55659
Post by: pities2004
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/fast-food-workers-low-pay-nationwide-walkout
Fast-food workers continue fight against low wages: 'This is our right'
Thousands of workers to take part in a nationwide walk-out as part of a growing movement for industry workers' rights
Just wow
221
Post by: Frazzled
Workers of the World Unite!
55659
Post by: pities2004
It's really a joke, they want to get paid more without having to work for it. I joined the military, went to school got a career and I make 20ish an hour, if a lowly McDonalds worker can make 15 dollars an hour with no education or life skills then I will be truly disappointed.
4374
Post by: Spacemanvic
I work at a gun shop at nights for a few extra bucks for the coming holidays, making on $7.25/hour, but 10% commission on online sales. But it's just a part time gig, I work full time in IT.
These jobs werent meant to be careers, just stepping stones or side jobs etc, but not full time employment.
20373
Post by: Inquisitor Lord Bane
$15/ hr is the high end of the starting pay scale for unskilled factory workers in my area, which is a much more demanding job then flipping burgers. I doubt this will go anywhere.
But if it does, I'm quitting and getting me a McJob
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
I'm all for a living minimum wage. Best of luck to the fast food workers striking at the fat clogged heart of America.
55659
Post by: pities2004
SilverMK2 wrote:I'm all for a living minimum wage. Best of luck to the fast food workers striking at the fat clogged heart of America.
............................................................................
Major corporations, banks etc start at about 14-15 dollars an hour, which is much more demanding and requiring more life skills.
Fast food is not a career and should not be paid like one
221
Post by: Frazzled
SilverMK2 wrote:I'm all for a living minimum wage. Best of luck to the fast food workers striking at the fat clogged heart of America.
I agree. I fully support their right to strike for a living wage. If you heartless capitalist swine don't see their plight then too bad for you. Workers of the World Unite!
20373
Post by: Inquisitor Lord Bane
SilverMK2 wrote:I'm all for a living minimum wage. Best of luck to the fast food workers striking at the fat clogged heart of America.
I agree with this, but $15/ hr is higher then most entry level jobs that are "more respected". Obama wants to bump it to $9, I was living on my own just fine off of $10, with car and phone bills.
55659
Post by: pities2004
Frazzled wrote: SilverMK2 wrote:I'm all for a living minimum wage. Best of luck to the fast food workers striking at the fat clogged heart of America.
I agree. I fully support their right to strike for a living wage. If you heartless capitalist swine don't see their plight then too bad for you. Workers of the World Unite!
Sure i'm all for increasing there wage, as long as mine is doubled as well.
Seems fair right? It's not like I worked hard for my career or anything.
If they strike, fire them
221
Post by: Frazzled
You're just being a capitalist running dog. All wages must be raised for all oppressed workers. For too long have the 1%ers kept their foot on the neck of the American Worker. RIse up and take back whats yours you Patriots!
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
pities2004 wrote: SilverMK2 wrote:I'm all for a living minimum wage. Best of luck to the fast food workers striking at the fat clogged heart of America.
............................................................................
Major corporations, banks etc start at about 14-15 dollars an hour, which is much more demanding and requiring more life skills.
Fast food is not a career and should not be paid like one
Most workers are underpaid and undervalued, regardless of the industry they work in. It doesn't matter if your are scrubbing toilets, flipping burgers, or working in any other unskilled role; you should be able to live on the wage you earn - you shouldn't have to have a "career" to be able to afford to keep a roof over your head and food on the table.
55659
Post by: pities2004
Frazzled wrote:You're just being a capitalist running dog. All wages must be raised for all oppressed workers. For too long have the 1%ers kept their foot on the neck of the American Worker. RIse up and take back whats yours you Patriots!
241
Post by: Ahtman
People seem to forget that you should always ask for more than you think you can get. This is true of Fortune 500 CEO's and fast food workers.
221
Post by: Frazzled
SilverMK2 wrote: pities2004 wrote: SilverMK2 wrote:I'm all for a living minimum wage. Best of luck to the fast food workers striking at the fat clogged heart of America.
............................................................................
Major corporations, banks etc start at about 14-15 dollars an hour, which is much more demanding and requiring more life skills.
Fast food is not a career and should not be paid like one
Most workers are underpaid and undervalued, regardless of the industry they work in. It doesn't matter if your are scrubbing toilets, flipping burgers, or working in any other unskilled role; you should be able to live on the wage you earn - you shouldn't have to have a "career" to be able to afford to keep a roof over your head and food on the table.
