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 39
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-08-01 10:03:59 AM
11 votes:

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 08:46:28 AM
8 votes:

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 09:06:26 AM
3 votes:

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 08:19:49 AM
3 votes:
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 02:20:59 PM
2 votes:

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 01:17:41 PM
2 votes:

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 01:02:19 PM
2 votes:
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 12:07:13 PM
2 votes:
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 10:47:01 AM
2 votes:

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 04:27:28 PM
1 votes:

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 04:12:05 PM
1 votes:

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 03:24:22 PM
1 votes:
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 02:26:41 PM
1 votes:
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 01:23:29 PM
1 votes:
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 01:09:59 PM
1 votes:
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 01:03:33 PM
1 votes:
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 12:59:43 PM
1 votes:

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 12:06:40 PM
1 votes:
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 12:04:25 PM
1 votes:

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 11:45:55 AM
1 votes:

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 11:05:45 AM
1 votes:

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 10:48:41 AM
1 votes:

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 10:48:34 AM
1 votes:

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 10:47:24 AM
1 votes:

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 10:37:32 AM
1 votes:

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 10:37:13 AM
1 votes:
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 10:29:17 AM
1 votes:

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 10:21:11 AM
1 votes:

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 10:02:00 AM
1 votes:

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 10:00:33 AM
1 votes:

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 09:56:47 AM
1 votes:

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 09:54:06 AM
1 votes:

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 09:53:03 AM
1 votes:

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 09:52:03 AM
1 votes:

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 09:42:09 AM
1 votes:

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 09:40:47 AM
1 votes:

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 09:37:21 AM
1 votes:

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 08:59:53 AM
1 votes:

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 08:10:39 AM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report