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.

(Mother Jones)   Let's try out the old burger flippers calculator to see if you can survive on fast-food wages. Difficulty: calculated math involved   (motherjones.com) divider line 240
    More: Interesting, living wages, value meals  
•       •       •

2238 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Aug 2013 at 9:35 AM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



240 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-01 08:10:39 AM
Since when has a job flipping burgers ever been something anybody expected to make a living off of?

I'm 46 years old, and back when *I* was a kid, the people you saw working at McDonalds were either high school or college students, or older folks looking to supplement their retirement incomes.

If you were between those two age ranges, you were either a manager or the mentally disabled guy they hired to mop the floors.

NOT EVERY JOB CAN OR SHOULD PAY A "LIVING WAGE".  If you can be replaced by a mid-70's IQ pimply-faced teenager who only has a couple days of training, then what you do for work isn't worth a "living wage".  If it was, they wouldn't hire dumb-ass kids and retirees to do it.
 
2013-08-01 08:19:49 AM
Nobody has provided me a good reason why people should be paid a wage for their job.  Wages are holding back this economy.  If you force people to work for free, the job creators could have everyone in the country over the age of four employed.  But please, continue to insist that "children need an education".  So stupid.  Lol.
 
2013-08-01 08:20:14 AM
All my life, I wanted to be the guy who walks around with a sign that says "The End is Near" but it just doesn't pay a living wage.
 
2013-08-01 08:46:28 AM

dittybopper: NOT EVERY JOB CAN OR SHOULD PAY A "LIVING WAGE". If you can be replaced by a mid-70's IQ pimply-faced teenager who only has a couple days of training, then what you do for work isn't worth a "living wage". If it was, they wouldn't hire dumb-ass kids and retirees to do it.


Would you rather pay for people's welfare or pay them enough to be relatively self sufficient, to not qualify for welfare, and be able to put more money into the consumer economy?

That's basically what the choice boils down to when people demand that these sorts of jobs pay low enough wages that we the tax payer have to pick up the tab for a businesses low wages and poor benefits, thus using us as an indirect subsidy for their profits.

If you don't think that these jobs deserve a good wage, that's fine. Just don't complain when the government takes your money, because ultimately, you're choosing the latter because of your belief in the former.
 
2013-08-01 08:55:16 AM
Why would I want to try and make it on a burger flippers salary?

/if I had wanted to do that, I would have gotten a degree in humanities.
 
2013-08-01 08:59:53 AM

Aarontology: dittybopper: NOT EVERY JOB CAN OR SHOULD PAY A "LIVING WAGE". If you can be replaced by a mid-70's IQ pimply-faced teenager who only has a couple days of training, then what you do for work isn't worth a "living wage". If it was, they wouldn't hire dumb-ass kids and retirees to do it.

Would you rather pay for people's welfare or pay them enough to be relatively self sufficient, to not qualify for welfare, and be able to put more money into the consumer economy?

That's basically what the choice boils down to when people demand that these sorts of jobs pay low enough wages that we the tax payer have to pick up the tab for a businesses low wages and poor benefits, thus using us as an indirect subsidy for their profits.

If you don't think that these jobs deserve a good wage, that's fine. Just don't complain when the government takes your money, because ultimately, you're choosing the latter because of your belief in the former.


I'd also be willing to bet that the same people who believe these fast food workers should be paid peanuts are the same kind of people who go apesh*t when one of these "mid-70's IQ pimply-faced teenager who only has a couple days of training" f*cks up their order.
 
2013-08-01 09:06:26 AM

sigdiamond2000: I'd also be willing to bet that the same people who believe these fast food workers should be paid peanuts are the same kind of people who go apesh*t when one of these "mid-70's IQ pimply-faced teenager who only has a couple days of training" f*cks up their order.


Or complaining that the folks at Home Depot don't have the knowledge of a tradesman.
 
2013-08-01 09:20:47 AM
Hint: NOBODY is expected to be a primary wage earner on fast food wages.  That's why students and bored wives work at the local burger shop.  To bring in extra money for the household budget, help pay for school, or just provide some cash to supplement their allowance.

If you are a parent with children and your only means of support is fast food work, you might want to consider yourself a total failure in life.
 
2013-08-01 09:21:49 AM
Many fast-food workers are parents raising children

Well, there's your problem.

Oh and FWIW, if you want to make $15+/hour at fast food, move to Midland/Odessa. Seriously.
 
2013-08-01 09:21:56 AM

Mike_LowELL: Nobody has provided me a good reason why people should be paid a wage for their job.  Wages are holding back this economy.  If you force people to work for free, the job creators could have everyone in the country over the age of four employed.  But please, continue to insist that "children need an education".  So stupid.  Lol.


It takes dedicated work to be as stupid as you are.  You must be a "progressive"....
 
2013-08-01 09:22:26 AM
upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-08-01 09:27:46 AM
I think their living wage calculator is a bit off.  For two adults and one child in my area they say $56,000.  MIT's calculator says $37,500.  That would still suck for flipping burgers but they don't have to over exaggerate.  Maybe it's because they are not specific to the county like the MIT calculator.
 
2013-08-01 09:32:34 AM
I already know I wouldn't survive, having worked retail-slave hours and wages.  Also,

dittybopper: Since when has a job flipping burgers ever been something anybody expected to make a living off of?


Maybe these people never anticipated having to stay at these types of jobs.  I mean, I have an MA and cannot find entry level work in my field, so I'm forced to find work where I can and that has been in retail.  I'm STILL in retail, working retail wages.  Yes, I expect to be able to live off these wages.   *shrugs*
 
2013-08-01 09:34:19 AM

Mike_LowELL: Nobody has provided me a good reason why people should be paid a wage for their job.  Wages are holding back this economy.  If you force people to work for free, the job creators could have everyone in the country over the age of four employed.  But please, continue to insist that "children need an education".  So stupid.  Lol.


I am so going to gay-marry you. Difficulty: I'm not really into teh cock. But we'll find a way to make it work.
 
2013-08-01 09:37:21 AM

LordZorch: Hint: NOBODY is expected to be a primary wage earner on fast food wages.  That's why students and bored wives work at the local burger shop.  To bring in extra money for the household budget, help pay for school, or just provide some cash to supplement their allowance.

If you are a parent with children and your only means of support is fast food work, you might want to consider yourself a total failure in life.


People take the work they can find. It's better than being unemployed and costing all of us even more welfare than we already have to because of your belief in low wages and shiatty benefits.

So really. Thanks for supporting policies that mean the government takes more of my money. For someone who claims to be conservative, you sure do seem to f*cking love wealth redistribution instead of self sufficiency.
 
2013-08-01 09:38:26 AM

Mike_LowELL: Nobody has provided me a good reason why people should be paid a wage for their job.  Wages are holding back this economy.  If you force people to work for free, the job creators could have everyone in the country over the age of four employed.  But please, continue to insist that "children need an education".  So stupid.  Lol.


I love you
 
2013-08-01 09:40:11 AM
If mom wouldn't keep raising the rent on the basement lair, this wouldn't be a problem.
 
2013-08-01 09:40:21 AM

dittybopper: Since when has a job flipping burgers ever been something anybody expected to make a living off of?

I'm 46 years old, and back when *I* was a kid, the people you saw working at McDonalds were either high school or college students, or older folks looking to supplement their retirement incomes.

If you were between those two age ranges, you were either a manager or the mentally disabled guy they hired to mop the floors.

NOT EVERY JOB CAN OR SHOULD PAY A "LIVING WAGE".  If you can be replaced by a mid-70's IQ pimply-faced teenager who only has a couple days of training, then what you do for work isn't worth a "living wage".  If it was, they wouldn't hire dumb-ass kids and retirees to do it.


As long as it makes you feel better that a 40-hour work week doesn't pay a living wage for certain jobs.
 
2013-08-01 09:40:47 AM

dittybopper: Since when has a job flipping burgers ever been something anybody expected to make a living off of?



That's the new service economy, breh.
 
2013-08-01 09:42:09 AM

Bloody William: As long as it makes you feel better that a 40-hour work week doesn't pay a living wage for certain jobs.


Look we all know that in today's economy, there are just jobs growing on trees and if you don't like your wage you can just get another job bleep bloop I am autistic
 
2013-08-01 09:43:23 AM

LordZorch: Mike_LowELL: Nobody has provided me a good reason why people should be paid a wage for their job.  Wages are holding back this economy.  If you force people to work for free, the job creators could have everyone in the country over the age of four employed.  But please, continue to insist that "children need an education".  So stupid.  Lol.

It takes dedicated work to be as stupid as you are.  You must be a "progressive"....


Yes...HE'S the stupid one...
 
2013-08-01 09:43:40 AM
The fark is "calculated math?" Perhaps subby meant "complicated math." Then again, perhaps subby isn't quite bright enough to work in fast food.
 
2013-08-01 09:44:31 AM
I bet it's a lot easier to survive on fast food wages than it is on not having a job at all. If our noble job-creators are forced to keep upping the wages for unskilled labor, they won't be able to hire as many employees.
 
2013-08-01 09:45:22 AM

dittybopper: Since when has a job flipping burgers ever been something anybody expected to make a living off of?

I'm 46 years old, and back when *I* was a kid, the people you saw working at McDonalds were either high school or college students, or older folks looking to supplement their retirement incomes.

If you were between those two age ranges, you were either a manager or the mentally disabled guy they hired to mop the floors.



Not sure if you are trolling or just naive and don't understand that there are adults out there who do work in fast food as a primary job.
 
2013-08-01 09:45:30 AM
but they get education benifits...

newyorkstreetfood.com
 
2013-08-01 09:46:51 AM

raerae1980: I mean, I have an MA and cannot find entry level work in my field


Received a Masters in Anthropology/Archaeology

What exactly did you expect to do besides work in academia?

Jackson Herring: Look we all know that in today's economy, there are just jobs growing on trees and if you don't like your wage you can just get another job


Come to Texas. I can find you work...I must warn you though, it's real work.
 
2013-08-01 09:47:34 AM

Aarontology: Would you rather pay for people's welfare or pay them enough to be relatively self sufficient, to not qualify for welfare, and be able to put more money into the consumer economy?


Seems to me, either way, I'm paying.  Either through the government, or through higher prices.  So what's the real difference?
 
2013-08-01 09:47:44 AM

Aristocles: I bet it's a lot easier to survive on fast food wages than it is on not having a job at all. If our noble job-creators are forced to keep upping the wages for unskilled labor, they won't be able to hire as many employees.


Ever notice how people who honestly hold this belief never seem to talk about how they went to their boss to ask for a reduction in pay and benefits across the board for themselves and the other employees in order to aid in job creation?
 
2013-08-01 09:50:10 AM
My first 'job' was at McDonald's...I was 14 yrs old....I work there for two years and got a job at a supermarket. Worked there for 8 years...while working there I went to college full time and had at least 1 additional part time job (sometimes two...paid for college myself without any loans). Then I got a computer job at a Real estate company...worked there for 4 years, then I got a new computer job downtown NYC (until some assholes ruined it for me); then I became self-employed. Each job I had there was an increase in wages/salary.

A fast-food job is not supposed to be a permanent job to raise a family on, why do people have such a hard time understanding this?
 
2013-08-01 09:51:36 AM

dittybopper: Since when has a job flipping burgers ever been something anybody expected to make a living off of?

I'm 46 years old, and back when *I* was a kid, the people you saw working at McDonalds were either high school or college students, or older folks looking to supplement their retirement incomes.

If you were between those two age ranges, you were either a manager or the mentally disabled guy they hired to mop the floors.

NOT EVERY JOB CAN OR SHOULD PAY A "LIVING WAGE".  If you can be replaced by a mid-70's IQ pimply-faced teenager who only has a couple days of training, then what you do for work isn't worth a "living wage".  If it was, they wouldn't hire dumb-ass kids and retirees to do it.


Working people should be able to afford to work.
 
2013-08-01 09:52:03 AM

dittybopper: Seems to me, either way, I'm paying. Either through the government, or through higher prices. So what's the real difference?


I'd rather voluntarily pay a slightly higher price for a good or service than involuntarily have to pay a lot more for welfare, especially if it means those workers can have greater self sufficiency, can participate more in the consumer economy by purchasing more goods and services for themselves, thus helping businesses generate more profit, which is benefit of creating more demand, and thus more supply and jobs.

And when it comes to McD's, they said that if they doubled everyone's pay, it'd be an extra 68 cents for a burger. That's a shiat ton cheaper than taxes. And if that extra 68 cents is enough of a cost consideration for you, then you shouldn't be eating out in the first place, and you definitely should be wondering about your overall health costs later on after eating so much fast food that an extra 68 cents is causing you financial problems.
 
2013-08-01 09:52:27 AM

Brick-House: If mom wouldn't keep raising the rent on the basement lair, this wouldn't be a problem.



This was almost a joke.... Almost..

Better stick to posting bad hope and change comics.
 
2013-08-01 09:53:03 AM

ferretman: My first 'job' was at McDonald's...I was 14 yrs old....I work there for two years and got a job at a supermarket. Worked there for 8 years...while working there I went to college full time and had at least 1 additional part time job (sometimes two...paid for college myself without any loans). Then I got a computer job at a Real estate company...worked there for 4 years, then I got a new computer job downtown NYC (until some assholes ruined it for me); then I became self-employed. Each job I had there was an increase in wages/salary.

A fast-food job is not supposed to be a permanent job to raise a family on, why do people have such a hard time understanding this?


Do you have such low self esteem that you believe your accomplishments can be achieved by anyone or are you just  willfully obtuse to the fact that some people are not capable of jobs beyond unskilled labor?
 
2013-08-01 09:53:18 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: raerae1980: I mean, I have an MA and cannot find entry level work in my field

Received a Masters in Anthropology/Archaeology

What exactly did you expect to do besides work in academia?


Yes, or museums, environmental firms, hospitals, Coroner's offices/Medical Examiner....

Your point being...?
 
2013-08-01 09:54:06 AM

ferretman: A fast-food job is not supposed to be a permanent job to raise a family on, why do people have such a hard time understanding this?


Whether or not it should be, it's the reality of today's service based economy. We've eliminated a lot of manufacturing and industry in America, so service jobs are a lot of what's left. or people have a hard time finding a job in their normal field, and have to take whatever jobs they can find. Sometimes that can mean for a long time.

Would you rather they simply not work because they "shouldn't" try to raise a family or have it become a full time job?

Why do people have such a hard time understanding that?
 
2013-08-01 09:54:21 AM

monoski: Not sure if you are trolling or just naive and don't understand that there are adults out there who do work in fast food as a primary job.


Oh, I understand that.  I also understand that the people who do that aren't going to end up doing much better if you pay them more, because they lack anything approaching the planning skills required to actually make a decent living.

My sister used to be one of those people.  She spent something like 20 *YEARS* working at various McDonalds.  And it was her own damned fault for doing so.  She didn't look past the next paycheck, so she got stuck in a job like that.  For decades.

Paying people more money, when the fact that they are stuck in such a job shows their complete and utter lack of planning for the future beyond the next week, isn't really going to help them.  You're better off taking that extra money and spending it on education.
 
2013-08-01 09:54:50 AM

Headso: ferretman: My first 'job' was at McDonald's...I was 14 yrs old....I work there for two years and got a job at a supermarket. Worked there for 8 years...while working there I went to college full time and had at least 1 additional part time job (sometimes two...paid for college myself without any loans). Then I got a computer job at a Real estate company...worked there for 4 years, then I got a new computer job downtown NYC (until some assholes ruined it for me); then I became self-employed. Each job I had there was an increase in wages/salary.

A fast-food job is not supposed to be a permanent job to raise a family on, why do people have such a hard time understanding this?

Do you have such low self esteem that you believe your accomplishments can be achieved by anyone or are you just  willfully obtuse to the fact that some people are not capable of jobs beyond unskilled labor?


Step 1: The world needs ditch-diggers too.

Step 2: Ditch-diggers have bills to pay and families to feed.

Economics conservatives stop at step 1.
 
2013-08-01 09:54:58 AM

dittybopper: NOT EVERY JOB CAN OR SHOULD PAY A "LIVING WAGE".  If you can be replaced by a mid-70's IQ pimply-faced teenager who only has a couple days of training, then what you do for work isn't worth a "living wage".  If it was, they wouldn't hire dumb-ass kids and retirees to do it.


10/10 Perfect blend of poutrage, hatefulness, unenlightened self-interest, and unselfconscious naïveté.
Bravo.

/Still waiting for Panthera tigris to administer biatch-slap de grâce.
 
2013-08-01 09:55:03 AM
People trying to raise a family on a fast food job should be fired for trying to raise a family on a fast food job, that way they'll be less of a drain on society. Either that or their children should be shot into space.
 
2013-08-01 09:55:55 AM

raerae1980: I already know I wouldn't survive, having worked retail-slave hours and wages.  Also, dittybopper: Since when has a job flipping burgers ever been something anybody expected to make a living off of?

Maybe these people never anticipated having to stay at these types of jobs.  I mean, I have an MA and cannot find entry level work in my field, so I'm forced to find work where I can and that has been in retail.  I'm STILL in retail, working retail wages.  Yes, I expect to be able to live off these wages.   *shrugs*


Why didn't you mention that your MA is in archeology/anthropology....I would think that is a limited field as it is. So your choice of what to pursue could be construed as 'poor'.

/archeology fan...
 
2013-08-01 09:56:21 AM

dittybopper: My sister used to be one of those people.  She spent something like 20 *YEARS* working at various McDonalds.  And it was her own damned fault for doing so.  She didn't look past the next paycheck, so she got stuck in a job like that.  For decades.


Part of living paycheck to paycheck means not being able to plan much further than it. Building up savings is a lot harder these days.
 
2013-08-01 09:56:38 AM

ferretman: My first 'job' was at McDonald's...I was 14 yrs old....I work there for two years and got a job at a supermarket. Worked there for 8 years...while working there I went to college full time and had at least 1 additional part time job (sometimes two...paid for college myself without any loans). Then I got a computer job at a Real estate company...worked there for 4 years, then I got a new computer job downtown NYC (until some assholes ruined it for me); then I became self-employed. Each job I had there was an increase in wages/salary.

A fast-food job is not supposed to be a permanent job to raise a family on, why do people have such a hard time understanding this?



I wonder if the cost of a College education has gone up or down since the time you went....
 
2013-08-01 09:56:40 AM

raerae1980: Your point being...?


"hurf durf libs bad"
 
2013-08-01 09:56:47 AM

dittybopper: Since when has a job flipping burgers ever been something anybody expected to make a living off of?


Well, find us a way to get back all those living wage jobs we used to have here in this country that are now being done by slaves in some third world hell hole and maybe people won't need to depend on burger flipping for their livelihood.
 
2013-08-01 09:57:42 AM

dittybopper: Paying people more money, when the fact that they are stuck in such a job shows their complete and utter lack of planning for the future beyond the next week, isn't really going to help them.  You're better off taking that extra money and spending it on education.


Except that the education that people are selling generally isn't the education they need.The Education they need is the one that *successful* parents pass on to their *successful* children. It has classes in perspective, self-control, planning, and investment. These aren't easy to learn, which is why they're usually taught by autocrats (parents) to infants. Trying to teach these things to people older than 15, who will accept some kind of freedom and a shiatty life to being told what to do may just not work out the way you want it to.
 
2013-08-01 09:58:56 AM

LordZorch: Mike_LowELL: Nobody has provided me a good reason why people should be paid a wage for their job.  Wages are holding back this economy.  If you force people to work for free, the job creators could have everyone in the country over the age of four employed.  But please, continue to insist that "children need an education".  So stupid.  Lol.

It takes dedicated work to be as stupid as you are.  You must be a "progressive"....


lynnrockets.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-01 10:00:33 AM

Aarontology: ferretman: A fast-food job is not supposed to be a permanent job to raise a family on, why do people have such a hard time understanding this?

Whether or not it should be, it's the reality of today's service based economy. We've eliminated a lot of manufacturing and industry in America, so service jobs are a lot of what's left. or people have a hard time finding a job in their normal field, and have to take whatever jobs they can find. Sometimes that can mean for a long time.

Would you rather they simply not work because they "shouldn't" try to raise a family or have it become a full time job?

Why do people have such a hard time understanding that?


It's funny, in the fast food thread yesterday I noticed a lot of people saying "if the job doesn't pay enough on to survive then don't take it".  I'd never really hear that as an argument before.  I always thought the standard talking point was to get a second job if you aren't making enough?  Did new GOP talking points get released recently?
 