I agree. Why should the unskilled and not particularly intelligent not enjoy the simple rights of housing, food, and the bare minimums of life? Why should you get all the benefits merely becuase of who you were to when these hard trodden workers have to suffer?
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
pities2004 wrote:Sure i'm all for increasing there wage, as long as mine is doubled as well.
I don't know about your wage being doubled, but a general upwards shift in wage for the majority of workers is something that should occur, certainly.
Seems fair right? It's not like I worked hard for my career or anything.
I'm sure you worked hard and had some good breaks. I've worked hard and had some bad breaks - now finally getting a good break and starting in September my salary will almost double. My wage, as is (and soon to be as was!) is still reasonably above minimum wage but it isn't something that I could have lived on by myself - I would have had to live with my parents, with friends, with a flat share or, as I have, live with my wife (who does make reasonably good money).
Sadly not everyone is as fortunate as us in getting the breaks, some people are not as naturally gifted, some people just don't apply themselves. I'm not suggesting they should get paid the earth; simply that they get paid for their day's work to the extent that they can keep a roof over their head, food on the table and put a little aside.
If they strike, fire them
That sounds entirely reasonable for the land of the free... wait a second!
68355
Post by: easysauce
right, why should people have to have useful skills in order to be sucessfull...
if your job is worth 9$/hr, you dont get to make 15$/hr... its simple math/economics...
just like I wont buy a 4$ hamburger for 16$, I wont pay a worker whos work is only worth 9$/hr, 15$/hr,
if people dont like how much $ they make, they can feel free to get a better job, or strike for more $, and accept the consequences, good or bad, of their own actions.
such entitlement...
"I want my lowest rung job to pay me middle rung pay, just because I want it too"
I made far less then minimum wage, and was absolutely fine with a roof over my head and food to eat, and had money left over to use to EDUCATE myself so I could advance in life.
and FYI, It was MCdonalds that I worked at when I started out, making minimum wage ~5.90/hr, and I would never have expected more then minimum wage from that kind of minimum work job.. it is the easiest job I have ever had... hence why the lowest paid job i have ever had...
221
Post by: Frazzled
SilverMK2 wrote: pities2004 wrote:Sure i'm all for increasing there wage, as long as mine is doubled as well.
I don't know about your wage being doubled, but a general upwards shift in wage for the majority of workers is something that should occur, certainly.
Seems fair right? It's not like I worked hard for my career or anything.
I'm sure you worked hard and had some good breaks. I've worked hard and had some bad breaks - now finally getting a good break and starting in September my salary will almost double. My wage, as is (and soon to be as was!) is still reasonably above minimum wage but it isn't something that I could have lived on by myself - I would have had to live with my parents, with friends, with a flat share or, as I have, live with my wife (who does make reasonably good money).
Sadly not everyone is as fortunate as us in getting the breaks, some people are not as naturally gifted, some people just don't apply themselves. I'm not suggesting they should get paid the earth; simply that they get paid for their day's work to the extent that they can keep a roof over their head, food on the table and put a little aside.
If they strike, fire them
That sounds entirely reasonable for the land of the free... wait a second!
Indeed. Why should the CEO of McDonalds make $13mm a year and not the guy doing the actual work? Why should absentee stockowners get money but not the smiling face you always see when you go up to the counter at McDonalds? Don't those always helpful Burger King employees deserve merest basics of life too?
55659
Post by: pities2004
Frazzled wrote: SilverMK2 wrote: pities2004 wrote: SilverMK2 wrote:I'm all for a living minimum wage. Best of luck to the fast food workers striking at the fat clogged heart of America.
............................................................................
Major corporations, banks etc start at about 14-15 dollars an hour, which is much more demanding and requiring more life skills.
Fast food is not a career and should not be paid like one
Most workers are underpaid and undervalued, regardless of the industry they work in. It doesn't matter if your are scrubbing toilets, flipping burgers, or working in any other unskilled role; you should be able to live on the wage you earn - you shouldn't have to have a "career" to be able to afford to keep a roof over your head and food on the table.
I agree. Why should the unskilled and not particularly intelligent not enjoy the simple rights of housing, food, and the bare minimums of life? Why should you get all the benefits merely becuase of who you were to when these hard trodden workers have to suffer?
