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  
•       •       •

2976 clicks; posted to Business » on 30 Jul 2013 at 12:46 AM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



297 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 297 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report