2013-08-01 10:02:00 AM

dittybopper: Since when has a job flipping burgers ever been something anybody expected to make a living off of?

I'm 46 years old, and back when *I* was a kid, the people you saw working at McDonalds were either high school or college students, or older folks looking to supplement their retirement incomes.

If you were between those two age ranges, you were either a manager or the mentally disabled guy they hired to mop the floors.

NOT EVERY JOB CAN OR SHOULD PAY A "LIVING WAGE".  If you can be replaced by a mid-70's IQ pimply-faced teenager who only has a couple days of training, then what you do for work isn't worth a "living wage".  If it was, they wouldn't hire dumb-ass kids and retirees to do it.



And the incentive to leave welfare for work should be what then, a wage that is insufficient to live on or to feed your family?
 
2013-08-01 10:02:18 AM

Jackson Herring: Bloody William: As long as it makes you feel better that a 40-hour work week doesn't pay a living wage for certain jobs.

Look we all know that in today's economy, there are just jobs growing on trees and if you don't like your wage you can just get another job bleep bloop I am autistic


Your phrasing totally gives away another website you're a member of.  I think, anyways.
 
2013-08-01 10:02:43 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: [upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com image 776x421]


Maybe they should find a roomate.. like most people have when they're in college or of college age and need to live while not having time for a real career.
 
2013-08-01 10:03:20 AM

ikanreed: Your phrasing totally gives away another website you're a member of.  I think, anyways


what
 
2013-08-01 10:03:38 AM

sdd2000: And the incentive to leave welfare for work should be what then, a wage that is insufficient to live on or to feed your family?


How about a person can only collect so many months of welfare in their lifetime?
 
2013-08-01 10:03:59 AM

dittybopper: monoski: Not sure if you are trolling or just naive and don't understand that there are adults out there who do work in fast food as a primary job.

Oh, I understand that.  I also understand that the people who do that aren't going to end up doing much better if you pay them more, because they lack anything approaching the planning skills required to actually make a decent living.

My sister used to be one of those people.  She spent something like 20 *YEARS* working at various McDonalds.  And it was her own damned fault for doing so.  She didn't look past the next paycheck, so she got stuck in a job like that.  For decades.

Paying people more money, when the fact that they are stuck in such a job shows their complete and utter lack of planning for the future beyond the next week, isn't really going to help them.  You're better off taking that extra money and spending it on education.


fark you, dude. No, seriously. You, DIA, and that other elitist prick in this thread are seriously the worst representatives of "how to raise a boy into a man" ever. Where I come from (btw, just as "good ol' boy" as the southern U.S.) we're raised to treat all workers, people who get up and go to work, with respect. Frankly, I have more respect for burger flippers and janitors than I do many professional class individuals -- the working class sweats a whole lot more ("real work") than a lot of you pompous assholes.

Honestly, if anyone talked that kind of shiat about minimum wage workers in most places in Atlantic Canada, they would probably get a serious dressing down, and if they kept it up, a slap across the face for being so immensely disrespectful towards people who are working hard to contribute to our society.

I find your morals and lack of ethics, as well as personal narcissism (DIA being guilty of it almost always) to be disgusting. I hope you never propogate your ideas or beliefs to anyone who could be corrupted by your lack of humanity and manhood.

Basically, a bunch of pasty white guy big shots who think they are tougher than anyone else until the shiat REALLY goes down, then you are exposed as a gaggle of spineless wannabes.
 
2013-08-01 10:08:12 AM

Aarontology: I'd rather voluntarily pay a slightly higher price for a good or service than involuntarily have to pay a lot more for welfare,


So if we get higher prices for McDonalds, do we get a tax cut because less welfare?  'Cause if you believe that would actually happen, I got a bridge to sell ya.

Here's what would happen:  A law passes that raises the minimum wage to some "living wage".  At that point, the employers have a few choices to make.  These are some of the things they can do:

1. Raise prices.  This is definitely an option, but not one that customers like, especially a sudden jump.  All of a sudden, instead of costing you $15 to take the family to McDarnOld Hamburgers, it now costs you about $17.50.  So you do it a bit less.

2. Reduce worker hours.  Another option for the employers, and a particularly attractive one in view of both #1 above, and the fact that under a certain number of hours they don't have to pay for benefits.

3. Reduce the number of workers.  Another attractive option.  If you can maintain roughly the same payroll by getting rid of a couple workers, that helps.

4. Reduce portions while maintaining the same prices.

Note that two of those options involve fewer people being employed full time (or employed at all).   So you end up screwing some people so that others can make more money.   Or you bring the hours down so that someone who worked 40 hours at $9 an hour is now working 23 hours at $16 an hour, and bringing home the same paycheck.

And don't think that the employers won't be looking at 2 and 3 very, very hard.  Truthfully, it'll probably be a mix, but at first, the employees this is supposed to "help" are going to get screwed, because the restaurant owners aren't going to want to increase their prices by 17% overnight.
 
2013-08-01 10:10:11 AM
McDonalds has averaged roughly $5 billion in profits each year for the last 5 years.

Its CEO made from $10 million to $17 million each year between 2008 and 2010.

Its workers make minimum age at an average of 25 hours per week.
 
2013-08-01 10:10:31 AM

Pincy: dittybopper: Since when has a job flipping burgers ever been something anybody expected to make a living off of?

Well, find us a way to get back all those living wage jobs we used to have here in this country that are now being done by slaves in some third world hell hole and maybe people won't need to depend on burger flipping for their livelihood.


That's pretty simple.  Revoke "normal trade relations" with the People's Republic of China.
 
2013-08-01 10:13:13 AM

Headso: ferretman: My first 'job' was at McDonald's...I was 14 yrs old....I work there for two years and got a job at a supermarket. Worked there for 8 years...while working there I went to college full time and had at least 1 additional part time job (sometimes two...paid for college myself without any loans). Then I got a computer job at a Real estate company...worked there for 4 years, then I got a new computer job downtown NYC (until some assholes ruined it for me); then I became self-employed. Each job I had there was an increase in wages/salary.

A fast-food job is not supposed to be a permanent job to raise a family on, why do people have such a hard time understanding this?

Do you have such low self esteem that you believe your accomplishments can be achieved by anyone or are you just  willfully obtuse to the fact that some people are not capable of jobs beyond unskilled labor?


My accomplishments weren't much...it's called working to better oneself....which almost anyone else is capable of if they work at it. Problem is lots of people want things handed to them with as little effort as possible.
 
2013-08-01 10:14:45 AM

raerae1980: Yes, or museums, environmental firms, hospitals, Coroner's offices/Medical Examiner....

Your point being...?


Not the largest job market items out there. I don't begrudge you in your studies...on the contrary I applaud your earning your degrees. However, you seem surprised if not a bit pissed that there are slim pickins in your chosen field.
 
2013-08-01 10:15:15 AM

RockofAges: Where I come from (btw, just as "good ol' boy" as the southern U.S.) we're raised to treat all workers, people who get up and go to work, with respect.


What are you, a communist?
 
2013-08-01 10:19:25 AM
If a  liberal like Nixon hadn't killed American manufacturing with the EPA we'd all have a lot more options for employment and the overall economy would be doing much better.
 
2013-08-01 10:20:07 AM

RockofAges: dittybopper: monoski: Not sure if you are trolling or just naive and don't understand that there are adults out there who do work in fast food as a primary job.

Oh, I understand that.  I also understand that the people who do that aren't going to end up doing much better if you pay them more, because they lack anything approaching the planning skills required to actually make a decent living.

My sister used to be one of those people.  She spent something like 20 *YEARS* working at various McDonalds.  And it was her own damned fault for doing so.  She didn't look past the next paycheck, so she got stuck in a job like that.  For decades.

Paying people more money, when the fact that they are stuck in such a job shows their complete and utter lack of planning for the future beyond the next week, isn't really going to help them.  You're better off taking that extra money and spending it on education.

fark you, dude. No, seriously. You, DIA, and that other elitist prick in this thread are seriously the worst representatives of "how to raise a boy into a man" ever. Where I come from (btw, just as "good ol' boy" as the southern U.S.) we're raised to treat all workers, people who get up and go to work, with respect. Frankly, I have more respect for burger flippers and janitors than I do many professional class individuals -- the working class sweats a whole lot more ("real work") than a lot of you pompous assholes.

Honestly, if anyone talked that kind of shiat about minimum wage workers in most places in Atlantic Canada, they would probably get a serious dressing down, and if they kept it up, a slap across the face for being so immensely disrespectful towards people who are working hard to contribute to our society.

I find your morals and lack of ethics, as well as personal narcissism (DIA being guilty of it almost always) to be disgusting. I hope you never propogate your ideas or beliefs to anyone who could be corrupted by your lack of humanity and manhood.

Basically ...


Welcome to the new neo-Edwardian/Victorian class system, where the moneyed are seen as genuinely morally superior and the betters to everyone else and the lower classes should be seen and not heard. Although wealthy households in Edwardian England still paid their servants decently, or at least gave them a home. By constantly telling ourselves that poor people deserve it and that they're inferior because of it, we're reinforcing a centuries-old class-based concept with no upward mobility.
 
2013-08-01 10:21:11 AM

dittybopper: Aarontology: I'd rather voluntarily pay a slightly higher price for a good or service than involuntarily have to pay a lot more for welfare,

So if we get higher prices for McDonalds, do we get a tax cut because less welfare?  'Cause if you believe that would actually happen, I got a bridge to sell ya.

Here's what would happen:  A law passes that raises the minimum wage to some "living wage".  At that point, the employers have a few choices to make.  These are some of the things they can do:

1. Raise prices.  This is definitely an option, but not one that customers like, especially a sudden jump.  All of a sudden, instead of costing you $15 to take the family to McDarnOld Hamburgers, it now costs you about $17.50.  So you do it a bit less.

2. Reduce worker hours.  Another option for the employers, and a particularly attractive one in view of both #1 above, and the fact that under a certain number of hours they don't have to pay for benefits.

3. Reduce the number of workers.  Another attractive option.  If you can maintain roughly the same payroll by getting rid of a couple workers, that helps.

4. Reduce portions while maintaining the same prices.

Note that two of those options involve fewer people being employed full time (or employed at all).   So you end up screwing some people so that others can make more money.   Or you bring the hours down so that someone who worked 40 hours at $9 an hour is now working 23 hours at $16 an hour, and bringing home the same paycheck.

And don't think that the employers won't be looking at 2 and 3 very, very hard.  Truthfully, it'll probably be a mix, but at first, the employees this is supposed to "help" are going to get screwed, because the restaurant owners aren't going to want to increase their prices by 17% overnight.


That was the argument that killed off COLA minimum wage increases during our short period of stagflation in the 70s.
It is valid if and only if the wage increase is more than wiped out by price increases.
It isn't valid on the math side.
It is only valid if unions are deader than doornails as a balancing economic force, as evidenced by CxO compensation.
Unions are dead as a balancing economic force.

Debbie Stabenow had a plan to bring back real jobs. Guess who killed it. C'mon, guess.
 
2013-08-01 10:23:31 AM

imontheinternet: McDonalds has averaged roughly $5 billion in profits each year for the last 5 years.

Its CEO made from $10 million to $17 million each year between 2008 and 2010.

Its workers make minimum age at an average of 25 hours per week.


it is almost as if companies exist to generate revenue, profit, make money etc....and that they don't exist to create jobs for everyone.

When a Mcdonalds worker gets 15$ an hour what happens to everyone elses wage who was in a similar un skilled labor type position? Like a gas station attendant or a grocery store cashier, or the drone manning the phones at the utility company?

What happens to the value of a dollar? The price of goods since everyone doing unskilled labor has just doubled their salaries. What about the wage of the college grad working in their field for 15$ an hour...since now unskilled labor is getting the same amount in wages? Do you increase his salary? What about the people with masters degrees who find out that people with bachelor degrees can get their wage?...etc
 
2013-08-01 10:27:16 AM

UberDave: I think their living wage calculator is a bit off.  For two adults and one child in my area they say $56,000.  MIT's calculator says $37,500.  That would still suck for flipping burgers but they don't have to over exaggerate.  Maybe it's because they are not specific to the county like the MIT calculator.


It claimed a household of four in Buffalo-Niagara Falls needed $75,592 to earn a comfortable living.  For crying out loud, you can buy a comfortable house around here for $75k.
 
2013-08-01 10:28:18 AM

LordZorch: Mike_LowELL: Nobody has provided me a good reason why people should be paid a wage for their job.  Wages are holding back this economy.  If you force people to work for free, the job creators could have everyone in the country over the age of four employed.  But please, continue to insist that "children need an education".  So stupid.  Lol.

It takes dedicated work to be as stupid as you are.  You must be a "progressive"....


If you realized how ignorant that post was, you'd probably end your life in shame.
 
2013-08-01 10:28:40 AM

Giltric: imontheinternet: McDonalds has averaged roughly $5 billion in profits each year for the last 5 years.

Its CEO made from $10 million to $17 million each year between 2008 and 2010.

Its workers make minimum age at an average of 25 hours per week.

it is almost as if companies exist to generate revenue, profit, make money etc....and that they don't exist to create jobs for everyone.

When a Mcdonalds worker gets 15$ an hour what happens to everyone elses wage who was in a similar un skilled labor type position? Like a gas station attendant or a grocery store cashier, or the drone manning the phones at the utility company?

What happens to the value of a dollar? The price of goods since everyone doing unskilled labor has just doubled their salaries. What about the wage of the college grad working in their field for 15$ an hour...since now unskilled labor is getting the same amount in wages? Do you increase his salary? What about the people with masters degrees who find out that people with bachelor degrees can get their wage?...etc


You know, you might have a point there. Might.
If wages were the only cost factor in production.

/Hint: Wages are not the only cost factor in production. Doubling wages does not double COGS, not even in a service economy.
 
2013-08-01 10:29:17 AM

sigdiamond2000: RockofAges: Where I come from (btw, just as "good ol' boy" as the southern U.S.) we're raised to treat all workers, people who get up and go to work, with respect.

What are you, a communist?


A socialist / mixed market fellow, actually. Or a Canadian. You know, America's hat. It's pretty nice up here actually. We don't have a lot of insufferably self-righteous dicks because most of us try to get along and our culture is not as enamoured of materialism (yet) as our southern neighbours. Here, if someone is contributing as best they can, most of us take that as a sign of a good countrymen, and most of us respect the fact that minimum wage earners often work harder and face harder times than those who do not. Also, we recognize that these workers could just as easily NOT get up at 6AM to drive into work to make food for unappreciative (and, as we see here, often totally dismissive of these workers as even valuable people and fellow countrymen / peers) people for $7-8 an hour (USA) or 10 in Canada and could just as easily apply for DCS.

Just a different mindset, maybe. I come from a working class background although I would no longer place myself in that class (last few years), barely, and could easily return to it. I would rather sit down and have a beer with most folks in that class any day than ever sit down and have a beer with most of the elitist brigade of New Fark (2008 - present). There is a serious sociopathy involved with denigrating those who work hardest for the least money and I find it to be the same despicable quality found in the common schoolyard bully -- yuppy or otherwise.
 
2013-08-01 10:30:16 AM

RockofAges: dittybopper: monoski: Not sure if you are trolling or just naive and don't understand that there are adults out there who do work in fast food as a primary job.

Oh, I understand that.  I also understand that the people who do that aren't going to end up doing much better if you pay them more, because they lack anything approaching the planning skills required to actually make a decent living.

My sister used to be one of those people.  She spent something like 20 *YEARS* working at various McDonalds.  And it was her own damned fault for doing so.  She didn't look past the next paycheck, so she got stuck in a job like that.  For decades.

Paying people more money, when the fact that they are stuck in such a job shows their complete and utter lack of planning for the future beyond the next week, isn't really going to help them.  You're better off taking that extra money and spending it on education.

fark you, dude. No, seriously. You, DIA, and that other elitist prick in this thread are seriously the worst representatives of "how to raise a boy into a man" ever. Where I come from (btw, just as "good ol' boy" as the southern U.S.) we're raised to treat all workers, people who get up and go to work, with respect. Frankly, I have more respect for burger flippers and janitors than I do many professional class individuals -- the working class sweats a whole lot more ("real work") than a lot of you pompous assholes.

Honestly, if anyone talked that kind of shiat about minimum wage workers in most places in Atlantic Canada, they would probably get a serious dressing down, and if they kept it up, a slap across the face for being so immensely disrespectful towards people who are working hard to contribute to our society.

I find your morals and lack of ethics, as well as personal narcissism (DIA being guilty of it almost always) to be disgusting. I hope you never propogate your ideas or beliefs to anyone who could be corrupted by your lack of humanity and manhood.

Basically, a bunch of pasty white guy big shots who think they are tougher than anyone else until the shiat REALLY goes down, then you are exposed as a gaggle of spineless wannabes.


Your low respect for professionals is terrible. Go ahead, tell your doctor or accountant or lawyer that their work does not contribute to making your life better because they don't sweat

Class warfare people like you are disgusting
 
2013-08-01 10:32:13 AM
tenpoundsofcheese:

And you're the biggest troll on Fark. Sad story / got a smoke?
 
2013-08-01 10:32:59 AM
tenpoundsofcheese:

I don't have a lawyer, or an accountant, and my doctor is paid entirely via public revenue.
 
2013-08-01 10:35:20 AM

Bloody William: Welcome to the new neo-Edwardian/Victorian class system, where the moneyed are seen as genuinely morally superior and the betters to everyone else and the lower classes should be seen and not heard.


They aren't morally superior.  In fact, they are often morally inferior.

It's got nothing to do with *MORALS* and everything to do with how you handle money and plan for the future.

I mean, really, it's not that complex of a concept.  If you don't know how to handle money, you'll get stuck in a dead-end, low wage job, and you'll be barely scraping by.

If you have better money handling skills, and you have some ability to plan for the future, you'll end up in the middle class.

If you have excellent money handling skills, and a bunch of foresight, you'll end up rich.

It's not hereditary, either, but it *LOOKS* that way because you learn this sort of thing largely from your parents, just like you learn most of your other cultural norms from them.
 
2013-08-01 10:36:22 AM

RockofAges: tenpoundsofcheese:

I don't have a lawyer, or an accountant, and my doctor is paid entirely via public revenue.


So go tell your doctor that he doesn't contribute because he doesn't sweat

It doesn't matter how he is paid
 
2013-08-01 10:36:47 AM
Y'roll 16 tonnes, and what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
St Peter don't you call me cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the Company Store.

There are people in this thread that think this was a GOOD thing.
 
2013-08-01 10:37:13 AM
Anyone else utterly exhausted of the constant, unending refrain from conservatives that:

1. Lazy people are ruining this country and need to get a job
2. Just because you have a job doesn't mean it should pay you enough to live, so get a second job and work 80+ hours a week to make ends meet
3. If you people working 80+ hours on your feet just worked a little harder, you wouldn't be so poor
4. If you don't want to be poor anymore, take the extra time after your 80+ hours a week to go to school which you can surely afford on $500/week from your two jobs
5. If you went to school for the "wrong major" you deserve to still be working those 80+ hour weeks and it's your own fault that you now have non-dischargeable student loans.

The game is so goddamn rigged against the working poor that if I ever found myself in that situation I'm pretty sure I'd just go ahead and kill myself right out instead of slowly working myself to death with no end in sight.
 
2013-08-01 10:37:32 AM

RockofAges: tenpoundsofcheese:

And you're the biggest troll on Fark. Sad story / got a smoke?


And once again your only contribution is a personal attack

That is trolling behavior and a violation of the TOS
 
2013-08-01 10:38:55 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Come to Texas. I can find you work...I must warn you though, it's real work.


Yup in Texas you can do heavy construction on fast food wages!

/not kidding.
 
2013-08-01 10:39:37 AM

dittybopper: Bloody William: Welcome to the new neo-Edwardian/Victorian class system, where the moneyed are seen as genuinely morally superior and the betters to everyone else and the lower classes should be seen and not heard.

They aren't morally superior.  In fact, they are often morally inferior.

It's got nothing to do with *MORALS* and everything to do with how you handle money and plan for the future.

I mean, really, it's not that complex of a concept.  If you don't know how to handle money, you'll get stuck in a dead-end, low wage job, and you'll be barely scraping by.

If you have better money handling skills, and you have some ability to plan for the future, you'll end up in the middle class.

