North America.
 
2013-07-30 02:11:05 PM  
TopoGigo
Jesus. I leave for 8 hours, and this thread is just Randroids.....

Oh hell, THAT'S what they are? Randroids??? No WONDER they come across as robots!
 
2013-07-30 02:16:57 PM  

TopoGigo: Jesus. I leave for 8 hours, and this thread is just Randroids arguing with Communists. WTF?


What is ironic about it is that Randroids (Anarcho-Capitalists) and Anarcho-Communists are each about 2 clicks further down each extreme from flopping over to the other side.
 
2013-07-30 02:29:01 PM  
You know , if your only skills means you have to work at McD's maybe you shouldn't have had the four kids.
 
2013-07-30 02:30:25 PM  

CujoQuarrel: You know , if your only skills means you have to work at McD's maybe you shouldn't have had the four kids.


As others have said greed is human nature, which is why capitalism works...... is it not true that propagation of the human species is human nature as well? We cannot fault her for her human nature.
 
2013-07-30 03:11:26 PM  

SCUBA_Archer: /NO mustard


Fun fact: McDonald's (and other fast food places) in the NYC metro area do not put mustard on their burgers.
 
2013-07-30 04:02:30 PM  
Related: NY legislature voted to increase minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.00 per hour.

This was signed into law 4 months ago.

The fact that the strikers didn't know this ought to tell you something.
 
2013-07-30 04:21:06 PM  

OwnTheRide: Related: NY legislature voted to increase minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.00 per hour.

This was signed into law 4 months ago.

The fact that the strikers didn't know this ought to tell you something.


Yeah, 9 dollars by 2015! Great job NY!

The budget raised the minimum wage from $7.25/hour to $9/hour over three years, beginning with $8 by the end of 2013, $8.75 by the end of 2014, and $9 by the end of 2015, the governor said.
 
2013-07-30 04:55:27 PM  

pueblonative: Yeah the old sarcastic "well if giving the cat water is so good for it let's just drown the farker" response.


OK, so draw the line for me.  If raising it from 7.50 to 10 is good, why not 15?  Where should the minimum wage be and what will the end result be once its there?  I have a feeling you, like most people dont know but raising it "A little bit" seems like a good answer so you roll with it.

FarkedOver: This statement here is so farked up, I just don't even know.....


It isn't farked up.  You just dont understand what money is.  The whole reason why man invented currency is to give durability to things that are perishable.  A farmer will find it tough to barter because at a certain point his crop will spoil if he cant find the right person to barter with so he exchanges a unit of his labor so that the egg or potato that he farmed can be traded for something which someone else would value but not necessarily in that instant.

You and I are both perishable and so we convert our labor and time, which our employer values into money, hoping one day to pass it on so that the fruits of our work can go on even when we are worm food.

FarkedOver: No.  It goes socialism then communism.  Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Actually, it goes Aristocracy, revoution, aristocracy by those who call themselves socialists and pretty much ends right there.
 
2013-07-30 05:23:21 PM  

cybrwzrd: MugzyBrown:  There are many factors that make this point moot.  First, Costco still isn't paying their labor more than the value they bring to the company.   Second, Costco and Walmart have different customer bases.  Poor people are dependent on the cheap goods and food found at Walmart and cannot afford to shop at Costco (are there any Costcos in poor neighborhoods?)  It's weird I search for Costco around me and they are all in the suburbs, but Walmarts can be found in some rough neighborhoods in North Philly.
Costco receives 3xs more revenue per employee than Walmart.  Not because they pay them more, but because they have different customer bases and are located in different markets.

Poor people like those employed at Walmart, a company notorious for keeping hours to the minimum to prevent the need to pay for benefits and that has a department dedicated to assisting employees to get government assistance, is in no way culpable to creating the need for cheap goods and food? It is self perpetuating. Pay people less, they need cheaper food, which means you pay people less, ad infintium. The employees at Costco are able to afford to shop at stores like Costco which sells higher quality goods made by other higher paid workers,which allows other higher paid workers to shop at Costco. Also Ad infintium. Same coin, different side.


As a Costco employee, i get a kick out of these threads.
 
2013-07-30 07:27:08 PM  

Great Janitor: Want a job paying $15/hour? Apply for jobs paying $15/hour. Getting hired at McDonald's, getting told "We're going to pay you $7.25/hour." and you say "Okay." does not allow you to biatch and moan that you're not making enough money.

Well, the first thing I do is not take a job that I can't afford.  If your monthly expenses are more than $1,500, you can't afford to work at McDonalds.


Not take a job you can't afford?  Do you have a trust fund or something?  Speaking as someone who started out as a $3.35/hour minimum-wage McDonalds employee at age 15, if your monthly expenses are more than $0, you'd best be taking on whatever job(s) you can to pay for them.

$1,500/month sounds about right for my mortgage, home equity loan and credit card payments, combined.I'm guessing that's not far from the US average - and it's far below average in my state, where the average monthly mortgage payment alone is $3,000+.  But then there's the wife (who hasn't yet found work since she moved here 2.5 years ago) and the toddler, and the bun-in-the-oven...

My full-time hourly job, which pays a bit under $22/hour, or a tiny bit above the national average, isn't  quite enough to really make ends meet.  So I have a part-time hourly one (which will mostly dry up come December and go away completely sometime next year), and another occasional one.  All of them pay pretty much around the same.  I try to keep my schedule full, so 50-60 hour weeks are common.  And I'm looking for new opportunities.  Always.  The occasional job recently let me try my hand at a different position where I can put in 4-6 hours on a weekend and get $37/hour.  That was a big deal, since I can now demonstrate that someone out there thinks one of my skills is worth that much.  Don't know when I'll get to do that again, though.
 
2013-07-30 08:59:18 PM  

dbirchall: But then there's the wife (who hasn't yet found work since she moved here 2.5 years ago) and the toddler, and the bun-in-the-oven...


I can see expecting the wife and toddler to find jobs, but at least let the new one be born before shoving him/her out the door to get an interview.
 
2013-07-30 09:12:28 PM  

FarkedOver: Under worker control or under a dictatorship of the proletariat, removal of the profit motive (greed, which is not human nature) is key. The replacement of the betterment of society is what should replace the profit motive.


[Citation needed]
 
2013-07-30 09:51:49 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: FarkedOver: Under worker control or under a dictatorship of the proletariat, removal of the profit motive (greed, which is not human nature) is key. The replacement of the betterment of society is what should replace the profit motive.

[Citation needed]


Show me the citation that it is.  And if you've bothered to read anything else I've written regarding that, I already stated what human nature is.  Check it.
 
2013-07-30 10:20:08 PM  

FarkedOver: Mr. Eugenides: FarkedOver: Under worker control or under a dictatorship of the proletariat, removal of the profit motive (greed, which is not human nature) is key. The replacement of the betterment of society is what should replace the profit motive.

[Citation needed]

Show me the citation that it is.  And if you've bothered to read anything else I've written regarding that, I already stated what human nature is.  Check it.


Cite anything published in an academic journal that argues that greed isn't human nature.  Based on your response I'm pretty sure you can't.

Greed, by necessity exists in any system where demand is greater than supply.  Trees compete for sunlight.  Dogs and toddlers compete for toys.  Hummingbirds fight over flowers.

Building an economic system that ignores that reality is to court failure.  But somehow every year new college freshmen discover Marx and his failed ideology.
 
2013-07-30 10:26:59 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Cite anything published in an academic journal that argues that greed isn't human nature. Based on your response I'm pretty sure you can't.

Greed, by necessity exists in any system where demand is greater than supply. Trees compete for sunlight. Dogs and toddlers compete for toys. Hummingbirds fight over flowers.

Building an economic system that ignores that reality is to court failure. But somehow every year new college freshmen discover Marx and his failed ideology.


Human nature is the ability of humans to adapt to different social circumstances.

You believe that because a human is capable of greed you take that to mean greed is human nature.