If you have excellent money handling skills, and a bunch of foresight, you'll end up rich.

It's not hereditary, either, but it *LOOKS* that way because you learn this sort of thing largely from your parents, just like you learn most of your other cultural norms from them.


No, what you "inherit" from your parents is their estate, and their assets. It's called "social stratification" and "ascribed status", and your dime-store cultural analysis has been bandied about in SOC and ECON 1000 for about 200 years or more. 

As a result, we now know that nepotism and generationally divested wealth are the reinforcing factors regarding ascribed status (ie. "it's all who you know" and "it takes money to makey money") and that your entire theory is the same type of "it's simple logic, duh!" that uneducated arguments often rely upon in order to prove what appears to be a facile point but in reality is nothing more than an empty affirmation of belief.

Go back to school, basically.
 
2013-08-01 10:43:10 AM

Giltric: it is almost as if companies exist to generate revenue, profit, make money etc....and that they don't exist to create jobs for everyone.


But I thought Capitalism and the Free Market were the solution to all of our problems?
 
2013-08-01 10:44:01 AM

RockofAges: There is a serious sociopathy involved with denigrating those who work hardest for the least money and I find it to be the same despicable quality found in the common schoolyard bully -- yuppy or otherwise.


I hope you aren't including me in that:  I'm not denigrating people so much as pointing out the obvious:  If you have decent money handling skills, and the ability to plan for the future and implement that plan, the chances that you'll be chronically poor are greatly reduced.

Now, I've been sporadically poor, which isn't the same thing as being chronically poor, and I've worked a minimum wage job when I was in my 20's for a short time, but I didn't *STAY* there.   It's also unlikely that I'll ever be rich, because I wasn't raised by rich parents, and I don't have the money handling skillset that comes with being rich.  By the same token, I doubt, absent some major catastrophic life event that makes me incapable of using my brain*, that I would fall into the chronically poor category.  It's not that I'm somehow morally superior to those who are, I just have better training in the skills needed to maintain a middle class lifestyle.  That's all, but it's enough.

*Which does happen, but not as often as we would be led to believe.  The majority of the chronically poor were raised poor, and thus never learned the skills needed to pull themselves out of poverty.
 
2013-08-01 10:44:18 AM

Pincy: Giltric: it is almost as if companies exist to generate revenue, profit, make money etc....and that they don't exist to create jobs for everyone.

But I thought Capitalism and the Free Market were the solution to all of our problems?


If you're at the top of the pyramid in a worldwide pyramid scheme, it DOES. Many hands make light work (for some) after all.
 
2013-08-01 10:46:07 AM

Madbassist1: Yup in Texas you can do heavy construction on fast food wages!


You're doing it wrong then.
 
2013-08-01 10:46:24 AM
No one forces anyone to flip burgers at Jack-In-The-Box or make ice cream cones at Dairy Queen.  You don't HAVE to work there and guess what else?  They don't have to hire you or even create the business in the first place.

Here's a question:  How come a low rank recruit in the armed forces (a PFC, for example) isn't paid 'a living wage', yet fighter pilots and officers on nuclear submarines receive huge retention bonuses?  Is the government just one, giant, evil CEO... you know, like the CEO of Arby's?
 
2013-08-01 10:47:01 AM

Bloody William: Headso: ferretman: My first 'job' was at McDonald's...I was 14 yrs old....I work there for two years and got a job at a supermarket. Worked there for 8 years...while working there I went to college full time and had at least 1 additional part time job (sometimes two...paid for college myself without any loans). Then I got a computer job at a Real estate company...worked there for 4 years, then I got a new computer job downtown NYC (until some assholes ruined it for me); then I became self-employed. Each job I had there was an increase in wages/salary.

A fast-food job is not supposed to be a permanent job to raise a family on, why do people have such a hard time understanding this?

Do you have such low self esteem that you believe your accomplishments can be achieved by anyone or are you just  willfully obtuse to the fact that some people are not capable of jobs beyond unskilled labor?

Step 1: The world needs ditch-diggers too.

Step 2: Ditch-diggers have bills to pay and families to feed.

Economics conservatives stop at step 1.


THIS

You're asking a person to give you 8 hours of his day doing what you need done, but, because you declare it a "shiat job", you say he shouldn't expect to be compensated for his time. If he had a non-shiat job, it'd be OK, but since this is a shiat job, it is OK to expect him to not make enough to cover his living costs for the work day he just gave you.

EABOD with fries, jerb creators
 
2013-08-01 10:47:24 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: RockofAges: tenpoundsofcheese:

And you're the biggest troll on Fark. Sad story / got a smoke?

And once again your only contribution is a personal attack

That is trolling behavior and a violation of the TOS



Tpoc. No one here likes you. It's obvious. It's time for you to move on to greener pastures where you can frolic with others if your kind.

Try the free republic, or hope and change comics. You'll feel better as people there will be more accepting of your bullshiat.

Oh no, don't give me the, "Im a brave trooper, here to open the eyes of Libs" line.

I promise you, that you have never once, changed someone's mind to your side of view. Not once. I can however say with decent certainty that you have convinced people to side against you on issues because your arguments are crap.

So, in closing... Just go Tpoc, just go.
 
2013-08-01 10:48:34 AM

dittybopper: If you have better money handling skills, and you have some ability to plan for the future, you'll end up in the middle class.

If you have excellent money handling skills, and a bunch of foresight, you'll end up rich.

It's not hereditary, either, but it *LOOKS* that way because you learn this sort of thing largely from your parents, just like you learn most of your other cultural norms from them.


LOL straight from the University of Pulled It Out Of My Ass.
 
2013-08-01 10:48:41 AM

Neighborhood Watch: No one forces anyone to flip burgers at Jack-In-The-Box or make ice cream cones at Dairy Queen.  You don't HAVE to work there and guess what else?  They don't have to hire you or even create the business in the first place.

Here's a question:  How come a low rank recruit in the armed forces (a PFC, for example) isn't paid 'a living wage', yet fighter pilots and officers on nuclear submarines receive huge retention bonuses?  Is the government just one, giant, evil CEO... you know, like the CEO of Arby's?


PFCs in the Army (and equivalents) generally don't have to worry about paying for food or rent, as it is provided by the service.
 
2013-08-01 10:48:41 AM

dittybopper: RockofAges: There is a serious sociopathy involved with denigrating those who work hardest for the least money and I find it to be the same despicable quality found in the common schoolyard bully -- yuppy or otherwise.

I hope you aren't including me in that:  I'm not denigrating people so much as pointing out the obvious:  If you have decent money handling skills, and the ability to plan for the future and implement that plan, the chances that you'll be chronically poor are greatly reduced.

Now, I've been sporadically poor, which isn't the same thing as being chronically poor, and I've worked a minimum wage job when I was in my 20's for a short time, but I didn't *STAY* there.   It's also unlikely that I'll ever be rich, because I wasn't raised by rich parents, and I don't have the money handling skillset that comes with being rich.  By the same token, I doubt, absent some major catastrophic life event that makes me incapable of using my brain*, that I would fall into the chronically poor category.  It's not that I'm somehow morally superior to those who are, I just have better training in the skills needed to maintain a middle class lifestyle.  That's all, but it's enough.

*Which does happen, but not as often as we would be led to believe.  The majority of the chronically poor were raised poor, and thus never learned the skills needed to pull themselves out of poverty.


Your points are all anecdotal evidence and musings about your own life. Your "simple observations" are basically just projection of your own bare assertions. The latent "what's good for me is good for everyone else" underpinnings of your arguments lend themselves to massive amounts of critique because they are so unrepresentative of the actual workforce, or what it's like to actually be a member of the working class. Basically, you're like the soccer mom talking about the "evils of the maryjauauna" -- someone who uses "common sense" but has no actual long-term association or depth of knowledge making projective proclamations.

Basically you are embarassingly off base because you are attempting to pour yourself into everyone else's shoes instead of actually empathizing and understanding the realities of others.
 
2013-08-01 10:49:06 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Class warfare people like you are disgusting


Class warfare has been waged on the working and lower class since forever.  It's only called class warfare when they decide to fight back.
 
2013-08-01 10:50:05 AM

dittybopper: Since when has a job flipping burgers ever been something anybody expected to make a living off of?



THIS!!!

Adults trying to make a living working as a burger flipper are like creepy old men trying to hook up at college bars
 
2013-08-01 10:50:23 AM

Giltric: imontheinternet: McDonalds has averaged roughly $5 billion in profits each year for the last 5 years.

Its CEO made from $10 million to $17 million each year between 2008 and 2010.

Its workers make minimum age at an average of 25 hours per week.

it is almost as if companies exist to generate revenue, profit, make money etc....and that they don't exist to create jobs for everyone.

When a Mcdonalds worker gets 15$ an hour what happens to everyone elses wage who was in a similar un skilled labor type position? Like a gas station attendant or a grocery store cashier, or the drone manning the phones at the utility company?

What happens to the value of a dollar? The price of goods since everyone doing unskilled labor has just doubled their salaries. What about the wage of the college grad working in their field for 15$ an hour...since now unskilled labor is getting the same amount in wages? Do you increase his salary? What about the people with masters degrees who find out that people with bachelor degrees can get their wage?...etc


Do you really think a company or even an entire industry raising its wages is going to have more of an impact on inflation than QE and other Fed policies that drown the banks and their cohorts in liquidity?

I have news for you.  The prices are already up there.  Gas has more than doubled, food is skyrocketing, healthcare is through the damn roof.  The list goes on.  High prices and inflation march on, and the one thing that has remained stagnant is workers' wages.

Yes, the price for everything would go up marginally more than it was already going to go up if you start paying people a living wage.  Those people will also be able to afford to buy things and spend their money on more than bills and paying interest on debts.  You'll see an explosion of demand in this country, which is exactly what is needed to lift us out of this economic slump.
 
2013-08-01 10:50:36 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Your low respect for professionals is terrible. Go ahead, tell your doctor or accountant or lawyer that their work does not contribute to making your life better because they don't sweat

Class warfare people like you are disgusting


I stand in awe of you tenpoundsofcheese-ness. Do you have to pause while typing this stuff to laugh?
 
2013-08-01 10:53:24 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Madbassist1: Yup in Texas you can do heavy construction on fast food wages!

You're doing it wrong then.


LOL right. Do some research. Texas contractors chronically abuse wage laws, dont give its employees benefits, (heavy construction without benefits???) And most times flat out just hires aliens for cash.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/outsidenews/ar ch ive/2013/04/11/construction-in-texas-workers-underpaid-contractors-ski rting-the-law.aspx

Don't let my hard facts get in the way of your Derp, good sir.
 
2013-08-01 10:53:26 AM

Neighborhood Watch: No one forces anyone to flip burgers at Jack-In-The-Box or make ice cream cones at Dairy Queen. You don't HAVE to work there and guess what else? They don't have to hire you or even create the business in the first place.


Another example of the "don't take the job if it doesn't pay enough" argument.  Seriously, is this a new GOP talking point?
 
2013-08-01 10:54:44 AM
The problem isn't that the minimum wage is too low. The problem is there aren't enough 2nd and 3rd tier jobs available that pay better.

The soultion isn't to force the  bottom to  pay more. That's short sighted and not correcting the problem.  The soultion is to create jobs that will pay more, that are worth more.   Back in the 80's when this was occuring, the computer industry exploded creating entire new markets.  In the 90's real estate and internet booms.   Where's the next market growth and how can the United States particpate in that market?
 
2013-08-01 10:56:47 AM

Danger Mouse: The soultion isn't to force the bottom to pay more. That's short sighted and not correcting the problem. The soultion is to create jobs that will pay more, that are worth more. Back in the 80's when this was occuring, the computer industry exploded creating entire new markets. In the 90's real estate and internet booms. Where's the next market growth and how can the United States particpate in that market?


That sounds intelligent and reasonable. Get the fark out of this thread, asshole!
 
2013-08-01 10:57:12 AM

RockofAges: No, what you "inherit" from your parents is their estate, and their assets.


I have yet to inherit either from my parents, as both are still alive and kicking, but for the better part of 18 years now, I've maintained a middle class lifestyle.
 
2013-08-01 10:58:03 AM

RockofAges: Your points are all anecdotal evidence and musings about your own life. Your "simple observations" are basically just projection of your own bare assertions. The latent "what's good for me is good for everyone else" underpinnings of your arguments lend themselves to massive amounts of critique because they are so unrepresentative of the actual workforce, or what it's like to actually be a member of the working class. Basically, you're like the soccer mom talking about the "evils of the maryjauauna" -- someone who uses "common sense" but has no actual long-term association or depth of knowledge making projective proclamations.

Basically you are embarassingly off base because you are attempting to pour yourself into everyone else's shoes instead of actually empathizing and understanding the realities of others.


+1
 
2013-08-01 11:00:18 AM

dittybopper: NOT EVERY JOB CAN OR SHOULD PAY A "LIVING WAGE".


Yes.

They.

Should.
 
2013-08-01 11:05:14 AM

dittybopper: RockofAges: No, what you "inherit" from your parents is their estate, and their assets.

I have yet to inherit either from my parents, as both are still alive and kicking, but for the better part of 18 years now, I've maintained a middle class lifestyle.


So, you didn't grow up under their roof? They didn't provide for your every need? You didn't receive a different level of material service than someone on social assistance or with a service-industry working breadwinner? You didn't meet and connect with their equally middle-class / upper-class friends (and maybe a few slummers?) in turn, forming a network of middle class connections for life?

Do you understand that life is much more complicated than: "Well I don't like my sister, and SHE worked at McDonalds for 20 years and never thought of anything but the next paycheque"?

Also, the fact that you criticize your sister for working for 20 years and living a life where she worried about where her next rent or food was coming from says a lot about your character. Most importantly, that you do not know what it's like to live from paycheque to paycheque for a long period of time (not just slumming it for a bit), which reinforces my point that you speak a great deal about situations and positions that you've never had to live through yourself, as if you know better.
 
2013-08-01 11:05:45 AM

Freudian_slipknot: Anyone else utterly exhausted of the constant, unending refrain from conservatives that:

1. Lazy people are ruining this country and need to get a job
2. Just because you have a job doesn't mean it should pay you enough to live, so get a second job and work 80+ hours a week to make ends meet
3. If you people working 80+ hours on your feet just worked a little harder, you wouldn't be so poor
4. If you don't want to be poor anymore, take the extra time after your 80+ hours a week to go to school which you can surely afford on $500/week from your two jobs
5. If you went to school for the "wrong major" you deserve to still be working those 80+ hour weeks and it's your own fault that you now have non-dischargeable student loans.

The game is so goddamn rigged against the working poor that if I ever found myself in that situation I'm pretty sure I'd just go ahead and kill myself right out instead of slowly working myself to death with no end in sight.


We could employee more people if individuals did not have to work two jobs to make ends meet.
 
2013-08-01 11:07:25 AM
Saw a story on FOX yesterday. It was all about how Obama is an ass for suggesting the 7,000 jobs to be created by some pipeline pay a living wage. The story went on to blast the Washington DC city council for insisting that if a Wal-Mart open in their neighborhood that those jobs pay a decent wage as well.

The reporter's position? Basically, "You should be lucky you have any jobs at all. Take it and like it"

Derp indeed.
 
2013-08-01 11:08:35 AM

dittybopper: It's not hereditary, either, but it *LOOKS* that way


*BZZZZT*
You chose poorly. This commie pinko and his commie-symp compadres at the Chicago FED has made a career of calling BS on that stinker.
 
2013-08-01 11:14:50 AM

Madbassist1: LOL right. Do some research. Texas contractors chronically abuse wage laws, dont give its employees benefits, (heavy construction without benefits???) And most times flat out just hires aliens for cash.


LOL I live here. Where there might be some contractors hiring illegals as framers and roofers, if you're making less than $20/hour in construction and or the oilfield you're a farking idiot...or illegal.

Madbassist1: Don't let my hard facts get in the way of your Derp, good sir.


Huuurrrr durrrr. Why not pack your happy ass from Dayton and come see for yourself rather than relying on cherry picked "facts" from the "Workers Defense Project".
 
2013-08-01 11:15:36 AM

Madbassist1: Saw a story on FOX yesterday. It was all about how Obama is an ass for suggesting the 7,000 jobs to be created by some pipeline pay a living wage. The story went on to blast the Washington DC city council for insisting that if a Wal-Mart open in their neighborhood that those jobs pay a decent wage as well.

The reporter's position? Basically, "You should be lucky you have any jobs at all. Take it and like it"

Derp indeed.


The reporter is right, unemployment has been at record highs in this Obama Economy.
 
2013-08-01 11:29:30 AM

dittybopper: If you have decent money handling skills, and the ability to plan for the future and implement that plan, the chances that you'll be chronically poor are greatly reduced.


And those who are never taught those things, or aren't born with the mental capacity to fully "get" those things should just deal with the fact that they get to live in poverty because they didn't fall out of the right vagina and weren't born bright enough to learn them on their own?

Back when I worked those kinds of jobs, I worked with people who absolutely busted their asses and were absolute model employees.  They put in more effort and caring and quality hard work than I would ever be willing or able to do, especially dealing with people or being on my feet for 8+ hours a day.

But some of them were just not born especially bright.  Not developmentally delayed or handicapped, but just below average intellectually.  No amount of teaching was ever going to give them the capacity for strong logic or strategic planning.  And that's completely fine.

But they SHOULD expect that their hard work, even at "menial" or "unskilled" work, should provide a living for them at the end of the day.

My job now pays me over four times as much as I ever made at those jobs.  And I have no "skills" to speak of other than being a middle class white girl who happened to be born to a solid family who taught me life skills before I left the house and a somewhat above-average IQ.  I was trained in this work on the job after college - which I could afford to attend due to that above-average IQ getting me scholarships.    And I work a quarter as hard as I did at those jobs.  Maybe less.

How is that something that we should support or accept?
 
2013-08-01 11:33:45 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Madbassist1: LOL right. Do some research. Texas contractors chronically abuse wage laws, dont give its employees benefits, (heavy construction without benefits???) And most times flat out just hires aliens for cash.

LOL I live here. Where there might be some contractors hiring illegals as framers and roofers, if you're making less than $20/hour in construction and or the oilfield you're a farking idiot...or illegal.

Madbassist1: Don't let my hard facts get in the way of your Derp, good sir.

Huuurrrr durrrr. Why not pack your happy ass from Dayton and come see for yourself rather than relying on cherry picked "facts" from the "Workers Defense Project".


HURRR DURRR. I'm in Webster Texas as I type this. DURRR. The article I cited just reinforced the point. The original story comes from The Houston Chronicle, which I read Mon-Thurs. durrrr..
 
2013-08-01 11:37:35 AM

Aristocles: I bet it's a lot easier to survive on fast food wages than it is on not having a job at all. If our noble job-creators are forced to keep upping the wages for unskilled labor, they won't be able to hire as many employees.


Minimum wage in Australia: $14.70 (USD)
Unemployment in Australia: 5.6%

Oh, let me guess, you're going to derp about inflation. Big Mac in the US: $4.20   In Australia: $4.96

Guess how many customers of places that pay minimum wage are themselves making minimum wage. Guess what happens to your business when your customers are making a lot more money.
 
2013-08-01 11:38:13 AM

Madbassist1: Dancin_In_Anson: Madbassist1: LOL right. Do some research. Texas contractors chronically abuse wage laws, dont give its employees benefits, (heavy construction without benefits???) And most times flat out just hires aliens for cash.

LOL I live here. Where there might be some contractors hiring illegals as framers and roofers, if you're making less than $20/hour in construction and or the oilfield you're a farking idiot...or illegal.

Madbassist1: Don't let my hard facts get in the way of your Derp, good sir.

Huuurrrr durrrr. Why not pack your happy ass from Dayton and come see for yourself rather than relying on cherry picked "facts" from the "Workers Defense Project".

HURRR DURRR. I'm in Webster Texas as I type this. DURRR. The article I cited just reinforced the point. The original story comes from The Houston Chronicle, which I read Mon-Thurs. durrrr..


Man, you're ten times the person and the American that DIA ever dreamed of being in his little-boy-turned-big-boy fantasies. Guns, wanton and piggish selfishness (different from self interest, particular in terms of actual freedoms (ie. liberties, not economic "freedom FROM"), and tough-guy stances don't make you a man. Integrity and compassion for your brothers and sisters does. Oh, and if you profess to be a Christian (I don't), it also makes you a far better representative, as any "screw you I got mine" prosperity Gospel types are surely the most hilarious perversion of a slave religion's faith possible.
 
2013-08-01 11:39:06 AM

Danger Mouse: The solution is to create jobs that will pay more, that are worth more.



Yeah, that's what politicians DO!
 
2013-08-01 11:39:54 AM
 
2013-08-01 11:40:43 AM

Aristocles: I bet it's a lot easier to survive on fast food wages than it is on not having a job at all. If our noble job-creators are forced to keep upping the wages for unskilled labor, they won't be able to hire as many employees.


We already decimated our manufacturing industry by demanding unrealistic wages for work.  Let's totally ignore this precedent and do it again with our service industry.

Aarontology: ferretman: A fast-food job is not supposed to be a permanent job to raise a family on, why do people have such a hard time understanding this?

Whether or not it should be, it's the reality of today's service based economy. We've eliminated a lot of manufacturing and industry in America, so service jobs are a lot of what's left. or people have a hard time finding a job in their normal field, and have to take whatever jobs they can find. Sometimes that can mean for a long time.

Would you rather they simply not work because they "shouldn't" try to raise a family or have it become a full time job?

Why do people have such a hard time understanding that?


Why do you have such a hard time understanding that nobody owes you a job, living wage, etc.  No company wants to pay an 18 year old with a GED $50 an hour to sweep the floors at the refrigerator manufacturing facility and I can guarantee that we will see the same reduction in workforce on the day that McDonalds is forced to pay $50 an hour to the guy manning the fry baskets.  Businesses want to know how you can MAKE money for them, not cost them dearly in terms of huge wages for no effort.  I'm sure someone of your entrepreneurial spirit could put together a winning combination of cheap food and high wages for its workers and decimate the whole fast food industry.  Liberals would be beating your door down if you did.  What are you waiting for?
 
2013-08-01 11:44:42 AM

SCUBA_Archer: Aristocles: I bet it's a lot easier to survive on fast food wages than it is on not having a job at all. If our noble job-creators are forced to keep upping the wages for unskilled labor, they won't be able to hire as many employees.

We already decimated our manufacturing industry by demanding unrealistic wages for work.  Let's totally ignore this precedent and do it again with our service industry.

Aarontology: ferretman: A fast-food job is not supposed to be a permanent job to raise a family on, why do people have such a hard time understanding this?

Whether or not it should be, it's the reality of today's service based economy. We've eliminated a lot of manufacturing and industry in America, so service jobs are a lot of what's left. or people have a hard time finding a job in their normal field, and have to take whatever jobs they can find. Sometimes that can mean for a long time.

Would you rather they simply not work because they "shouldn't" try to raise a family or have it become a full time job?

Why do people have such a hard time understanding that?

Why do you have such a hard time understanding that nobody owes you a job, living wage, etc.  No company wants to pay an 18 year old with a GED $50 an hour to sweep the floors at the refrigerator manufacturing facility and I can guarantee that we will see the same reduction in workforce on the day that McDonalds is forced to pay $50 an hour to the guy manning the fry baskets.  Businesses want to know how you can MAKE money for them, not cost them dearly in terms of huge wages for no effort.  I'm sure someone of your entrepreneurial spirit could put together a winning combination of cheap food and high wages for its workers and decimate the whole fast food industry.  Liberals would be beating your door down if you did.  What are you waiting for?


Remember kids, if you aren't a job creator then you are part of the problem.
 
2013-08-01 11:45:55 AM

SCUBA_Archer: Why do you have such a hard time understanding that nobody owes you a job, living wage, etc. No company wants to pay an 18 year old with a GED $50 an hour to sweep the floors at the refrigerator manufacturing facility and I can guarantee that we will see the same reduction in workforce on the day that McDonalds is forced to pay $50 an hour to the guy manning the fry baskets. Businesses want to know how you can MAKE money for them, not cost them dearly in terms of huge wages for no effort. I'm sure someone of your entrepreneurial spirit could put together a winning combination of cheap food and high wages for its workers and decimate the whole fast food industry. Liberals would be beating your door down if you did. What are you waiting for?


I like how instead of debating the point, you have to turn "living wage" into $50.00 an hour.

dishonest debating? In my FARK thread? NEVER!!!

/low and stagnant wages are decimating our country right now. 1-6 or 7 people get food stamps.
//the long term ramifications of what is happening now will cripple us for generations.
 
2013-08-01 11:46:20 AM

SCUBA_Archer: Aristocles: I bet it's a lot easier to survive on fast food wages than it is on not having a job at all. If our noble job-creators are forced to keep upping the wages for unskilled labor, they won't be able to hire as many employees.

We already decimated our manufacturing industry by demanding unrealistic wages for work.  Let's totally ignore this precedent and do it again with our service industry.

Aarontology: ferretman: A fast-food job is not supposed to be a permanent job to raise a family on, why do people have such a hard time understanding this?

Whether or not it should be, it's the reality of today's service based economy. We've eliminated a lot of manufacturing and industry in America, so service jobs are a lot of what's left. or people have a hard time finding a job in their normal field, and have to take whatever jobs they can find. Sometimes that can mean for a long time.

Would you rather they simply not work because they "shouldn't" try to raise a family or have it become a full time job?

Why do people have such a hard time understanding that?

Why do you have such a hard time understanding that nobody owes you a job, living wage, etc.  No company wants to pay an 18 year old with a GED $50 an hour to sweep the floors at the refrigerator manufacturing facility and I can guarantee that we will see the same reduction in workforce on the day that McDonalds is forced to pay $50 an hour to the guy manning the fry baskets.  Businesses want to know how you can MAKE money for them, not cost them dearly in terms of huge wages for no effort.  I'm sure someone of your entrepreneurial spirit could put together a winning combination of cheap food and high wages for its workers and decimate the whole fast food industry.  Liberals would be beating your door down if you did.  What are you waiting for?


Total BS. Nobody is asking for $50 for McDonald's employees. How about $12-13? You're clearly in love with strawmen.
 
2013-08-01 11:49:07 AM

MisterRonbo: Aristocles: I bet it's a lot easier to survive on fast food wages than it is on not having a job at all. If our noble job-creators are forced to keep upping the wages for unskilled labor, they won't be able to hire as many employees.

Minimum wage in Australia: $14.70 (USD)
Unemployment in Australia: 5.6%

Oh, let me guess, you're going to derp about inflation. Big Mac in the US: $4.20   In Australia: $4.96

Guess how many customers of places that pay minimum wage are themselves making minimum wage. Guess what happens to your business when your customers are making a lot more money.


No, I'm not. I'm going to point out the fact that The United States of America is best nation in the history of the world so, of course, we'll have more folks trying to get jobs here than they do in Australia.

"Australia," please. I'm sure it's a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.
 
2013-08-01 11:50:07 AM

Madbassist1: http://www.npr.org/2013/04/11/176777498/texas-contractors-say-playing - by-the-rules-doesnt-pay

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/10/176677299/construction-booming-in-texa s- but-many-workers-pay-dearly

DURRRRR


Madbassist1: HURRR DURRR. I'm in Webster Texas as I type this. DURRR. The article I cited just reinforced the point. The original story comes from The Houston Chronicle, which I read Mon-Thurs. durrrr..


As I said , if you're in construction or oilfield and NOT making $20/ hour your an idiot or (as your articles references) ILLEGAL.
 
2013-08-01 11:52:56 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Madbassist1: http://www.npr.org/2013/04/11/176777498/texas-contractors-say-playing - by-the-rules-doesnt-pay

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/10/176677299/construction-booming-in-texa s- but-many-workers-pay-dearly

DURRRRR

Madbassist1: HURRR DURRR. I'm in Webster Texas as I type this. DURRR. The article I cited just reinforced the point. The original story comes from The Houston Chronicle, which I read Mon-Thurs. durrrr..

As I said , if you're in construction or oilfield and NOT making $20/ hour your an idiot or (as your articles references) ILLEGAL.


What does that have to do with 1: the clear problem of illegal immigrants working for construction companies and 2: said companies not paying benefits?

And if most citizens make $20 working for construction companies but those companies still hire a LOT of illegal immigrants... that's kind of a problem too.
 
2013-08-01 11:53:59 AM

RockofAges: Nobody is asking for $50 for McDonald's employees. How about $12-13?



There are trained professionals (EMT's for instance) that don't earn that in some areas.  Pharm techs who have to have special training, knowledge and continuing education earn that much or a little more, depending on your region.  Imaging techs in some clinics and hospitals don't even earn $20.00 an hour.

If making ice cream cones at Dairy Queen 'should' pay 12-13 an hour, then EVERYONE'S wages should be doubled, if they're a trained professional - that includes auto-mechanics, A/C repairmen or whatever.  Otherwise, that's just ridiculous.

BTW, when are you opening your restaurant?  And when you do, will you be taking suggestions on how to run your business from Fark.com?
 
2013-08-01 11:55:32 AM

MisterRonbo: Minimum wage in Australia: $14.70 (USD)
Unemployment in Australia: 5.6%


That's just combat pay because all wildlife in Australia is designed to kill you.
 
2013-08-01 11:59:41 AM

Neighborhood Watch: There are trained professionals (EMT's for instance) that don't earn that in some areas. Pharm techs who have to have special training, knowledge and continuing education earn that much or a little more, depending on your region. Imaging techs in some clinics and hospitals don't even earn $20.00 an hour.


I bet you couldnt work at McD's. I know I never could. those lines are well oiled machines. You'd have to be well trained to work em.
 
2013-08-01 12:04:25 PM

MugzyBrown: sdd2000: And the incentive to leave welfare for work should be what then, a wage that is insufficient to live on or to feed your family?

How about a person can only collect so many months of welfare in their lifetime?


That's great, combine our 300,000,000+ guns with mobs of people who's only choice is to get a job that doesn't pay the bills. That's a society I want to live in.
 
2013-08-01 12:06:27 PM
I gotta give you all credit. What could have been just raw derp became derp mixed with good points against the really dumb people. Kudos to the smarts, not so much to those who aren't.

Min wages destroy business! The same argument made every time it had increased and yet there are still businesses doing business here. It is almost like a large large consumer base exists in the US that no business really wants to lose.
 
2013-08-01 12:06:40 PM
I don't get why these guys (see your favorite FArk Independents above) are so adamantly in favor of helping widen the wealth gap. It's not like the 1% are ever gonna let any of it trickle down to them.

They're just telling the other slaves to shut up and be grateful Massa don' beat 'em mo'. They's hard times on de' plantation an' Massa caint spare no time fo' yo' foolishness.
 
2013-08-01 12:07:13 PM
I don't understand the argument of Welfare vs. Minimum wage job. In my state, you don't qualify for welfare unless you have dependent children, and even then the maximum amount you are eligible for is 200something a month. You absolutely cannot live off of that amount.

Us single, childless scumbags are royally farked if we don't take the ditch digger or fast food jobs. There are no government programs to help us outside of food stamps (which you are ineligible for if you drive a car that isn't an  old POS).

Can someone please clarify where all these awesome benefits for single, childless, poor/lazy people are?
 
2013-08-01 12:09:20 PM
I'd be speeding to get the fark out of Texas, too.
 
2013-08-01 12:11:20 PM

Soup4Bonnie: I'd be speeding to get the fark out of Texas, too.


/Texas
//sad face
 
2013-08-01 12:12:47 PM

my alt's alt's alt: I don't understand the argument of Welfare vs. Minimum wage job. In my state, you don't qualify for welfare unless you have dependent children, and even then the maximum amount you are eligible for is 200something a month. You absolutely cannot live off of that amount.

Us single, childless scumbags are royally farked if we don't take the ditch digger or fast food jobs. There are no government programs to help us outside of food stamps (which you are ineligible for if you drive a car that isn't an  old POS).

Can someone please clarify where all these awesome benefits for single, childless, poor/lazy people are?


It's in their heads.

In their heads.

GOP
GOP
GOP P P
 
2013-08-01 12:13:21 PM

Aristocles: "Australia," please. I'm sure it's a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there


Clearly, you've never partied with Aussie girls. Imagine the bodies of surfer girls (most of 'em, anyway) with the horniness of surfer dudes. And they're very forward.

Just don't try to keep up with them when you're drinking.
 
2013-08-01 12:14:59 PM

dittybopper: Aarontology: I'd rather voluntarily pay a slightly higher price for a good or service than involuntarily have to pay a lot more for welfare,

So if we get higher prices for McDonalds, do we get a tax cut because less welfare?  'Cause if you believe that would actually happen, I got a bridge to sell ya.

Here's what would happen:  A law passes that raises the minimum wage to some "living wage".  At that point, the employers have a few choices to make.  These are some of the things they can do:

1. Raise prices.  This is definitely an option, but not one that customers like, especially a sudden jump.  All of a sudden, instead of costing you $15 to take the family to McDarnOld Hamburgers, it now costs you about $17.50.  So you do it a bit less.

2. Reduce worker hours.  Another option for the employers, and a particularly attractive one in view of both #1 above, and the fact that under a certain number of hours they don't have to pay for benefits.

3. Reduce the number of workers.  Another attractive option.  If you can maintain roughly the same payroll by getting rid of a couple workers, that helps.

4. Reduce portions while maintaining the same prices.

Note that two of those options involve fewer people being employed full time (or employed at all).   So you end up screwing some people so that others can make more money.   Or you bring the hours down so that someone who worked 40 hours at $9 an hour is now working 23 hours at $16 an hour, and bringing home the same paycheck.

And don't think that the employers won't be looking at 2 and 3 very, very hard.  Truthfully, it'll probably be a mix, but at first, the employees this is supposed to "help" are going to get screwed, because the restaurant owners aren't going to want to increase their prices by 17% overnight.


There's a piece of the puzzle you're missing. If suddenly you've got McDonalds paying $15 and hour, then other fast food places will be pressured to similarly compensate workers, and fast food jobs basically being the bottom of the barrel jobs, it will put upward pressure on other low paying jobs to increase wages probably not to $15 an hour, but higher none the less. Yes this will raise the cost of everything a bit, but not by significant degrees since price competition will still exist. What you've got then is a slight increase in the overall cost of living, but that's counteracted by the fact that you've got millions of people making significantly more money than they used to, which means that while prices have gone up, you've disproportionately increased demand. Overall, everyone wins. It's called a bottom-up instead of a top-down economy. It works great for everyone, just look at Australia, their minimum wage is $16.37/hr plus employers must contribute an additional 9% to a retirement fund. Everything there is slightly more expensive, but everyone that works can afford to live with no problems.
 
2013-08-01 12:21:07 PM

dittybopper: Since when has a job flipping burgers ever been something anybody expected to make a living off of?

I'm 46 years old, and back when *I* was a kid, the people you saw working at McDonalds were either high school or college students, or older folks looking to supplement their retirement incomes.

If you were between those two age ranges, you were either a manager or the mentally disabled guy they hired to mop the floors.

NOT EVERY JOB CAN OR SHOULD PAY A "LIVING WAGE".  If you can be replaced by a mid-70's IQ pimply-faced teenager who only has a couple days of training, then what you do for work isn't worth a "living wage".  If it was, they wouldn't hire dumb-ass kids and retirees to do it.


So if you the only options in your area are no job, fast food, or walmart. You are lazy slackabout not deserving of a decent life. Got It!
 
2013-08-01 12:26:27 PM
I don't see the problem here. According to the calculator in the article, a fast food worker would only have to work 504 hours per week to make what I make. Why are fast food workers so lazy that they can 't work 500+ hours per week? Bums.
 
2013-08-01 12:38:45 PM
so when you yell at someone "get a job you lazy leech, stop takin' ma taxez!" there are stipulations to that?

FTcalculator
A household like yours in California needs to earn $23,295 annually to make a secure yet modest living.

Bwhahhaah!!!! secure? nope, modest? a real stretch of the term.


So, now it's not just "get a job", it's "get a good paying job", like they're available on street corners to whoever asks for one.

good job America, you're an asshole.
 
2013-08-01 12:43:01 PM
I would need to work 157 hours a week at fast food to get my same salary.  If you think that you need more than 11 hours of sleep... per week.... you're a lazy pinko muzzo commie Alinskyistic Maoistic Lennistic Stalinistic Kruschevistic Marxist who sold his bootstraps for some Mentos and a doobie.
 
2013-08-01 12:43:52 PM

my alt's alt's alt: Us single, childless scumbags are royally farked


seriously.  We live in limbo, make just enough not to qualify for state/federal benefits or student loans and not enough attend school to better our chances or to live on.

/unless as Mentioned by Romney, we get a loan from our parents because first of all, everyone has parents & everyone's parents can afford to pay for your living expenses.
 
2013-08-01 12:59:28 PM

hobberwickey: dittybopper: Aarontology: I'd rather voluntarily pay a slightly higher price for a good or service than involuntarily have to pay a lot more for welfare,

So if we get higher prices for McDonalds, do we get a tax cut because less welfare?  'Cause if you believe that would actually happen, I got a bridge to sell ya.

Here's what would happen:  A law passes that raises the minimum wage to some "living wage".  At that point, the employers have a few choices to make.  These are some of the things they can do:

1. Raise prices.  This is definitely an option, but not one that customers like, especially a sudden jump.  All of a sudden, instead of costing you $15 to take the family to McDarnOld Hamburgers, it now costs you about $17.50.  So you do it a bit less.

2. Reduce worker hours.  Another option for the employers, and a particularly attractive one in view of both #1 above, and the fact that under a certain number of hours they don't have to pay for benefits.

3. Reduce the number of workers.  Another attractive option.  If you can maintain roughly the same payroll by getting rid of a couple workers, that helps.

4. Reduce portions while maintaining the same prices.

Note that two of those options involve fewer people being employed full time (or employed at all).   So you end up screwing some people so that others can make more money.   Or you bring the hours down so that someone who worked 40 hours at $9 an hour is now working 23 hours at $16 an hour, and bringing home the same paycheck.

And don't think that the employers won't be looking at 2 and 3 very, very hard.  Truthfully, it'll probably be a mix, but at first, the employees this is supposed to "help" are going to get screwed, because the restaurant owners aren't going to want to increase their prices by 17% overnight.

There's a piece of the puzzle you're missing. If suddenly you've got McDonalds paying $15 and hour, then other fast food places will be pressured to similarly compensate workers, and fast food ...


No, there is another piece of the puzzle he's missing.

5. Operate at a lower profit margin.

Thats not really an option though, cause I do believe (IANAL) that it is illegal to do that in a corporation. Something about maximizing for shareholders or some shiat.
 
2013-08-01 12:59:43 PM

dittybopper: Since when has a job flipping burgers ever been something anybody expected to make a living off of?

I'm 46 years old, and back when *I* was a kid, the people you saw working at McDonalds were either high school or college students, or older folks looking to supplement their retirement incomes.

If you were between those two age ranges, you were either a manager or the mentally disabled guy they hired to mop the floors.

NOT EVERY JOB CAN OR SHOULD PAY A "LIVING WAGE".  If you can be replaced by a mid-70's IQ pimply-faced teenager who only has a couple days of training, then what you do for work isn't worth a "living wage".  If it was, they wouldn't hire dumb-ass kids and retirees to do it.



Then we don't get to count these as jobs, and the companies are not "job creators."
 
2013-08-01 01:00:46 PM

coeyagi: I would need to work 157 hours a week at fast food to get my same salary.  If you think that you need more than 11 hours of sleep... per week.... you're a lazy pinko muzzo commie Alinskyistic Maoistic Lennistic Stalinistic Kruschevistic Marxist who sold his bootstraps for some Mentos and a doobie.


Please tell use about your higher degrees, your privileged upbringing, and your deep spiritual connections with the McDonald's workers of the world? Okay?  We'll wait, for a long time, Mr. Approx $32.00 an hour Big Shot Boy.
 
2013-08-01 01:02:19 PM
NOT EVERY JOB CAN OR SHOULD PAY A "LIVING WAGE".Keeps showing up in this thread so one simple question:

What does a civilized society do with the people who for one reason or another are only able to get a job in one of these roles?
//food stamps, medicare, subsidized housing etc...now isn't the taxpayer just kicking in some cash so the country can have a "Value-Meal"
 
2013-08-01 01:03:33 PM
Oh, is this another thread where pieces of human trash suggest that working people should not be paid enough to live on from a job they're dedicating their useful working hours to?
 