I quite think my definition is bit clearer and yours just fits your shiatty free market narrative.
 
2013-07-31 01:13:54 AM  

ThatDarkFellow: LoneWolf343: ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.

What is ridiculous is that companies pay people low wages to do crap jobs. In a reasonable, logical world, people should be offered more to do jobs nobody wants to do to compensate them for the trouble. This is how broken and topsy-turvy our world is.

I don't think McDonalds would qualify under jobs nobody wants to do when compared to the really terrible, physically demanding jobs no one wants to do


Spoken as someone who has never worked a fast food job before.
 
2013-07-31 02:34:39 AM  

LoneWolf343: ThatDarkFellow: LoneWolf343: ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.

What is ridiculous is that companies pay people low wages to do crap jobs. In a reasonable, logical world, people should be offered more to do jobs nobody wants to do to compensate them for the trouble. This is how broken and topsy-turvy our world is.

I don't think McDonalds would qualify under jobs nobody wants to do when compared to the really terrible, physically demanding jobs no one wants to do

Spoken as someone who has never worked a fast food job before.


That's spoken as someone who spent 10 years in retail. I've paid my dues, twat. If you don't think there aren't any jobs that are worse than McDonalds you are delusional.
 
2013-07-31 03:57:55 AM  

ThatDarkFellow: LoneWolf343: ThatDarkFellow: LoneWolf343: ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.

What is ridiculous is that companies pay people low wages to do crap jobs. In a reasonable, logical world, people should be offered more to do jobs nobody wants to do to compensate them for the trouble. This is how broken and topsy-turvy our world is.

I don't think McDonalds would qualify under jobs nobody wants to do when compared to the really terrible, physically demanding jobs no one wants to do

Spoken as someone who has never worked a fast food job before.

That's spoken as someone who spent 10 years in retail. I've paid my dues, twat. If you don't think there aren't any jobs that are worse than McDonalds you are delusional.


Define "worse". There are plenty of jobs that are more physically demanding than McDonald's. There are plenty where you work in the blazing sun or the driving snow. Many of those jobs pay minimum wage. There are few jobs that combine poor--not awful, but poor--working conditions with low, low pay, customer abuse, purposely exploitative scheduling, uncertain pay from week to week, and the certain knowledge that you're merely a cog in a machine to be replaced if you make the slightest disturbance in the force. Hell, at least Walmart workers come home clean and well hydrated.

If you really want to know what a crap job McDonald's is, try working at a library. You take no sh*t from customers or management. You work in a climate controlled environment. Your tasks are simple, if menial. You're not responsible for cash. You don't have to separate your work clothes while doing laundry so your entire wardrobe doesn't smell like french fries. You don't have to wash your face with Dawn soap once a week to prevent explosive acne. You don't have to shower right when you get home so your spouse might want to have sex with you. You don't have all your sheets stained with grease on your side of the bed despite showering after work. You don't wake up in the middle of the night hearing the drive-thru ding, or the fryer timers beeping in your head. You don't get called in to work three hours after you get home. You never have to work until 1am and be back at 5am. Your boss will never f*ck with your schedule from week to week just to make sure that you don't develop a life outside of work so you're always available to come in at a moment's notice.

Then think about the fact that your cushy little library job pays the same as McDonald's.
 
2013-07-31 04:51:25 AM  
I work in a restaurant in Canada, at what I consider a high level for their requested wage, plus 1$/hour in tips.

Servers make double that, but we'll just leave that alone because my income is subsidized by my long term partner's server's earnings.

The point is everyone in back of house is paycheck to paycheck except for those with spouses who have real jobs not suited for our skillsets. This has little to do with intellectual ability where I work, perhaps bootstrappiness. But the fact that childless professionals who work a high stress job required by society have a hard time paying rent sometimes without assistance is a symptom of a sick society. Discussing wealth inequality is not class warfare, neither is doubling minimum wage a simple process. There would be severe problems.

But working within reasonable terms, change is a moral obligation. The sociopathy of capitalists, becoming brazen in a way that confuses me while leaving me in awe is counterproductive and is pushing left-leaning people like myself towards communist discussions.

Would it surprise anyone to know that over the last few years political discussion has become far more prevalent in kitchens, with a common theme? I'm sure it's happening in all the lower middle class industries becoming more and more exploited.

A meritocracy is not a good idea, and anyone who believes in bootstraps is either an an exploiter or exploitee in denial. Paying people a living wage denies you the smug superior feeling of punishing them for not being as awesome as you. After all, being born on second counts as a double.

But perhaps someone not being poor in the richest set of nations on earth doesn't take away from your accomplishments. Walk a mile in their shoes you farking self-righteous assholes.
 
2013-07-31 04:59:34 AM  

TopoGigo: ThatDarkFellow: LoneWolf343: ThatDarkFellow: LoneWolf343: ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.

What is ridiculous is that companies pay people low wages to do crap jobs. In a reasonable, logical world, people should be offered more to do jobs nobody wants to do to compensate them for the trouble. This is how broken and topsy-turvy our world is.

I don't think McDonalds would qualify under jobs nobody wants to do when compared to the really terrible, physically demanding jobs no one wants to do

Spoken as someone who has never worked a fast food job before.

That's spoken as someone who spent 10 years in retail. I've paid my dues, twat. If you don't think there aren't any jobs that are worse than McDonalds you are delusional.

Define "worse". There are plenty of jobs that are more physically demanding than McDonald's. There are plenty where you work in the blazing sun or the driving snow. Many of those jobs pay minimum wage. There are few jobs that combine poor--not awful, but poor--working conditions with low, low pay, customer abuse, purposely exploitative scheduling, uncertain pay from week to week, and the certain knowledge that you're merely a cog in a machine to be replaced if you make the slightest disturbance in the force. Hell, at least Walmart workers come home clean and well hydrated.

If you really want to know what a crap job McDonald's is, try working at a library. You take no sh*t from customers or management. You work in a climate controlled environment. Your tasks are simple, if menial. You're not responsible for cash. You don't have to separate your work clothes while doing laundry so your entire wardrobe doesn't smell like french fries. You don't have to wash your face with Dawn soap once a week to prevent explosive acne. You don't have to shower right when you get home so your spouse might want to have ...


So you're going with the Chewbacca defense? I'm not even sure what you are trying to tell me. What does another job that pays the same as McDonalds that isn't awful have to do with me saying there are jobs that are worse?
 
2013-07-31 05:18:29 AM  
Actually,  do non-first-job jobs, places other than McDonald's, actually pay minimum wage any more?  I did McDonald's, starting at minimum wage, for a summer when I was in high school.  From the next summer on, I've had a lot of jobs, some salaried but many hourly, and I don't recall any of them paying minimum.  I guess I always figuredhaving work experiencemeant you got at least a little bit more than minimum.  Plant nursery laborer building greenhouses?  Student worker shelving books in libraries?  Second- or third-shift computer stuff?  Temp doing data entry?  Temp packing electronics for shipment?  Temp making little blocks out of big blocks in a cheese factory?  Temp running a telescope?  As far as I can remember, they all paid more than minimum, and less than double it.

Even  stayingat McDonald's, I have to wonder how someone goes a decade without earning  any raises. There's not a whole lot of room between "so bad you don't get a single raise in ten years" and "so bad they fire your ass."
 
2013-07-31 05:42:47 AM  
Oh, and as I complain and we all argue about what people 'deserve':

meanwhileinethiopia.jpg
 
2013-07-31 05:47:10 AM  
fark Ethiopia
 
2013-07-31 05:57:04 AM  
I can't imagine you as someone interesting to talk about things with. Feel free to refrain from referencing me or my posts.
 
2013-07-31 06:03:08 AM  

inclemency: I can't imagine you as someone interesting to talk about things with. Feel free to refrain from referencing me or my posts.


Oh no. I'm now devastated.
 