2013-08-01 01:08:42 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Oh, is this another thread where pieces of human trash suggest that working people should not be paid enough to live on from a job they're dedicating their useful working hours to?


These threads are getting fun aren't they?
 
2013-08-01 01:09:26 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Oh, is this another thread where pieces of human trash suggest that working people should not be paid enough to live on from a job they're dedicating their useful working hours to?


It's more like people who take the low route with their careers and have no aspirations of actually achieving anything in their lives somehow deserve to be paid 2-3 times more than the market will bear.  The other issue is that when their wages go up so do the cost of goods so its eventually a zero sum game.

If you want a living wage... find a skill that is sought after and become good at it.  I've changed careers a number of times due to market changes.
 
2013-08-01 01:09:59 PM
The world needs ditchdiggers too. Society doesn't have to ensure they are miserable.

Seriously in a service economy with the average fast food worker being 30+, either start calling for soylent green, massive socialism, or real wages. Anything else is kicking the can down the road.

Hate the poors? Own it and call for their death.
 
2013-08-01 01:13:00 PM

dwrash: A Dark Evil Omen: Oh, is this another thread where pieces of human trash suggest that working people should not be paid enough to live on from a job they're dedicating their useful working hours to?

It's more like people who take the low route with their careers and have no aspirations of actually achieving anything in their lives somehow deserve to be paid 2-3 times more than the market will bear.  The other issue is that when their wages go up so do the cost of goods so its eventually a zero sum game.

If you want a living wage... find a skill that is sought after and become good at it.  I've changed careers a number of times due to market changes.


if by the "market" you mean corporate salaries, well then that statement makes more sense.
 
2013-08-01 01:14:05 PM

dwrash: It's more like people who take the low route with their careers and have no aspirations of actually achieving anything in their lives somehow deserve to be paid 2-3 times more than the market will bear. The other issue is that when their wages go up so do the cost of goods so its eventually a zero sum game.

If you want a living wage... find a skill that is sought after and become good at it. I've changed careers a number of times due to market changes.


Why do people continue to spew complete bullshiat from their mouths? I just don't understand it.
 
2013-08-01 01:17:41 PM

SCUBA_Archer: Why do you have such a hard time understanding that nobody owes you a job, living wage, etc.


If a company wants to turn a profit and succeed using the fruits of our society, things like public education, roadways, legal system and whatnot, that company has to play by the rules of that society.

No company should be allowed to bolster their bottom-line by requiring taxpayers to subsidise their low wages with public assistance. Yet, these corporations do this wantonly, they count on the fact that you and I will cover their extra profit. It is complete bullshiat--you provide an hour of your life to some corporation? You should be paid a living wage. Nobody expects them to get rich.

While it is important to provide social and economic safety nets, there's no reason those should be used to enhance profit for Walmart and Mcdonalds.
 
2013-08-01 01:19:10 PM

SCUBA_Archer: Why do you have such a hard time understanding that under capitalism nobody owes you a job, living wage, etc.


Fixed for accuracy.
 
2013-08-01 01:20:42 PM

MrBallou: I don't get why these guys (see your favorite FArk Independents above) are so adamantly in favor of helping widen the wealth gap. It's not like the 1% are ever gonna let any of it trickle down to them.

They're just telling the other slaves to shut up and be grateful Massa don' beat 'em mo'. They's hard times on de' plantation an' Massa caint spare no time fo' yo' foolishness.


How does raising McDonald's employees wages have any affect what so ever on the 1%? The owners aren't going to eat the costs. They will simply up the prices of their food, and effectively you will take from one poor person's hand to give to another. Not many 1% come in and hit the value meal for lunch.
 
2013-08-01 01:23:29 PM
You know, back in my day, those 'burger-flippers' were held up as 'examples justifying higher education', not as 'noble work worth a middle class wage'
 
2013-08-01 01:26:23 PM

bikerific: dittybopper: Since when has a job flipping burgers ever been something anybody expected to make a living off of?

I'm 46 years old, and back when *I* was a kid, the people you saw working at McDonalds were either high school or college students, or older folks looking to supplement their retirement incomes.

If you were between those two age ranges, you were either a manager or the mentally disabled guy they hired to mop the floors.

NOT EVERY JOB CAN OR SHOULD PAY A "LIVING WAGE".  If you can be replaced by a mid-70's IQ pimply-faced teenager who only has a couple days of training, then what you do for work isn't worth a "living wage".  If it was, they wouldn't hire dumb-ass kids and retirees to do it.


Then we don't get to count these as jobs, and the companies are not "job creators."


THIS
 
2013-08-01 01:26:53 PM

dragonfire77: You know, back in my day, those 'burger-flippers' were held up as 'examples justifying higher education', not as 'noble work worth a middle class wage'


Your day sounds like a blast.  But today, in the real world, student debt is crippling younger people.  There aren't as many readily available jobs so some times people have to settle for anything while keeping their job search up.

Fark you and fark back in your day.
 
2013-08-01 01:26:55 PM

dragonfire77: You know, back in my day, those 'burger-flippers' were held up as 'examples justifying higher education', not as 'noble work worth a middle class wage'


That was before we lost unskilled factory jobs that could support a family, house, car, and retirement savings.
 
2013-08-01 01:31:07 PM
if you start a sentence with "back in my day", it's best to just stop it
 
2013-08-01 01:31:10 PM

FarkedOver: dragonfire77: You know, back in my day, those 'burger-flippers' were held up as 'examples justifying higher education', not as 'noble work worth a middle class wage'

Your day sounds like a blast.  But today, in the real world, student debt is crippling younger people.  There aren't as many readily available jobs so some times people have to settle for anything while keeping their job search up.

Fark you and fark back in your day.


You seem a little testy today, comrade.
 
2013-08-01 01:32:32 PM

dragonfire77: You know, back in my day, those 'burger-flippers' were held up as 'examples justifying higher education', not as 'noble work worth a middle class wage'


Yeah, and back in my day a high school had an auto shop, a metal shop and a wood shop. Now, the classes I took in my high school are no longer offered, since they shut down the auto shop, metal shop and wood shop. Used to be you could go from high school to blue collar manufacturing, fabrication or construction with no need for a secondary degree.

Too bad too many assholes decided that they should short-change the education system in order to push a bullshiat private institution model which has turned into a program built to extract money from people with federally backed loans while giving them virtually nothing in return.
 
2013-08-01 01:35:20 PM

Smackledorfer: The world needs ditchdiggers too. Society doesn't have to ensure they are miserable.

Seriously in a service economy with the average fast food worker being 30+, either start calling for soylent green, massive socialism, or real wages. Anything else is kicking the can down the road.

Hate the poors? Own it and call for their death.


Ditch digging is a union job, and the work of 20 men is done with one ore more of these babies now

perishablepress.com

us.123rf.com
 
2013-08-01 01:36:48 PM

Aristocles: You seem a little testy today, comrade.


Never regarding you sweetheart! :)

xoxoxo
 
2013-08-01 01:37:13 PM

dragonfire77: You know, back in my day, those 'burger-flippers' were held up as 'examples justifying higher education', not as 'noble work worth a middle class wage'


yeah & i assume back in your day you could purchase a house in Burbank Ca. for 27K and a car for under 4K, I bet tuition for education was affordable too!  nowadays as we move more towards a service based economy, jobs aren't used to make examples of how not to live, they are a means of income.
 
2013-08-01 01:37:47 PM

Aristocles: FarkedOver: dragonfire77: You know, back in my day, those 'burger-flippers' were held up as 'examples justifying higher education', not as 'noble work worth a middle class wage'

Your day sounds like a blast.  But today, in the real world, student debt is crippling younger people.  There aren't as many readily available jobs so some times people have to settle for anything while keeping their job search up.

Fark you and fark back in your day.

You seem a little testy today, comrade.


Maybe a few button-pushings at the fry machine's behest will placate Farkover's  intellectual needs for the near future.
 
2013-08-01 01:38:36 PM

lantawa: Maybe a few button-pushings at the fry machine's behest will placate Farkover's intellectual needs for the near future.


Who am I kidding, I am so clumsy if I tried to operate the fry machine I'd start a 3 alarm grease fire.
 
2013-08-01 01:41:43 PM

Isitoveryet: dragonfire77: You know, back in my day, those 'burger-flippers' were held up as 'examples justifying higher education', not as 'noble work worth a middle class wage'

yeah & i assume back in your day you could purchase a house in Burbank Ca. for 27K and a car for under 4K, I bet tuition for education was affordable too!  nowadays as we move more towards a service based economy, jobs aren't used to make examples of how not to live, they are a means of income.


I'm only 36...I came out of college and started on an assembly line (Yes, double degree in physics and Com Sci, working on a PCB assembly line) I knew I didn't want to stay there...I didn't expect to earn any kind of decent wage from there.  I used it to move up the ranks into the engineering department.

Your low wage job is only a dead-end if you let it be.  Use it as a springboard to something better.

And for the record, when I got out of college, average house was around 130K in my area.  Now it's around 200...
 
2013-08-01 01:42:24 PM

FarkedOver: dwrash: It's more like people who take the low route with their careers and have no aspirations of actually achieving anything in their lives somehow deserve to be paid 2-3 times more than the market will bear. The other issue is that when their wages go up so do the cost of goods so its eventually a zero sum game.

If you want a living wage... find a skill that is sought after and become good at it. I've changed careers a number of times due to market changes.

Why do people continue to spew complete bullshiat from their mouths? I just don't understand it



I have to agree with you, yes you don't understand it, do you? And that's your probelm.

.
 
2013-08-01 01:43:19 PM

Danger Mouse: I have to agree with you, yes you don't understand it, do you? And that's your probelm.


We all got probelms, I know.
 
2013-08-01 01:55:51 PM

dragonfire77: Isitoveryet: dragonfire77: You know, back in my day, those 'burger-flippers' were held up as 'examples justifying higher education', not as 'noble work worth a middle class wage'

yeah & i assume back in your day you could purchase a house in Burbank Ca. for 27K and a car for under 4K, I bet tuition for education was affordable too!  nowadays as we move more towards a service based economy, jobs aren't used to make examples of how not to live, they are a means of income.

I'm only 36...I came out of college and started on an assembly line (Yes, double degree in physics and Com Sci, working on a PCB assembly line) I knew I didn't want to stay there...I didn't expect to earn any kind of decent wage from there.  I used it to move up the ranks into the engineering department.

Your low wage job is only a dead-end if you let it be.  Use it as a springboard to something better.

And for the record, when I got out of college, average house was around 130K in my area.  Now it's around 200...


36! you're too young to start off with "back in my day".
an education is a useful tool for advancement & I can very much appreciate your positive outlook.


re: home prices, i wish everyone would just walk away from the current asking prices, simply walk away, don't pay it, force the prices down, nobody should participate in todays realty scam.
 
2013-08-01 01:56:47 PM

dittybopper: I don't have the money handling skillset that comes with being rich


This is the biggest bullshiat phrase I've ever heard.
 
2013-08-01 02:00:02 PM

FarkedOver: lantawa: Maybe a few button-pushings at the fry machine's behest will placate Farkover's intellectual needs for the near future.

Who am I kidding, I am so clumsy if I tried to operate the fry machine I'd start a 3 alarm grease fire.


I'll be eternally grateful that, one day, back in my day, the sliver-slicer was set on cheese instead of tomatoes. Cheese-setting = sliced-off side of fingertip.  Tomato-setting would have = 1/3 of finger GONE...  thankya, powers that be...thankya....
 
2013-08-01 02:02:19 PM

Isitoveryet: re: home prices, i wish everyone would just walk away from the current asking prices, simply walk away, don't pay it, force the prices down, nobody should participate in todays realty scam.


36! you're too young to start off with "back in my day".
Perhaps, but I have 4 kids, the oldest of which are hitting the teen years, so I find myself using that phrase a lot, lately...

Houses:
There are still bargains out there, but they're becoming rarer and rarer.

Remember, you're not a failure if you get knocked down...the problem with so many people is that they STAY down...
 
2013-08-01 02:03:20 PM

dittybopper: Since when has a job flipping burgers ever been something anybody expected to make a living off of?


At the 40 hours a week mark, I'd say.

Just because *some* people work these jobs part-time to supplement their income or their parent's income doesn't mean the job itself shouldn't pay enough to live off of if you do it full time.
 
2013-08-01 02:19:35 PM

EWreckedSean: MrBallou: I don't get why these guys (see your favorite FArk Independents above) are so adamantly in favor of helping widen the wealth gap. It's not like the 1% are ever gonna let any of it trickle down to them.

They're just telling the other slaves to shut up and be grateful Massa don' beat 'em mo'. They's hard times on de' plantation an' Massa caint spare no time fo' yo' foolishness.

How does raising McDonald's employees wages have any affect what so ever on the 1%? The owners aren't going to eat the costs. They will simply up the prices of their food, and effectively you will take from one poor person's hand to give to another. Not many 1% come in and hit the value meal for lunch.


Rriiigghhtt. 1) the owners could indeed "eat the costs". Cutting the margin razor thin by stiffing the people who keep it moving is immoral. but that ain't gonna happen, so 2) so what if the roll it into the price and "poor people" pay $0.68/burger more? The entire economy is not not dependent on that $0.68. Not everything has to be dirt cheap. Really. Pay what it's worth, instead of the smallest amount you possibly can. Then the guy behind the counter won't have to feel like slave labor.

"Help a brother out?" shouldn't just be for street corner beggars. How about we do it for people willing to work for the money? That's what you Conservatives always say you want.
 
2013-08-01 02:20:59 PM

MrBallou: "Help a brother out?" shouldn't just be for street corner beggars. How about we do it for people willing to work for the money? That's what you Conservatives always say you want.


Ya, but they don't want the government to force them to help because that makes it easier to say that they want to help without actually having to.
 
2013-08-01 02:25:02 PM

Garble: dittybopper: Since when has a job flipping burgers ever been something anybody expected to make a living off of?

At the 40 hours a week mark, I'd say.

Just because *some* people work these jobs part-time to supplement their income or their parent's income doesn't mean the job itself shouldn't pay enough to live off of if you do it full time.


Yes it does. The simple truth is that some work isn't worth a living wage. That's why they are generally worked by people who aren't trying to live off it, aka high school kids, retirees looking for some extra income, second household income earners. Just because somebody chooses to try and make a career out of a non-career job doesn't mean employers should suddenly double what they are willing to pay to support them. Some jobs simply aren't worth $15/hr. A fast food restaurant makes it's money by selling cheap food. That means keeping costs, including wages down. There are plenty of restaurants that aren't about selling cheap food that people can earn better wages at.
 
2013-08-01 02:26:41 PM
PROTIP:  If your job doesn't pay very much, you can't afford to live on your own.  Share the bills with a friend, friends, or family members, don't piss all your money away at bars, and work towards getting a better job.

If no one decent wants to live with you, it's because you suck.
 
2013-08-01 02:26:59 PM

meat0918: Smackledorfer: The world needs ditchdiggers too. Society doesn't have to ensure they are miserable.

Seriously in a service economy with the average fast food worker being 30+, either start calling for soylent green, massive socialism, or real wages. Anything else is kicking the can down the road.

Hate the poors? Own it and call for their death.

Ditch digging is a union job, and the work of 20 men is done with one ore more of these babies now

[perishablepress.com image 300x143]

[us.123rf.com image 266x400]


Woe is the day when caddy shack becomes obscure on fark.
 
2013-08-01 02:28:27 PM

dr_blasto: While it is important to provide social and economic safety nets, there's no reason those should be used to enhance profit for Walmart and Mcdonalds.


Preach it brother. Even the FARK INDEPENDENTS should see the validity of this.
 
2013-08-01 02:29:27 PM

Smackledorfer: meat0918: Smackledorfer: The world needs ditchdiggers too. Society doesn't have to ensure they are miserable.

Seriously in a service economy with the average fast food worker being 30+, either start calling for soylent green, massive socialism, or real wages. Anything else is kicking the can down the road.

Hate the poors? Own it and call for their death.

Ditch digging is a union job, and the work of 20 men is done with one ore more of these babies now

[perishablepress.com image 300x143]

[us.123rf.com image 266x400]

Woe is the day when caddy shack becomes obscure on fark.


At least that hat looks good on you.
 
2013-08-01 02:29:53 PM

MrBallou: EWreckedSean: MrBallou: I don't get why these guys (see your favorite FArk Independents above) are so adamantly in favor of helping widen the wealth gap. It's not like the 1% are ever gonna let any of it trickle down to them.

They're just telling the other slaves to shut up and be grateful Massa don' beat 'em mo'. They's hard times on de' plantation an' Massa caint spare no time fo' yo' foolishness.

How does raising McDonald's employees wages have any affect what so ever on the 1%? The owners aren't going to eat the costs. They will simply up the prices of their food, and effectively you will take from one poor person's hand to give to another. Not many 1% come in and hit the value meal for lunch.

Rriiigghhtt. 1) the owners could indeed "eat the costs". Cutting the margin razor thin by stiffing the people who keep it moving is immoral. but that ain't gonna happen, so 2) so what if the roll it into the price and "poor people" pay $0.68/burger more? The entire economy is not not dependent on that $0.68. Not everything has to be dirt cheap. Really. Pay what it's worth, instead of the smallest amount you possibly can. Then the guy behind the counter won't have to feel like slave labor.

"Help a brother out?" shouldn't just be for street corner beggars. How about we do it for people willing to work for the money? That's what you Conservatives always say you want.


Most McDonald's operate at a ~10% profit margin. From the article yesterday, doubling wages would cost 17% hike in costs. So no they couldn't eat it. The costs would result in an almost 20% increase in prices, which breaks a business model that is already strained. You notice dollar menu's have about gone away. Now it is value menus, with food from $1 to $1.75 or so. 20% increase in price turns an $8 meal into an almost $10 meal. That isn't the market they are going for.
 
2013-08-01 02:30:46 PM

EWreckedSean: Garble: dittybopper: Since when has a job flipping burgers ever been something anybody expected to make a living off of?

At the 40 hours a week mark, I'd say.

Just because *some* people work these jobs part-time to supplement their income or their parent's income doesn't mean the job itself shouldn't pay enough to live off of if you do it full time.

Yes it does. The simple truth is that some work isn't worth a living wage. That's why they are generally worked by people who aren't trying to live off it, aka high school kids, retirees looking for some extra income, second household income earners. Just because somebody chooses to try and make a career out of a non-career job doesn't mean employers should suddenly double what they are willing to pay to support them. Some jobs simply aren't worth $15/hr. A fast food restaurant makes it's money by selling cheap food. That means keeping costs, including wages down. There are plenty of restaurants that aren't about selling cheap food that people can earn better wages at.


Oh bullshiat.

HS kids can't work full time, nobody should expect them to and they are earning supplemental income. Adults work at places like this because that's the job they can get.

Any corporation that supplements their profit by forcing communities to employ an economic safety net aren't good employers, aren't good citizens and aren't capitalists. They're farking fascists and don't deserve to run any business. There's no need for society to tolerate that bullshiat, and we damn well shouldn't.
 
2013-08-01 02:31:53 PM

Isitoveryet: re: home prices, i wish everyone would just walk away from the current asking prices, simply walk away, don't pay it, force the prices down, nobody should participate in todays realty scam.


What is the scam exactly? If the amount of space you get in a given home is reasonable relative to rent in the area and you have a decent interest rate, then there is no scam.  Now I can't speak for where you live and whether it works out that way or not, but where I live unless you plan on moving you are still better off buying than renting if you have decent credit and the ability to foot the down payment.

Hell, the real estate bubble bursting wouldn't even have been that big a deal if it hadn't coincided with a recession and poor bank practices.  I wouldn't call that a perfect storm, but it definitely wasn't a single factor.
 
2013-08-01 02:33:33 PM

meat0918: At least that hat looks good on you.


My free bowl of soup was delicious.
 
2013-08-01 02:35:28 PM

EWreckedSean: which breaks a business model that is already strained.


McDonalds is struggling so much they could only afford to pay their CEO $20,710,000 last year.
 
2013-08-01 02:53:44 PM
 
2013-08-01 03:00:36 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: EWreckedSean: which breaks a business model that is already strained.

McDonalds is struggling so much they could only afford to pay their CEO $20,710,000 last year.



It also made record profits in Australia last year where the min wage is about 15usd.
 
2013-08-01 03:04:21 PM

Scoop84: http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/at-99-a-st-petersburg- m an-finds-meaning-in-the-working-life/2132028

Quit your biatching.