2013-07-31 06:16:47 AM  

ThatDarkFellow: inclemency: I can't imagine you as someone interesting to talk about things with. Feel free to refrain from referencing me or my posts.

Oh no. I'm now devastated.


I certainly hope not. Mutually non-beneficial relationships are best culled.

So when I remember that after my tirade on how terrible things are for Mcdonalds' employees and others I intended to try to add perspective by pointing out that the working class in Western countries have it bad only in comparison to the elite while billions worldwide would enjoy the circumstances we reside in, but forgot, and try to rectify that quickly and that prompts an (likely drunken) insensitive response.... Well there's
not much to discuss. Take care Fellow of Darkness.
 
2013-07-31 07:18:48 AM  
McDonald's workers around "here" aren't worth $2 an hour. You have to repeat your order 2-3 times, whether in the drive through or at the counter. Then there is a 50% chance your order will be wrong. It is nice when you get a double order of something, for single price.
 
2013-07-31 09:05:41 AM  

Pick: McDonald's workers around "here" aren't worth $2 an hour. You have to repeat your order 2-3 times, whether in the drive through or at the counter. Then there is a 50% chance your order will be wrong. It is nice when you get a double order of something, for single price.


Maybe if wages were higher they would attract better quality employees, and you wouldn't have to repeat your order 2-3 times.
 
2013-07-31 09:34:05 AM  

CokeBear: Pick: McDonald's workers around "here" aren't worth $2 an hour. You have to repeat your order 2-3 times, whether in the drive through or at the counter. Then there is a 50% chance your order will be wrong. It is nice when you get a double order of something, for single price.

Maybe if wages were higher they would attract better quality employees, and you wouldn't have to repeat your order 2-3 times.


If I was getting paid minimum wage I would take that to mean you get my minimum effort.  Pay all workers a living wage and you will see a major uptick in productivity.
 
2013-07-31 09:35:02 AM  

CokeBear: Pick: McDonald's workers around "here" aren't worth $2 an hour. You have to repeat your order 2-3 times, whether in the drive through or at the counter. Then there is a 50% chance your order will be wrong. It is nice when you get a double order of something, for single price.

Maybe if wages were higher they would attract better quality employees, and you wouldn't have to repeat your order 2-3 times.


Of that I'd probably agree, I tend to find that most people that work there (at least the younger ones, but this might be true of the age bracket in general) tend to not give a shiat about their work, they're just there like it's required to be there for X hours and then leave.  They go through the motions, but ultimately don't care...

Also I tend to notice that instead of having a team of people each focusing on certain tasks, they under hire and expect the window person taking the orders to do every day thing... it's no surprise errors happen all the time or they don't hear what you want.
 
2013-07-31 09:56:14 AM  

LoneWolf343: ThatDarkFellow: LoneWolf343: ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.

What is ridiculous is that companies pay people low wages to do crap jobs. In a reasonable, logical world, people should be offered more to do jobs nobody wants to do to compensate them for the trouble. This is how broken and topsy-turvy our world is.

I don't think McDonalds would qualify under jobs nobody wants to do when compared to the really terrible, physically demanding jobs no one wants to do

Spoken as someone who has never worked a fast food job before.


Yeh, Um ... I've worked at McDs, and it's actually very very very light work - there is little phyiscal stress, long hours maybe, but it's easier than any kind of factory work, way easier than any outdoors work (yes, I worked the Grill) ...

And, Apparently, It pays better than a highly technical job like ... advanced welding...
 
2013-07-31 09:59:32 AM  

KellyX: CokeBear: Pick: McDonald's workers around "here" aren't worth $2 an hour. You have to repeat your order 2-3 times, whether in the drive through or at the counter. Then there is a 50% chance your order will be wrong. It is nice when you get a double order of something, for single price.

Maybe if wages were higher they would attract better quality employees, and you wouldn't have to repeat your order 2-3 times.

Of that I'd probably agree, I tend to find that most people that work there (at least the younger ones, but this might be true of the age bracket in general) tend to not give a shiat about their work, they're just there like it's required to be there for X hours and then leave.  They go through the motions, but ultimately don't care...