I am sure you could find a slave who happily goes to work in the fields, too.

What is your point?
 
2013-08-01 03:05:19 PM

Raharu: Dusk-You-n-Me: EWreckedSean: which breaks a business model that is already strained.

McDonalds is struggling so much they could only afford to pay their CEO $20,710,000 last year.


It also made record profits in Australia last year where the min wage is about 15usd.



One of you should start a competing restaurant chain where the workers and CEO all make $15-20/hr.  Sounds like there's room to clean up.
 
2013-08-01 03:05:25 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: McDonalds is struggling so much they could only afford to pay their CEO $20,710,000 last year.


And increase their dividend to shareholders by 13% a year over the last five years....
 
2013-08-01 03:06:30 PM

Smackledorfer: Scoop84: http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/at-99-a-st-petersburg- m an-finds-meaning-in-the-working-life/2132028

Quit your biatching.

I am sure you could find a slave who happily goes to work in the fields, too.

What is your point?


My point was:  Quit your biatching.

Sorry if I was unclear.
 
2013-08-01 03:13:24 PM

Scoop84: Raharu: Dusk-You-n-Me: EWreckedSean: which breaks a business model that is already strained.

McDonalds is struggling so much they could only afford to pay their CEO $20,710,000 last year.


It also made record profits in Australia last year where the min wage is about 15usd.


One of you should start a competing restaurant chain where the workers and CEO all make $15-20/hr.  Sounds like there's room to clean up.



What a delightful little strawman! He has your eyes. Did you make him yourself?
 
2013-08-01 03:13:47 PM

dr_blasto: SCUBA_Archer: Why do you have such a hard time understanding that nobody owes you a job, living wage, etc.

If a company wants to turn a profit and succeed using the fruits of our society, things like public education, roadways, legal system and whatnot, that company has to play by the rules of that society.

No company should be allowed to bolster their bottom-line by requiring taxpayers to subsidise their low wages with public assistance. Yet, these corporations do this wantonly, they count on the fact that you and I will cover their extra profit. It is complete bullshiat--you provide an hour of your life to some corporation? You should be paid a living wage. Nobody expects them to get rich.

While it is important to provide social and economic safety nets, there's no reason those should be used to enhance profit for Walmart and Mcdonalds.


You are incredibly naive.  Labor is a supply and demand issue.  What you are asking is tatamount to saying Walmart may only sell US made goods or can only build stores on heavily taxed parcels of land.  You are introducing an artificial restraint to an otherwise free market.  Forcing them to pay certain wages will not have the fairytale outcome of every American having a white picket fence and 2 cars in the driveway that you think it will.  If people are not willing to do Walmart work for low wages that forces them to rely on social services to survive, then they wouldn't line up 10 deep for job openings.  Look at North Dakota now, or New Orleans after Katrina.  McDonalds gladly paid $15 an hr for workers there, because the labor pool was small and they had to in order to run their business.  The government didn't tell them they had to up wages in order to serve hamburgers to oil workers.  The opposite is true when you have a deep labor pool.  I'm amazed that your brain can't wrap around that simple concept.
 
2013-08-01 03:24:22 PM
I love how new Fox Talking Points become Gospel within a matter of weeks. Now we have a swarm of Teatards in here taking about how Planning and Budgeting are the tools that the popes should use as bootstraps. Why was this never brought up during the last Presidential campaign? Gingrich was droning on and on about how janitorial jobs for little black a schoolchildren and moon colonies were the solutions and would revitalize our entire society. Rmoney said that tuna fish sandwiches and loans from your parents are sure-fire tools to prosperity.

Another hoax is all the blather about 'making good choices'. All of the white suburban middle-class kids that I knew, and their kids, farked up at some point or other in middle school or high school, whether it was slacking in school or getting into drugs, or downright felonious behavior (a surprisingly high percentage of young white males), they were able to survive it and stay on track, unless they did something outrageously egregious. Having affluent parents will get you out of most anything, because you're 'basically a good kid', and besmirching your record would 'ruin your life'. Hiring a decent lawyer is more than half the battle.
 
2013-08-01 03:25:24 PM

SCUBA_Archer: If people are not willing to do Walmart work for low wages that forces them to rely on social services to survive, then they wouldn't line up 10 deep for job openings.


You're an idiot. This is a strawman argument that has been shot down repeatedly and yet this late in the thread you roll it out. People don't line up for wal-mart because they want to do it, you imbecile. They do it because the factory that used to be there is closed and their kid is farking hungry. To continually occupy a sizeable portion of the workforce knowing you can keep your wages ARTIFICIALLY low because social programs make up the difference is treason.
 
2013-08-01 03:27:18 PM

Madbassist1: SCUBA_Archer: If people are not willing to do Walmart work for low wages that forces them to rely on social services to survive, then they wouldn't line up 10 deep for job openings.

You're an idiot. This is a strawman argument that has been shot down repeatedly and yet this late in the thread you roll it out. People don't line up for wal-mart because they want to do it, you imbecile. They do it because the factory that used to be there is closed and their kid is farking hungry. To continually occupy a sizeable portion of the workforce knowing you can keep your wages ARTIFICIALLY low because social programs make up the difference is treason.


oops. Sorry for calling you an imbecile. I'm trying to quit doing that as it cheapens my argument and hell, you didnt call me anything. Apologies.
 
2013-08-01 03:28:19 PM

Scoop84: Smackledorfer: Scoop84: http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/at-99-a-st-petersburg- m an-finds-meaning-in-the-working-life/2132028

Quit your biatching.

I am sure you could find a slave who happily goes to work in the fields, too.

What is your point?

My point was:  Quit your biatching.

Sorry if I was unclear.


Just checking. Figured everyone deserves a chance to show they aren't a selfish ignorant moron when they say something as stupid as you did.
 
2013-08-01 03:28:42 PM

Smackledorfer: Isitoveryet: re: home prices, i wish everyone would just walk away from the current asking prices, simply walk away, don't pay it, force the prices down, nobody should participate in todays realty scam.

What is the scam exactly? If the amount of space you get in a given home is reasonable relative to rent in the area and you have a decent interest rate, then there is no scam.  Now I can't speak for where you live and whether it works out that way or not, but where I live unless you plan on moving you are still better off buying than renting if you have decent credit and the ability to foot the down payment.

Hell, the real estate bubble bursting wouldn't even have been that big a deal if it hadn't coincided with a recession and poor bank practices.  I wouldn't call that a perfect storm, but it definitely wasn't a single factor.


I'm in southern ca. owners who rent their properties look to make their mortgage payment and their monthly income from the renter.
the scam (which may have been the wrong word) is the attempt to over value a home at the owners benefit (in my area the average seems to be the peak bubble value, either that or homeowners are heavy with debt & are looking for the big payout).  I understand bank owned property has had its hand in artificially maintaining that inflated value as well.  It just seems to me that (in my area) the bubble burst but the values didn't correct. So i say, don't buy, force the prices into more reasonable areas of affordability.
this is just me wishing, i know there are people out there who would be more than happy to overpay for a piece of shiat property just because they can afford to overpay.
 
2013-08-01 03:38:30 PM

Smackledorfer: Scoop84: Smackledorfer: Scoop84: http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/at-99-a-st-petersburg- m an-finds-meaning-in-the-working-life/2132028

Quit your biatching.

I am sure you could find a slave who happily goes to work in the fields, too.

What is your point?

My point was:  Quit your biatching.

Sorry if I was unclear.

Just checking. Figured everyone deserves a chance to show they aren't a selfish ignorant moron when they say something as stupid as you did.


No worries.  It must be terrible to be as content as the guy in the article I linked.  Glad you don't have that problem.
 
2013-08-01 03:57:42 PM

Madbassist1: SCUBA_Archer: If people are not willing to do Walmart work for low wages that forces them to rely on social services to survive, then they wouldn't line up 10 deep for job openings.

You're an idiot. This is a strawman argument that has been shot down repeatedly and yet this late in the thread you roll it out. People don't line up for wal-mart because they want to do it, you imbecile. They do it because the factory that used to be there is closed and their kid is farking hungry. To continually occupy a sizeable portion of the workforce knowing you can keep your wages ARTIFICIALLY low because social programs make up the difference is treason.


So because a factory closed, another company should be forced to pay the same wages for different types of work (mostly unskilled labor).  How does this even compute?  Why not just have the government pay to keep the factories open with their high paying jobs?
 
2013-08-01 04:00:02 PM

SCUBA_Archer: dr_blasto: SCUBA_Archer: Why do you have such a hard time understanding that nobody owes you a job, living wage, etc.

If a company wants to turn a profit and succeed using the fruits of our society, things like public education, roadways, legal system and whatnot, that company has to play by the rules of that society.

No company should be allowed to bolster their bottom-line by requiring taxpayers to subsidise their low wages with public assistance. Yet, these corporations do this wantonly, they count on the fact that you and I will cover their extra profit. It is complete bullshiat--you provide an hour of your life to some corporation? You should be paid a living wage. Nobody expects them to get rich.

While it is important to provide social and economic safety nets, there's no reason those should be used to enhance profit for Walmart and Mcdonalds.

You are incredibly naive.  Labor is a supply and demand issue.  What you are asking is tatamount to saying Walmart may only sell US made goods or can only build stores on heavily taxed parcels of land.  You are introducing an artificial restraint to an otherwise free market.  Forcing them to pay certain wages will not have the fairytale outcome of every American having a white picket fence and 2 cars in the driveway that you think it will.  If people are not willing to do Walmart work for low wages that forces them to rely on social services to survive, then they wouldn't line up 10 deep for job openings.  Look at North Dakota now, or New Orleans after Katrina.  McDonalds gladly paid $15 an hr for workers there, because the labor pool was small and they had to in order to run their business.  The government didn't tell them they had to up wages in order to serve hamburgers to oil workers.  The opposite is true when you have a deep labor pool.  I'm amazed that your brain can't wrap around that simple concept.


This has nothing to do with naivete. Your argument does, however, have lots to do with strawmen. Nobody is asking to pay unskilled workers enough to buy a Benz or a mcmansion. Not every poor person can up and move across country and not everybody can physically work the fields in ND.

Why should we allow corporations to pad their bottom line through the creation of highly profitable enterprises that rely on taxpayers subsidising employee's basic needs?
 
2013-08-01 04:01:34 PM

Isitoveryet: Smackledorfer: Isitoveryet: re: home prices, i wish everyone would just walk away from the current asking prices, simply walk away, don't pay it, force the prices down, nobody should participate in todays realty scam.

What is the scam exactly? If the amount of space you get in a given home is reasonable relative to rent in the area and you have a decent interest rate, then there is no scam.  Now I can't speak for where you live and whether it works out that way or not, but where I live unless you plan on moving you are still better off buying than renting if you have decent credit and the ability to foot the down payment.

Hell, the real estate bubble bursting wouldn't even have been that big a deal if it hadn't coincided with a recession and poor bank practices.  I wouldn't call that a perfect storm, but it definitely wasn't a single factor.

I'm in southern ca. owners who rent their properties look to make their mortgage payment and their monthly income from the renter.
the scam (which may have been the wrong word) is the attempt to over value a home at the owners benefit (in my area the average seems to be the peak bubble value, either that or homeowners are heavy with debt & are looking for the big payout).  I understand bank owned property has had its hand in artificially maintaining that inflated value as well.  It just seems to me that (in my area) the bubble burst but the values didn't correct. So i say, don't buy, force the prices into more reasonable areas of affordability.
this is just me wishing, i know there are people out there who would be more than happy to overpay for a piece of shiat property just because they can afford to overpay.


Isn't the alternative to buying going to be supporting the rental market, which affects how high buyers will accept a mortgage, anyways?

I mean I definitely recomend against stretching to make a purchases of course.
 
2013-08-01 04:04:28 PM

SCUBA_Archer: Madbassist1: SCUBA_Archer: If people are not willing to do Walmart work for low wages that forces them to rely on social services to survive, then they wouldn't line up 10 deep for job openings.

You're an idiot. This is a strawman argument that has been shot down repeatedly and yet this late in the thread you roll it out. People don't line up for wal-mart because they want to do it, you imbecile. They do it because the factory that used to be there is closed and their kid is farking hungry. To continually occupy a sizeable portion of the workforce knowing you can keep your wages ARTIFICIALLY low because social programs make up the difference is treason.

So because a factory closed, another company should be forced to pay the same wages for different types of work (mostly unskilled labor).  How does this even compute?  Why not just have the government pay to keep the factories open with their high paying jobs?


Again with the strawman argument. Quit making up oppositional arguments from whole cloth if you want to have a discussion, unless, of course, you just want to say stupid and irrelevant shiat on the internet.
 
2013-08-01 04:07:25 PM

dr_blasto: This has nothing to do with naivete. Your argument does, however, have lots to do with strawmen. Nobody is asking to pay unskilled workers enough to buy a Benz or a mcmansion. Not every poor person can up and move across country and not everybody can physically work the fields in ND.

Why should we allow corporations to pad their bottom line through the creation of highly profitable enterprises that rely on taxpayers subsidising employee's basic needs?


The corporations didn't set up the rules, they are playing by them.  If you don't want to see social safety nets abused, then make changes there.  Punishing companies who play by the rules is not going to endear them to reducing profit margins or creating more jobs.

And it is naive to just say "Companies make a lot of money.  I want some of that money.  Let's make the government make the companies give me some of that money".  Not how the real world works at all.  And I never stated anything about McMansions or Benzes, but your ideal is for a part time burger flipper job to provide sufficient income to support a family on, correct?
 
2013-08-01 04:09:32 PM

Smackledorfer: Isn't the alternative to buying going to be supporting the rental market, which affects how high buyers will accept a mortgage, anyways?



yes, i complain a lot.
 
2013-08-01 04:11:33 PM

dr_blasto: SCUBA_Archer: Madbassist1: SCUBA_Archer: If people are not willing to do Walmart work for low wages that forces them to rely on social services to survive, then they wouldn't line up 10 deep for job openings.

You're an idiot. This is a strawman argument that has been shot down repeatedly and yet this late in the thread you roll it out. People don't line up for wal-mart because they want to do it, you imbecile. They do it because the factory that used to be there is closed and their kid is farking hungry. To continually occupy a sizeable portion of the workforce knowing you can keep your wages ARTIFICIALLY low because social programs make up the difference is treason.

So because a factory closed, another company should be forced to pay the same wages for different types of work (mostly unskilled labor).  How does this even compute?  Why not just have the government pay to keep the factories open with their high paying jobs?

Again with the strawman argument. Quit making up oppositional arguments from whole cloth if you want to have a discussion, unless, of course, you just want to say stupid and irrelevant shiat on the internet.


You obviously don't know what a strawman argument.  Are you or are you not saying that companies should be forced to pay higher wages?  We can argue separately the definition of "higher wages" but bottom line is that you can't seem to grasp the basic notion that it is not Walmart's job to make sure you live comfortably and within your means.
 
2013-08-01 04:12:05 PM

SCUBA_Archer: dr_blasto: This has nothing to do with naivete. Your argument does, however, have lots to do with strawmen. Nobody is asking to pay unskilled workers enough to buy a Benz or a mcmansion. Not every poor person can up and move across country and not everybody can physically work the fields in ND.

Why should we allow corporations to pad their bottom line through the creation of highly profitable enterprises that rely on taxpayers subsidising employee's basic needs?

The corporations didn't set up the rules, they are playing by them.  If you don't want to see social safety nets abused, then make changes there.  Punishing companies who play by the rules is not going to endear them to reducing profit margins or creating more jobs.

And it is naive to just say "Companies make a lot of money.  I want some of that money.  Let's make the government make the companies give me some of that money".  Not how the real world works at all.  And I never stated anything about McMansions or Benzes, but your ideal is for a part time burger flipper job to provide sufficient income to support a family on, correct?


I absolutely advocate changing the rules when they allow this. Sure, they're playing by the rules of today, but there's no reason we cannot change that set of rules to prevent the bad behavior. Hell, the financial meltdown in 2007 was caused by motherfarkers playing by the rules. We bailed those assholes out too. In light of that, it is time to change the rules.
 
2013-08-01 04:19:41 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: EWreckedSean: which breaks a business model that is already strained.

McDonalds is struggling so much they could only afford to pay their CEO $20,710,000 last year.


80% of McDonald's are franchises, not corporate....
 
2013-08-01 04:24:29 PM

Aarontology: LordZorch: Hint: NOBODY is expected to be a primary wage earner on fast food wages.  That's why students and bored wives work at the local burger shop.  To bring in extra money for the household budget, help pay for school, or just provide some cash to supplement their allowance.

If you are a parent with children and your only means of support is fast food work, you might want to consider yourself a total failure in life.

People take the work they can find. It's better than being unemployed and costing all of us even more welfare than we already have to because of your belief in low wages and shiatty benefits.

So really. Thanks for supporting policies that mean the government takes more of my money. For someone who claims to be conservative, you sure do seem to f*cking love wealth redistribution instead of self sufficiency.


It's amazing how many incorrect things you can fit into one sentence, but lets start with the "conservative" bit.  Please find a single instance in which I claimed to be a "conservative" - I know that requires some brainpower on your end, but I'll make it easy for you: I haven't done so.  In fact, I have multiple postings in which I declare myself to be "libertarian."  I know that such things are hard to figure out for you, since basic economics escape you, but a short version, which even your room-temperature IQ can grasp, would be that I'm in favor of shrinking government drastically, to perhaps 20% of it's present size as a starting point, with a corresponding reduction in taxes.
 
2013-08-01 04:27:28 PM

SCUBA_Archer: dr_blasto: SCUBA_Archer: Madbassist1: SCUBA_Archer: If people are not willing to do Walmart work for low wages that forces them to rely on social services to survive, then they wouldn't line up 10 deep for job openings.

You're an idiot. This is a strawman argument that has been shot down repeatedly and yet this late in the thread you roll it out. People don't line up for wal-mart because they want to do it, you imbecile. They do it because the factory that used to be there is closed and their kid is farking hungry. To continually occupy a sizeable portion of the workforce knowing you can keep your wages ARTIFICIALLY low because social programs make up the difference is treason.

So because a factory closed, another company should be forced to pay the same wages for different types of work (mostly unskilled labor).  How does this even compute?  Why not just have the government pay to keep the factories open with their high paying jobs?

Again with the strawman argument. Quit making up oppositional arguments from whole cloth if you want to have a discussion, unless, of course, you just want to say stupid and irrelevant shiat on the internet.

You obviously don't know what a strawman argument.  Are you or are you not saying that companies should be forced to pay higher wages?  We can argue separately the definition of "higher wages" but bottom line is that you can't seem to grasp the basic notion that it is not Walmart's job to make sure you live comfortably and within your means.


The strawman comes from your need to have an argument wherein you argue that my claim is Walmart employees should be paid the same as skilled factory workers. Go argue that with someone who's making that statement or keep your fake arguments to yourself.

My argument is that minimum wage should provide a full-time worker the ability to feed themselves, have a place to live in besides their car and should be able to feed a kid. It should provide for the basic needs of live, a living wage. I'm not arguing for two-car garages filled with modern SUVs and a 3000-sq ft house.
 
2013-08-01 04:27:44 PM

Raharu: Dusk-You-n-Me: EWreckedSean: which breaks a business model that is already strained.

McDonalds is struggling so much they could only afford to pay their CEO $20,710,000 last year.


It also made record profits in Australia last year where the min wage is about 15usd.


That's not true at all (the $15). Australia has a sliding minimum wage, which amongst other things encourages places like McDonald's not to employ people who try to make a career out of it, and starts at  $6.03 an hour.
 
2013-08-01 04:31:07 PM

ferretman: My first 'job' was at McDonald's...I was 14 yrs old....I work there for two years and got a job at a supermarket. Worked there for 8 years...while working there I went to college full time and had at least 1 additional part time job (sometimes two...paid for college myself without any loans). Then I got a computer job at a Real estate company...worked there for 4 years, then I got a new computer job downtown NYC (until some assholes ruined it for me); then I became self-employed. Each job I had there was an increase in wages/salary.

A fast-food job is not supposed to be a permanent job to raise a family on, why do people have such a hard time understanding this?


Because it doesn't fit into their Leninist political theology.  Claiming that you actually made something of yourself, by yourself, means that you're "bootstrappy", and don't realize that "you didn't build that", or some other mindless slogan they use to hide their own failures behind.
 
2013-08-01 04:32:27 PM

meat0918: dittybopper: NOT EVERY JOB CAN OR SHOULD PAY A "LIVING WAGE".

Yes.

They.

Should.


Please attend a class on basic economics before making an even bigger idiot of yourself on a public forum.
 
2013-08-01 04:35:14 PM

FarkedOver: dwrash: It's more like people who take the low route with their careers and have no aspirations of actually achieving anything in their lives somehow deserve to be paid 2-3 times more than the market will bear. The other issue is that when their wages go up so do the cost of goods so its eventually a zero sum game.

If you want a living wage... find a skill that is sought after and become good at it. I've changed careers a number of times due to market changes.

Why do people continue to spew complete bullshiat from their mouths? I just don't understand it.


It's because you're stupid.  If you were smarter you'd realize it wasn't BS.
 
2013-08-01 04:39:01 PM

LordZorch: It's because you're stupid. If you were smarter you'd realize it wasn't BS.


You're a stupid head too!! :-P

/Do you see how ridiculous you look?
 
2013-08-01 04:42:20 PM
Remember, paying a CEO more than they're worth is bad!
 
2013-08-01 05:03:55 PM

EWreckedSean: Raharu: Dusk-You-n-Me: EWreckedSean: which breaks a business model that is already strained.

McDonalds is struggling so much they could only afford to pay their CEO $20,710,000 last year.


It also made record profits in Australia last year where the min wage is about 15usd.

That's not true at all (the $15). Australia has a sliding minimum wage, which amongst other things encourages places like McDonald's not to employ people who try to make a career out of it, and starts at  $6.03 an hour.



Hmmmm

http://www.wageindicator.org/main/salary/minimum-wage/australia

It's 6.03 if your 16... If your 20+ it's 15+ an hour.
 
2013-08-01 05:04:39 PM

LordZorch: Please attend a class on basic economics before making an even bigger idiot of yourself on a public forum.


please attend a class on basic etiquette before making an even bigger ass of yourself on a public forum.
 
2013-08-01 05:13:14 PM

Isitoveryet: so when you yell at someone "get a job you lazy leech, stop takin' ma taxez!" there are stipulations to that?

FTcalculator
A household like yours in California needs to earn $23,295 annually to make a secure yet modest living.

Bwhahhaah!!!! secure? nope, modest? a real stretch of the term.


So, now it's not just "get a job", it's "get a good paying job", like they're available on street corners to whoever asks for one.

good job America, you're an asshole.


This calculator is a monument to stupid. I live in a cheaper part of Texas and it says that I can't get by on less than $50,000 a year if I lived all by myself.
 
2013-08-01 05:25:57 PM

EWreckedSean: MrBallou: EWreckedSean: MrBallou: I don't get why these guys (see your favorite FArk Independents above) are so adamantly in favor of helping widen the wealth gap. It's not like the 1% are ever gonna let any of it trickle down to them.

They're just telling the other slaves to shut up and be grateful Massa don' beat 'em mo'. They's hard times on de' plantation an' Massa caint spare no time fo' yo' foolishness.

How does raising McDonald's employees wages have any affect what so ever on the 1%? The owners aren't going to eat the costs. They will simply up the prices of their food, and effectively you will take from one poor person's hand to give to another. Not many 1% come in and hit the value meal for lunch.

Rriiigghhtt. 1) the owners could indeed "eat the costs". Cutting the margin razor thin by stiffing the people who keep it moving is immoral. but that ain't gonna happen, so 2) so what if the roll it into the price and "poor people" pay $0.68/burger more? The entire economy is not not dependent on that $0.68. Not everything has to be dirt cheap. Really. Pay what it's worth, instead of the smallest amount you possibly can. Then the guy behind the counter won't have to feel like slave labor.

"Help a brother out?" shouldn't just be for street corner beggars. How about we do it for people willing to work for the money? That's what you Conservatives always say you want.

Most McDonald's operate at a ~10% profit margin. From the article yesterday, doubling wages would cost 17% hike in costs. So no they couldn't eat it. The costs would result in an almost 20% increase in prices, which breaks a business model that is already strained. You notice dollar menu's have about gone away. Now it is value menus, with food from $1 to $1.75 or so. 20% increase in price turns an $8 meal into an almost $10 meal. That isn't the market they are going for.


How about instead of saying a guy has to just suck it up that he makes $8 instead of $10 for every hour he works, we say people just suck it up that they have to pay $10 instead of $8 for the single meal they bought that day? The business model that depends on squeezing that last penny out is a suck  business model.
 
2013-08-01 05:33:47 PM

LordZorch: Aarontology: LordZorch: Hint: NOBODY is expected to be a primary wage earner on fast food wages.  That's why students and bored wives work at the local burger shop.  To bring in extra money for the household budget, help pay for school, or just provide some cash to supplement their allowance.

If you are a parent with children and your only means of support is fast food work, you might want to consider yourself a total failure in life.

People take the work they can find. It's better than being unemployed and costing all of us even more welfare than we already have to because of your belief in low wages and shiatty benefits.

So really. Thanks for supporting policies that mean the government takes more of my money. For someone who claims to be conservative, you sure do seem to f*cking love wealth redistribution instead of self sufficiency.

It's amazing how many incorrect things you can fit into one sentence, but lets start with the "conservative" bit.  Please find a single instance in which I claimed to be a "conservative" - I know that requires some brainpower on your end, but I'll make it easy for you: I haven't done so.  In fact, I have multiple postings in which I declare myself to be "libertarian."  I know that such things are hard to figure out for you, since basic economics escape you, but a short version, which even your room-temperature IQ can grasp, would be that I'm in favor of shrinking government drastically, to perhaps 20% of it's present size as a starting point, with a corresponding reduction in taxes.


Most libertarians subscribe to the same horseshiat that is the Tea Party platform, so you're a conservative. Your postings indicate that you don't deviate much from it.
 
2013-08-01 05:38:48 PM

Huggermugger: Most libertarians subscribe to the same horseshiat that is the Tea Party platform, so you're a conservative. Your postings indicate that you don't deviate much from it.



in today's political atmosphere, it would be embarrassing to actually admit to being either a Republican or a member of the Tea Party, so they go with Libertarian or simply Conservative.
 
2013-08-01 06:08:53 PM

dr_blasto: SCUBA_Archer: dr_blasto: SCUBA_Archer: Madbassist1: SCUBA_Archer: If people are not willing to do Walmart work for low wages that forces them to rely on social services to survive, then they wouldn't line up 10 deep for job openings.

You're an idiot. This is a strawman argument that has been shot down repeatedly and yet this late in the thread you roll it out. People don't line up for wal-mart because they want to do it, you imbecile. They do it because the factory that used to be there is closed and their kid is farking hungry. To continually occupy a sizeable portion of the workforce knowing you can keep your wages ARTIFICIALLY low because social programs make up the difference is treason.

So because a factory closed, another company should be forced to pay the same wages for different types of work (mostly unskilled labor).  How does this even compute?  Why not just have the government pay to keep the factories open with their high paying jobs?

Again with the strawman argument. Quit making up oppositional arguments from whole cloth if you want to have a discussion, unless, of course, you just want to say stupid and irrelevant shiat on the internet.

You obviously don't know what a strawman argument.  Are you or are you not saying that companies should be forced to pay higher wages?  We can argue separately the definition of "higher wages" but bottom line is that you can't seem to grasp the basic notion that it is not Walmart's job to make sure you live comfortably and within your means.

The strawman comes from your need to have an argument wherein you argue that my claim is Walmart employees should be paid the same as skilled factory workers. Go argue that with someone who's making that statement or keep your fake arguments to yourself.

My argument is that minimum wage should provide a full-time worker the ability to feed themselves, have a place to live in besides their car and should be able to feed a kid. It should provide for the basic needs of live, a l ...


Those are comfortable things that a factory worker from the 50's or 60's enjoyed.  Pretty much the same thing I said. Factory work is gone.  Flipping burgers will never pay you what Henry Ford's assembly linemen were paid.  Get over it.
 
2013-08-01 06:25:25 PM

SCUBA_Archer: dr_blasto: SCUBA_Archer: dr_blasto: SCUBA_Archer: Madbassist1: SCUBA_Archer: If people are not willing to do Walmart work for low wages that forces them to rely on social services to survive, then they wouldn't line up 10 deep for job openings.

You're an idiot. This is a strawman argument that has been shot down repeatedly and yet this late in the thread you roll it out. People don't line up for wal-mart because they want to do it, you imbecile. They do it because the factory that used to be there is closed and their kid is farking hungry. To continually occupy a sizeable portion of the workforce knowing you can keep your wages ARTIFICIALLY low because social programs make up the difference is treason.

So because a factory closed, another company should be forced to pay the same wages for different types of work (mostly unskilled labor).  How does this even compute?  Why not just have the government pay to keep the factories open with their high paying jobs?

Again with the strawman argument. Quit making up oppositional arguments from whole cloth if you want to have a discussion, unless, of course, you just want to say stupid and irrelevant shiat on the internet.

You obviously don't know what a strawman argument.  Are you or are you not saying that companies should be forced to pay higher wages?  We can argue separately the definition of "higher wages" but bottom line is that you can't seem to grasp the basic notion that it is not Walmart's job to make sure you live comfortably and within your means.

The strawman comes from your need to have an argument wherein you argue that my claim is Walmart employees should be paid the same as skilled factory workers. Go argue that with someone who's making that statement or keep your fake arguments to yourself.

My argument is that minimum wage should provide a full-time worker the ability to feed themselves, have a place to live in besides their car and should be able to feed a kid. It should provide for the basic needs o ...


I'm arguing for shelter and food. You're saying those are comfortable things and shouldn't be expected? I'm glad I don't live in a world you run.
 
2013-08-01 06:26:59 PM

SCUBA_Archer: Those are comfortable things that a factory worker from the 50's or 60's enjoyed.  Pretty much the same thing I said. Factory work is gone.  Flipping burgers will never pay you what Henry Ford's assembly linemen were paid.  Get over it.


Ford's assembly line centered around using unskilled labor.
Factory work is far from gone. Ending the perverse incentives that allowed corporations to export jobs in the first place will do a lot to bring them back. Heck, US companies are already doing it.
 
2013-08-01 07:00:56 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: SCUBA_Archer: Those are comfortable things that a factory worker from the 50's or 60's enjoyed.  Pretty much the same thing I said. Factory work is gone.  Flipping burgers will never pay you what Henry Ford's assembly linemen were paid.  Get over it.

Ford's assembly line centered around using unskilled labor.
Factory work is far from gone. Ending the perverse incentives that allowed corporations to export jobs in the first place will do a lot to bring them back. Heck, US companies are already doing it.


The whole idea of skilled vs unskilled labor is another thing that bothers me. I have the skills to sit at a computer and do brain work all day, but they'd have to offer me more money to go out and do back-breaking labor all day. Willingness to do physical labor is just as valuable as "skilled" labor, and just as important to overall productivity.

Also, I'm just as interested in having my french fries done right as I am in seeing proper grammar from the "skilled" journalists producing these articles.
 
2013-08-01 07:54:15 PM
If there is one thing that I think we can all admit we have learned from this thread it is that the purpose of a Capitalism-based economy is not to provide for the general welfare of the population.  So all of you idiots who continue to believe that Capitalism and the Free Market will solve all of our problems are full of it.
 
2013-08-01 08:00:04 PM
 
2013-08-01 09:14:42 PM

MrBallou: EWreckedSean: MrBallou: EWreckedSean: MrBallou: I don't get why these guys (see your favorite FArk Independents above) are so adamantly in favor of helping widen the wealth gap. It's not like the 1% are ever gonna let any of it trickle down to them.

They're just telling the other slaves to shut up and be grateful Massa don' beat 'em mo'. They's hard times on de' plantation an' Massa caint spare no time fo' yo' foolishness.

How does raising McDonald's employees wages have any affect what so ever on the 1%? The owners aren't going to eat the costs. They will simply up the prices of their food, and effectively you will take from one poor person's hand to give to another. Not many 1% come in and hit the value meal for lunch.

Rriiigghhtt. 1) the owners could indeed "eat the costs". Cutting the margin razor thin by stiffing the people who keep it moving is immoral. but that ain't gonna happen, so 2) so what if the roll it into the price and "poor people" pay $0.68/burger more? The entire economy is not not dependent on that $0.68. Not everything has to be dirt cheap. Really. Pay what it's worth, instead of the smallest amount you possibly can. Then the guy behind the counter won't have to feel like slave labor.

"Help a brother out?" shouldn't just be for street corner beggars. How about we do it for people willing to work for the money? That's what you Conservatives always say you want.

Most McDonald's operate at a ~10% profit margin. From the article yesterday, doubling wages would cost 17% hike in costs. So no they couldn't eat it. The costs would result in an almost 20% increase in prices, which breaks a business model that is already strained. You notice dollar menu's have about gone away. Now it is value menus, with food from $1 to $1.75 or so. 20% increase in price turns an $8 meal into an almost $10 meal. That isn't the market they are going for.

How about instead of saying a guy has to just suck it up that he makes $8 instead of $10 for every hour he works, we say people just suck it up that they have to pay $10 instead of $8 for the single meal they bought that day? The business model that depends on squeezing that last penny out is a suck  business model.


Lets walk through where you have gone wrong here. An increase from $8 to $10 would be a 25% in certain labor costs. I do not know what percentage of labor costs come from employees at this specific wage level, but for the purpose of argument, I think it is fair to assume that it is around half. Wages are not the only cost to the business, McDonald's locations must also pay food costs, utilities, franchise or incorporated advertisement costs, facilities, etc. Total labor costs probably only reflect 50-60% of total costs, for purposes of simple calculations, lets assume 50%. The direct, necessary increase from $8 an hour to $10 an hour will thus only increase prices for products about 6.25% (25% *0.5 *0.5 = 6.25%). Hey, not that bad. But, the other costs will also increase. Utilities, advertising, facility construction and maintenance may employ a few folks at minimum wage, but will also employ numerous persons that are above that rate, but not significantly enough to only be tangentially affected the 25% wage inflation at that tier of skill levels. For instance, say you earn $16 an hour as a low-skilled or semi-skilled worker (painter, construction laborer, etc).

These low skilled and semi-skilled workers will be less able to absorb the 6.25% in food costs because you retain your current wage, or you will recognize that you are no longer making twice as much as people whose only job requirement is to wash their hands after using the bathroom and refrain from spitting in food and demand a pay increase. Hey, so far so good right? Two groups of low wage workers just got pay hikes. Although now the cost of construction, utilities, maintenance service, etc. has increased.

Enter the next group of workers, those that are semi to moderately skilled workers. Think folks that have entered a low-level trade (this group wouldn't likely include plumbers, electricians, etc) who may be hourly, but in many instances they will be fee for service. Food prices have increased, construction and utility prices have increased, everything has increased in cost. On top of that, folks that didn't bother to enter a bon-a-fide trade or develop any real skills are now making almost as much as you. "Great!" you say, in short order I've increased the amount of wages demanded by several tiers of workers. But, there is a slight rub. Not all trades and moderately skilled jobs are created equal. Price increases here are not as easily passed on to the next tier. Instead, higher wage earners are more likely to refrain from seeking the service or find alternatives. These workers are less likely to offset their increased costs by demanding increased wages/fees.

At a certain point, and that point always occurs predominantly among middle class workers, the worker is unable to pass along their costs while still having to absorb the inflationary impacts of the arbitrarily set minimum wage.

A few upper income workers will be detrimentally affected as well. Workers that must obtain certain graduate and post graduate degrees at significant cost will no longer be able to provide services to the middle class because they can no longer afford to pay off the debt they incur by servicing this group. Why is this you wonder, you just increased the wages of a large group of folks. However, you did not affect "real wages" (increased wage as compared to inflationary effect) for those in the middle class that would purchase these professional services. The fast food worker is not hiring a tax accountant, but many in the middle class do. The painter is not hiring an attorney unless it is absolutely necessary, such as preventing revocation of a drivers license or contesting criminal charges, but many in the middle class do.

The market runs its course and what are we left with? Inflation that significantly reduces the actual value of the wage increase to no skill workers. Inflation that results in wage increases to low and semi-skilled workers, the value of the wage increase traditionally does not exceed the inflationary effect resulting in these workers be no better off or only slightly better off. This process continues up the ladder until workers are no longer able to offset their increased inflationary costs by demanding higher rates. Which specific workers will see this will be based on other market forces, but will always rest with the middle class (depending on how that term is defined). It will also run to certain professional services that were previously provided to middle and lower middle class workers (such as accountants for tax preparation or legal services).

These wage to inflation offsets will never make it up the corporate chain to McDonald's CEO. Instead, the CEO will be charged with finding efficiencies in production. They will. The only thing that prevents automation from replacing many of these no skill workers is that the costs of automation AND the potential negative impact of public perception of the brand from replacing no skill workers with machines currently outweighs the costs of the no skill workers. Here, we are not looking at the 6.25% inflationary cost for the product. Here we are looking at the 25% increase in the cost per unit of production. Whether the final determination is partial, full, or near full automation, the CEO will implement new efficiencies into production. This will result in fewer jobs available at this wage level. It will also likely reduce some of the effects I mentioned above. The CEO will be applauded by stockholders and members of the board and receive a well deserved bonus for implementing strategies that protect and enhance value for those that have invested in the company. Why shouldn't he, his fiduciary duty is to the company and its investors, and he successfully adopted strategies to ward off the negative impacts of an ill conceived federal or state policy.

In either event, the consequences of your noble intentions will harm either middle income or lower income individuals. It will either increase unemployment, reduce the size of the middle class, or both. It will only redistribute wages among those tiers of income.

The more sensible policy would be to recognize that certain jobs are not, nor have they ever been, intended to be the sole source of income to support a family. It is more sensible to provide welfare benefits and maintain or lower the minimum wage, but in so doing, provide and require skills training for those receiving governmental assistance.

I am also curious about some variation of the Australian policy of a tiered minimum wage mentioned above, but such a policy would necessarily require more than two tiers to be an effective program.
 
2013-08-01 09:15:38 PM

Huggermugger: LordZorch: Aarontology: LordZorch: Hint: NOBODY is expected to be a primary wage earner on fast food wages.  That's why students and bored wives work at the local burger shop.  To bring in extra money for the household budget, help pay for school, or just provide some cash to supplement their allowance.

If you are a parent with children and your only means of support is fast food work, you might want to consider yourself a total failure in life.

People take the work they can find. It's better than being unemployed and costing all of us even more welfare than we already have to because of your belief in low wages and shiatty benefits.

So really. Thanks for supporting policies that mean the government takes more of my money. For someone who claims to be conservative, you sure do seem to f*cking love wealth redistribution instead of self sufficiency.

It's amazing how many incorrect things you can fit into one sentence, but lets start with the "conservative" bit.  Please find a single instance in which I claimed to be a "conservative" - I know that requires some brainpower on your end, but I'll make it easy for you: I haven't done so.  In fact, I have multiple postings in which I declare myself to be "libertarian."  I know that such things are hard to figure out for you, since basic economics escape you, but a short version, which even your room-temperature IQ can grasp, would be that I'm in favor of shrinking government drastically, to perhaps 20% of it's present size as a starting point, with a corresponding reduction in taxes.

Most libertarians subscribe to the same horseshiat that is the Tea Party platform, so you're a conservative. Your postings indicate that you don't deviate much from it.


Ding ding!  We have an idiot, folks!  I bet you also call Somalia a "libertarian paradise" when you don't think anyone smarter than you is listening.
 
2013-08-01 09:18:07 PM

ferretman: Apparently HuffPo erred:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/mcdonalds-salaries_n_367200 6. html

Also:

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/a_big_mac_miss_by_the_huffingt.php


Did not see this prior to posting my previous comment. The numerical assumptions I made were too high, but the underlying economic point still remains.
 
2013-08-01 09:22:50 PM

Isitoveryet: Huggermugger: Most libertarians subscribe to the same horseshiat that is the Tea Party platform, so you're a conservative. Your postings indicate that you don't deviate much from it.


in today's political atmosphere, it would be embarrassing to actually admit to being either a Republican or a member of the Tea Party, so they go with Libertarian or simply Conservative.


Cripes, are you stupid on purpose, or are you just what passes for a public education these days?

Libertarians have about as much to do with the GOP as my dog does with skydiving - please refrain from making such a complete idiot of yourself in public and try getting some basic information before sounding off on something you obviously are clueless about.
 