Also I tend to notice that instead of having a team of people each focusing on certain tasks, they under hire and expect the window person taking the orders to do every day thing... it's no surprise errors happen all the time or they don't hear what you want.


First off I think quality matters even in fast food. I prefer Wendy's because the quality of the food is better, somehow as well as the quality of the service. I once got a free frosty simply because the wait time between my order was longer than usual. Meanwhile the last McDonald's I went to had one worker doing everything, and quality of the food was worse than Wendy's and in general the place looked less clean.

Secondly I think you get what you pay for. Good workers aren't going to stay around forever with some exceptions. Older workers tend to be the exception, because younger workers seem to have realized that its bullshiat to work harder than you need to or for much longer than you need to at a crap job. Meanwhile the good workers move on to something better, leaving the crappy ones behind.

In general, my generation the Millennial is less loyal and more likely to move on to something better. Then again, why should we be loyal to companies that think employees are just another expense that can be cut to increase stock prices?

Anyway, I guess my point is if you want good customer service you have to pay for it, or the company has to pay for it, otherwise you're going to get shiat. Especially when you have so many people writing off these people to begin with. So where is the incentive for them to not be shiatty employees eh?
 
kab
2013-07-31 10:01:12 AM  

cybrwzrd: With a consumer economy like what we have, we need consumers. If you undervalue your labor you shrink the pool of consumers, which creates the tailspi

n

Exactly right.   Wage disparity is quite damaging for the long term health of any economy.
 
kab
2013-07-31 10:03:45 AM  
*high* wage disparity, I mean.

/coffee
 
2013-07-31 10:08:09 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: ThatDarkFellow: 7.25 is too low, yes. 15 is ridiculous, though. There are people who work jobs that require an actual skill or education that can't even find work for 15/hr right now.

Why is $15 ridiculous, especially in a major city with a high cost of life like NYC?  I do agree that more skilled professions should be paid even more.  Don't look at it as McDonalds employees asking to be overpaid, look at it as people finally starting to stand up to our current reality of record corporate profits and historically high wage inequality.  All non-executive employees should be demanding more pay.

As to the headline, McDonalds is welcome to charge $4 for a cheesburger, and they'll be pushed out of the market if they do.  It's time to take some of those huge profits and put them towards employee wages - the people at the top end take a little bit less of the pie and give the people who actually do the work their fare share.


And then those $15/hr employees will be out of jobs and you see this as a good thing?
 
2013-07-31 10:11:56 AM  
I love how so many people think they should get to weigh in on how much the person ringing up your order should get paid. I have no doubt that during a lunch rush in NYC, Being a burger flipper is more skilled and desired than being a Banker or Marketeer or Lawyer. Being able to serve up fifty burgers a minute is not an easy thing to do, and being paid a fraction of the several hundred dollars you provide as income is not unreasonable.

/also : Have you seen the rents in NY?
 
2013-07-31 10:12:31 AM  
Finally : You know that the AVERAGE wage in NYC is $150,000, right?
 
2013-07-31 10:22:22 AM  

rubi_con_man: Finally : You know that the AVERAGE wage in NYC is $150,000, right?


After rent and the basic cost of living, that's probably just scraping by.  It isn't much better here in Boston.
 
2013-07-31 12:39:30 PM  

MBK: How about not paying their CEOs millions of dollars to...

What exactly DO CEOs do?

I mean for a company like McDonalds.  You are pretty much one of the most recognizable symbols in the world.  Your food is sold all over the place.  You introduce a new burger every year.

What the fark does a CEO do that requires millions of dollars?


Maintaining shareholder expectations by being the 'bad guy' who has to tell folks that doubling their salary isn't going to happen. A CEO is literally someone you hire so people have someone to be happy at or angry at w/o actually affecting anything.

Oh, our company did something terrible? We fired the CEO; buy our stuff.
 
Displayed 297 of 297 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report