2013-08-01 09:29:08 PM

MrBallou: demaL-demaL-yeH: SCUBA_Archer: Those are comfortable things that a factory worker from the 50's or 60's enjoyed.  Pretty much the same thing I said. Factory work is gone.  Flipping burgers will never pay you what Henry Ford's assembly linemen were paid.  Get over it.

Ford's assembly line centered around using unskilled labor.
Factory work is far from gone. Ending the perverse incentives that allowed corporations to export jobs in the first place will do a lot to bring them back. Heck, US companies are already doing it.

The whole idea of skilled vs unskilled labor is another thing that bothers me. I have the skills to sit at a computer and do brain work all day, but they'd have to offer me more money to go out and do back-breaking labor all day. Willingness to do physical labor is just as valuable as "skilled" labor, and just as important to overall productivity.

Also, I'm just as interested in having my french fries done right as I am in seeing proper grammar from the "skilled" journalists producing these articles.


The skilled versus unskilled distinction is an important one that cannot be ignored in a marketplace. Wages are determined by supply and demand. The is a much lower supply of skilled labor. The supply of labor progressively diminishes as the required skill level increases.

Your assertion that you would go out and perform back breaking labor instead of researching at a computer if they paid you more to do ignores the point that no one would pay you more money to go out and perform back breaking labor than to research at a computer. The reason for this is that you must have at least some basic skills with a computer and skills in reading and comprehension to work your desk job while neither is required to simply lift things. Among those folks performing backbreaking labor, there are still wage differentials between those with skill and those without. If all you are good for is carrying nails from point A to point B, you will make less than the laborer that knows where and when to drive those nails through a piece of plywood and into a stud.

It is basic comparative advantage operating within a market.

Would you flip your hypothetical around and say that an average day laborer with no skills should be able to take your job at a computer? Hell no. They aren't qualified.
 
2013-08-01 09:52:12 PM

SCUBA_Archer: You are incredibly naive. Labor is a supply and demand issue. What you are asking is tatamount to saying Walmart may only sell US made goods or can only build stores on heavily taxed parcels of land. You are introducing an artificial restraint to an otherwise free market.


Yes, introducing restraints to a free market is exactly the point.  We've created many artificial constraints already and met with resounding success - no longer are 8-year-olds working 60 hour weeks in dangerous conditions, at least in our country.

Freedom of the market is not, by itself, always a positive quality, nor is it always a negative one.  Market forces are completely apathetic to the best interests of society - sometimes market forces will work to the benefit of society, and other times those same forces will work to the harm of society.  The invisible hand of the market can either lift you up or hold your head underwater with equal dispassion.

One of the major functions of a good government is to be a force powerful enough to fight market forces that are detrimental, and encourage market forces that are beneficial.
 
2013-08-01 10:13:42 PM
RIDETHEWALRUS:

You used a lot more words than me, so you must be right.

I said: The business model that depends on squeezing that last penny out is a suck business model.

Did you ever read/see "A Christmas Carol"? Scrooge originally took the McDonalds/Walmart business approach with Bob Cratchet. Then he developed a conscience and realized that his bare-minimum wage kept Bob in horrible poverty. He decided to pay Bob a fairer wage and found that both he an Bob could prosper.

Another fictional literature source for this idea is in 1 Timothy 5:18: "For the scripture saith , Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn . And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."
 
2013-08-01 10:29:53 PM

Sum Dum Gai: SCUBA_Archer: You are incredibly naive. Labor is a supply and demand issue. What you are asking is tatamount to saying Walmart may only sell US made goods or can only build stores on heavily taxed parcels of land. You are introducing an artificial restraint to an otherwise free market.

Yes, introducing restraints to a free market is exactly the point.  We've created many artificial constraints already and met with resounding success - no longer are 8-year-olds working 60 hour weeks in dangerous conditions, at least in our country.

Freedom of the market is not, by itself, always a positive quality, nor is it always a negative one.  Market forces are completely apathetic to the best interests of society - sometimes market forces will work to the benefit of society, and other times those same forces will work to the harm of society.  The invisible hand of the market can either lift you up or hold your head underwater with equal dispassion.

One of the major functions of a good government is to be a force powerful enough to fight market forces that are detrimental, and encourage market forces that are beneficial.


However, the question of "beneficial" versus "detrimental" is far more complicated than most folks believe. Most folks see A and it's direct effect on B. They either fail to perceive the other full effect of the direct change to A. These unintended consequences are the result of the market, which takes uncountable inputs and adjusts outputs to all actors, who then change their actions based on their new position, thereby affecting the market and everybody else's position within it further. A policy that facially benefits A may in fact end up significantly harming A's interests after the market reacts to the changes. For instance, 74% of economists believe that increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment (although there is no consensus and debate on the question is robust on both sides).

The problem with much government action is that it is based on a linear perception of markets instead of a fluid perception. Whether this is because too few elected officials have ever played chess or because they are directly answerable to voters who believe Connect Four involves too much counting, I don't know.

In either event, while government is indeed responsible for protecting against potential abuses that would likely emerge from an entirely free market, it has historically proven terrible at considering the downstream effects of governmental intervention. This is a problem with both sides. Two recent examples, and I do not suggest that this is a modern problem, rather one that has existed for decades if not more, are the Patriot Act and the Affordable Care Act. The Patriot Act was passed without consideration of 4th Amendment concerns that may emerge by agencies expanding the authority granted to them to domestic citizens. The Affordable Care Act was passed without consideration of the effects of supply and demand and their effect on quality of care by increasing the number of persons eligible for health insurance without instituting any type of meaningful incentives for people to enter the medical profession, such as tort reform, not taxing medical devices, or reducing the privately incurred costs necessary to become a physician.

In both instances, the laws were presented as A vs B. Security versus potential terrorism on US soil. Health insurance vs. no health insurance. Security was not positioned against a broad brush authority for executive agencies to commandeer your phone and location records from cellular providers (there is a massive Supreme Court jurisprudence conversation that exists here and I am not trying to point fingers by this comment). Health insurance was not positioned against increasing the number of persons that are qualified to provide health care. Both were back or white propositions. I think the government got both wrong, but that is besides the point. I am certain that the government failed to look past the A or B, failed to actually consider the full impact of their actions. That failure to properly contemplate the full impact of their actions is the government's modus operandi and why it should be more passive than aggressive in trying to control the marketplace.
 
2013-08-01 10:48:41 PM

LordZorch: Isitoveryet: Huggermugger: Most libertarians subscribe to the same horseshiat that is the Tea Party platform, so you're a conservative. Your postings indicate that you don't deviate much from it.


in today's political atmosphere, it would be embarrassing to actually admit to being either a Republican or a member of the Tea Party, so they go with Libertarian or simply Conservative.

Cripes, are you stupid on purpose, or are you just what passes for a public education these days?

Libertarians have about as much to do with the GOP as my dog does with skydiving - please refrain from making such a complete idiot of yourself in public and try getting some basic information before sounding off on something you obviously are clueless about.


Struck a nerve, eh? I notice you have no response other than to insult. Answer the question: are your beliefs not at least 75% in agreement with the Tea Party? Do your idols like RAND PAUL, Lew Rockwell, and the Koch brothers not constantly collaborate with the GOP? I can wait while you remove your nose from Ayn Rand's decomposed anus.
 
2013-08-01 10:53:10 PM

MrBallou: RIDETHEWALRUS:

You used a lot more words than me, so you must be right.

I said: The business model that depends on squeezing that last penny out is a suck business model.

Did you ever read/see "A Christmas Carol"? Scrooge originally took the McDonalds/Walmart business approach with Bob Cratchet. Then he developed a conscience and realized that his bare-minimum wage kept Bob in horrible poverty. He decided to pay Bob a fairer wage and found that both he an Bob could prosper.

Another fictional literature source for this idea is in 1 Timothy 5:18: "For the scripture saith , Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn . And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."


I used "a lot [of] words" to lay out a fairly logical economic theory that has significant evidentiary support. I did so to invite debate because there are other informed folks that disagree with the economic theory to which I ascribe and I genuinely appreciate reading their critiques and perspectives.

It is your prerogative to believe in a fictional world. I'm not all that familiar with A Christmas Carol. But I do remember watching Duck Tales and despite the fact that Scrooge McDuck was able to dive into and swim in a pool filled with gold coins, I don't think that translates well to the real world. You might break your neck or something.

Nor am I well versed in theological studies, so I won't attempt to quote scripture found on a Wikipedia page. But a quick reading of our quoted passage does not lend credence to your argument that wages should be arbitrarily increased. "The labourer is worthy of his reward" seems to suggest that the labourer is entitled to compensation for the value of his services. That would seem to cut against your argument that an artificial and arbitrary wage should be set by the government.

Then again, I don't live in a fantasy land nor am I theologian, so if you have any logical or reasonable critiques of what I wrote I would like to read them. Until then, I'm gonna hang out with Deadpool and figure out a way to kill Aragorn and take control of the seven kingdoms.
 
2013-08-01 11:16:15 PM

RIDETHEWALRUS: This is a problem with both sides. Two recent examples, and I do not suggest that this is a modern problem, rather one that has existed for decades if not more, are the Patriot Act and the Affordable Care Act. The Patriot Act was passed without consideration of 4th Amendment concerns that may emerge by agencies expanding the authority granted to them to domestic citizens. The Affordable Care Act was passed without consideration of the effects of supply and demand and their effect on quality of care by increasing the number of persons eligible for health insurance without instituting any type of meaningful incentives for people to enter the medical profession, such as tort reform, not taxing medical devices, or reducing the privately incurred costs necessary to become a physician.


On the Affordable Care Act, it's not true that it did not consider the number of doctors.  In fact, the entirety of the fifth title of the act are provisions to make it easier to enter the medical profession - grants and loans for medical school (some of the loans can be written off by doing rural healthcare work in lieu of repayment), loans for advanced nursing degrees that are replacing MDs in many primary care settings, increased Medicare payments to primary care providers, and increasing residency positions, among many other changes.  The changes get little press (almost 100% of the discussion is on 10% of the bill) but they are present.

Residency positions is the biggest one - it's the major bottleneck to getting new doctors.  There's absolutely no shortage of people competing for seats in medical school.
 
2013-08-01 11:58:26 PM

Sum Dum Gai: SCUBA_Archer: You are incredibly naive. Labor is a supply and demand issue. What you are asking is tatamount to saying Walmart may only sell US made goods or can only build stores on heavily taxed parcels of land. You are introducing an artificial restraint to an otherwise free market.

Yes, introducing restraints to a free market is exactly the point.  We've created many artificial constraints already and met with resounding success - no longer are 8-year-olds working 60 hour weeks in dangerous conditions, at least in our country.

Freedom of the market is not, by itself, always a positive quality, nor is it always a negative one.  Market forces are completely apathetic to the best interests of society - sometimes market forces will work to the benefit of society, and other times those same forces will work to the harm of society.  The invisible hand of the market can either lift you up or hold your head underwater with equal dispassion.

One of the major functions of a good government is to be a force powerful enough to fight market forces that are detrimental, and encourage market forces that are beneficial.


OK then who decided that increasing the cost of a Big Mac and telling McDonalds they had to double worker's salaries is the most beneficial way to stimulate the market?  Are there not a host of downsides to this proposal?  Everything from a reduced demand for more expensive Big Macs (meaning less work for Mcdonalds workers, cattle farmers, bakers and vegetable pickers) to an unfair targeting of one fast food company by the government (I don't see anyone suggesting that Burger King and Wendys offer the same wages).  Basically something that seems good (hey, more money for me the worker drone) usually has a dark underbelly that no one wants to talk about (I was laid off because no one buys Big Macs anymore).  Just because you're requiring McDonalds to pay a certain wage to workers, you cannot force them to hire a specific number of workers.
 
2013-08-02 12:28:44 AM

SCUBA_Archer: OK then who decided that increasing the cost of a Big Mac and telling McDonalds they had to double worker's salaries is the most beneficial way to stimulate the market?  Are there not a host of downsides to this proposal?  Everything from a reduced demand for more expensive Big Macs (meaning less work for Mcdonalds workers, cattle farmers, bakers and vegetable pickers) to an unfair targeting of one fast food company by the government (I don't see anyone suggesting that Burger King and Wendys offer the same wages).  Basically something that seems good (hey, more money for me the worker drone) usually has a dark underbelly that no one wants to talk about (I was laid off because no one buys Big Macs anymore).  Just because you're requiring McDonalds to pay a certain wage to workers, you cannot force them to hire a specific number of workers.


Yeah. Riiight. We didn't think that particular wrinkle over. We didn't experience unprecedented sustained economic growth when we pursued domestic policies tailored to growing the middle class. (Because every farking idiot knows that the important demand and the greatest economic growth come when the 1% prosper most, right?)
This is really farking simple: When the people who drive 2/3+ of the economy and who have to spend 90+ percent of every penny they make in order to simply survive have more money to spend, they buy more goods and services. The increased demand is met by companies hiring more people and buying the machines that make stuff (1947-1979). And the economy grows in a positive feedback loop, as long as you control for inflation. And keep gambling money (stocks) separate from real investment money (banks), and both of those pots away from insurance,  By way of contrast, when the people who already have 70+% of the wealth have more money, they put it into the market or bonds, which have no direct link - and very poor indirect links - to the real economy (1980-present).
 
2013-08-02 01:13:44 AM

Sum Dum Gai: RIDETHEWALRUS: This is a problem with both sides. Two recent examples, and I do not suggest that this is a modern problem, rather one that has existed for decades if not more, are the Patriot Act and the Affordable Care Act. The Patriot Act was passed without consideration of 4th Amendment concerns that may emerge by agencies expanding the authority granted to them to domestic citizens. The Affordable Care Act was passed without consideration of the effects of supply and demand and their effect on quality of care by increasing the number of persons eligible for health insurance without instituting any type of meaningful incentives for people to enter the medical profession, such as tort reform, not taxing medical devices, or reducing the privately incurred costs necessary to become a physician.

On the Affordable Care Act, it's not true that it did not consider the number of doctors.  In fact, the entirety of the fifth title of the act are provisions to make it easier to enter the medical profession - grants and loans for medical school (some of the loans can be written off by doing rural healthcare work in lieu of repayment), loans for advanced nursing degrees that are replacing MDs in many primary care settings, increased Medicare payments to primary care providers, and increasing residency positions, among many other changes.  The changes get little press (almost 100% of the discussion is on 10% of the bill) but they are present.

Residency positions is the biggest one - it's the major bottleneck to getting new doctors.  There's absolutely no shortage of people competing for seats in medical school.


I didn't put forth the ACA to debate it's merits, but rather as an example of our duly elected federal representatives passing a law without considering its consequences. The ACA is a prime example of the "it [facially] benefits A, so I no longer have to think" kind of law that I am talking about. There is no question that the folks that passed the ACA did so blindly and without considering he consequences. Numerous provisions of the ACA have subsequently been repealed, such as the medical devices tax. This is a bill that was passed in which the Speaker of the Ouse stated "[w]e have to pass it to find out what is in it." I think it is a perfect example of our elected federal representatives not considering the actual effect of their vote.

I don't want to drag this conversation off topic, but I would like to quickly address your defenses to the ACA (if you want to get into a full fledged hashing it out, I would be happy to the next time an appropriate column is presented. Seeing as this is Fark, it is probably gonna be one of the next three links posted). The ACA has one primary impact, it significantly increases the number of people on Medicaid and Medicare, which both pay pennies on the dollar compared to priorly available private insurance. On average Medicaid paid approximately 54% of private providers and Medicare 70% of private providers. As a result, many physicians simply refused these patients. Those that accepted these patients passed on the price differential to those with private plans. The result was two fold; an increased cost to persons with private insurance and a reduced number of physicians willing to provide services to those on government plans. The ACA increased the payment rates for both Medicaid and Medicare, but it did not increase the government reimbursement rate to market rates. Rather, it doubled the number of people government rates while only modestly increasing the government rate to less than 75% of private insurance company rates. In effect, the government said that "what we are doing doesn't work, but I'm sure it will if it is bigger"!

Loan forgiveness for physicians practicing for at least five years in rural areas instead of 10 years, which was the prior loan forgiveness statute. I'm split on this. On one hand, it encourages young and inexperienced physicians to leave med school and move to Alpine, TX, but the time frame is so short that it suggests that folks will only practice in these areas for a quick loan forgiveness and then move on. If the result of the policy is that rural USA is blessed with the least experienced and least capable doctors hoping to move on after their debt is waived, this is crap policy, especially when the ten year loan waiver already exists. With the ten year waiver, a person genuinely has to decide that they want to practice and develop skill in an underserved area.
 
2013-08-02 01:37:07 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: SCUBA_Archer: OK then who decided that increasing the cost of a Big Mac and telling McDonalds they had to double worker's salaries is the most beneficial way to stimulate the market?  Are there not a host of downsides to this proposal?  Everything from a reduced demand for more expensive Big Macs (meaning less work for Mcdonalds workers, cattle farmers, bakers and vegetable pickers) to an unfair targeting of one fast food company by the government (I don't see anyone suggesting that Burger King and Wendys offer the same wages).  Basically something that seems good (hey, more money for me the worker drone) usually has a dark underbelly that no one wants to talk about (I was laid off because no one buys Big Macs anymore).  Just because you're requiring McDonalds to pay a certain wage to workers, you cannot force them to hire a specific number of workers.

Yeah. Riiight. We didn't think that particular wrinkle over. We didn't experience unprecedented sustained economic growth when we pursued domestic policies tailored to growing the middle class. (Because every farking idiot knows that the important demand and the greatest economic growth come when the 1% prosper most, right?)
This is really farking simple: When the people who drive 2/3+ of the economy and who have to spend 90+ percent of every penny they make in order to simply survive have more money to spend, they buy more goods and services. The increased demand is met by companies hiring more people and buying the machines that make stuff (1947-1979). And the economy grows in a positive feedback loop, as long as you control for inflation. And keep gambling money (stocks) separate from real investment money (banks), and both of those pots away from insurance,  By way of contrast, when the people who already have 70+% of the wealth have more money, they put it into the market or bonds, which have no direct link - and very poor indirect links - to the real economy (1980-present).


Your reference to the post WWII period as evidence is simply a simpleton's understanding of history. Ask yourself, what happened prior to 1947 and prior to 1942. For some odd reason, the United States wasn't a global economic power before 1942. All of a sudden, every other major economic power went to war. As part of that war, they tried and successfully destroyed the entire manufacturing capacity of all of our competitors. The United a states, on the other hand, mobilized our manufacturing capacity and suffered no production losses. The war ends. The United States is at maximum capacity. The rest of the world is at base capacity.

If you genuinely believe that our post WWII success falls into your economic theory, then you ought to start rethinking.
 
2013-08-02 10:37:07 AM

RIDETHEWALRUS: Your reference to the post WWII period as evidence is simply a simpleton's understanding of history. Ask yourself, what happened prior to 1947 and prior to 1942. For some odd reason, the United States wasn't a global economic power before 1942. All of a sudden, every other major economic power went to war. As part of that war, they tried and successfully destroyed the entire manufacturing capacity of all of our competitors. The United a states, on the other hand, mobilized our manufacturing capacity and suffered no production losses. The war ends. The United States is at maximum capacity. The rest of the world is at base capacity.

If you genuinely believe that our post WWII success falls into your economic theory, then you ought to start rethinking.


That's nonsense. If I were to bring up Europe or Japan, you'd throw the Marshall Plan out as an 'explanation'. The parts of Asia that decided to grow the middle class also prospered, but, you'll make some sort of excuse for that, too.
The changes in the middle class are a direct result of implementing Republican policies with respect to taxation, the social safety net, minimum wage, worker rights, and the financial system beginning with St. Ronald Reagan, but you'll have some weasel response to that too.
And remind me to drop Vernon Smith and John Mathis a line to tell them that I have a simpleton's understand of international finance, economics and postwar history: I'm sure they'll be amused as I am.
 
2013-08-02 05:14:23 PM
Not going to wade through all these comments, but I'm pretty sure the calculator is farked, since it's telling me that fast food workers only have to work twenty-six hours a week to make what I make in a year, and I make what I do with a forty-hour work week.
 
2013-08-02 09:20:22 PM
Nope.  That's why I worked my ass off, put myself through college and finally grad school.

I've had some shiat paying jobs, but honestly I don't think I've ever worked an hour at minimum wage.
 
Displayed 240 of 240 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report