$15 dollars an hour is little more than BARE MINIMUM, Frazzled I make good money, I worked hard for it I did what I was supposed to. You are angry at me for bettering my life? I donate 600 dollars a month to my community, I know I'm such a jerk
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote:right, why should people have to have useful skills in order to be sucessfull...
if your job is worth 9$/ hr, you dont get to make 15$/ hr... its simple math/economics...
just like I wont buy a 4$ hamburger for 16$, I wont pay a worker whos work is only worth 9$/ hr, 15$/ hr,
if people dont like how much $ they make, they can feel free to get a better job, or strike for more $, and accept the consequences, good or bad, of their own actions.
such entitlement...
"I want my lowest rung job to pay me middle rung pay, just because I want it too"
I made far less then minimum wage, and was absolutely fine with a roof over my head and food to eat, and had money left over to use to EDUCATE myself so I could advance in life.
and FYI, It was MCdonalds that I worked at when I started out, making minimum wage ~5.90/ hr, and I would never have expected more then minimum wage from that kind of minimum work job.. it is the easiest job I have ever had... hence why the lowest paid job i have ever had...
You are exalted sir
75903
Post by: KommissarKiln
SilverMK2 wrote:Best of luck to the fast food workers striking at the fat clogged heart of America.
Well, if we can make an effort to blow up this idea into a long-term strike, we can at least hope to begin alleviating the obesity problems in the US.
19370
Post by: daedalus
I'm so conflicted by this.
On one hand, I've worked fast food. I've worked restaurant jobs. They're not hard, but they suck enough and your schedule is irregular enough that it's difficult to do that and manage a second job, which you need as it's impossible to survive on minimum wage part time.
On the other hand, 15/hour is 31,200/year at full time. About 5 years ago, the job I was at paid 36,000, and that was a job that required a massive amount of knowledge and skill on my part to be able to do. Pay grade isn't a competition, but I'm concerned about a society that rates the difference between flipping burgers and replicating technical issues in a complicated infrastructure at only being worth 13% more. Were I not now making much more, I would probably go with the burger flipping at that point. Less stress, work never follows you home.
And on the other, other hand, what some people are saying in this thread makes me reluctant to seem like I'm on the same side as them.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I don't actually think they expect to get that.
daedalus wrote:And on the other, other hand, what some people are saying in this thread makes me reluctant to seem like I'm on the same side as them.
No kidding.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Ahtman wrote:People seem to forget that you should always ask for more than you think you can get. This is true of Fortune 500 CEO's and fast food workers.
If you ask too much, you risk getting laughed away from the bargaining table. Completely and literally unskilled labor has no real hold on their employers, as all the managers need to do is hang a sign saying now hiring and there is a new high school kid for every one they had previously.
55659
Post by: pities2004
daedalus wrote: Ahtman wrote:People seem to forget that you should always ask for more than you think you can get. This is true of Fortune 500 CEO's and fast food workers.
If you ask too much, you risk getting laughed away from the bargaining table. Completely and literally unskilled labor has no real hold on their employers, as all the managers need to do is hang a sign saying now hiring and there is a new high school kid for every one they had previously.
This is spot on, I worked fast food and low level retail in high school made enough to pay for a car and bills. My first job was at Denny's as a busier making 3.50 an hour with tips.
241
Post by: Ahtman
daedalus wrote: Ahtman wrote:People seem to forget that you should always ask for more than you think you can get. This is true of Fortune 500 CEO's and fast food workers.
If you ask too much, you risk getting laughed away from the bargaining table. Completely and literally unskilled labor has no real hold on their employers, as all the managers need to do is hang a sign saying now hiring and there is a new high school kid for every one they had previously.
So is this going to be the 400th thread where we have to debunk the old wives tale of Fast Food just anyone at any time? And yes, you have to gauge what you ask for, but if you look at the attitudes being presented in this thread it would seem even asking for a living wage and a little dignity is bring heaps of scorn and derision, so I don't know what point it would be where that wouldn't happen. Even if they were saying $11 an hour with a hope of $9 I imagine they would still have people looking down their nose at them and being dismissive.
221
Post by: Frazzled
daedalus wrote: Ahtman wrote:People seem to forget that you should always ask for more than you think you can get. This is true of Fortune 500 CEO's and fast food workers.
If you ask too much, you risk getting laughed away from the bargaining table. Completely and literally unskilled labor has no real hold on their employers, as all the managers need to do is hang a sign saying now hiring and there is a new high school kid for every one they had previously.
I think they are unionized. My labor law is hazy but I don't think they can just be fired.
8922
Post by: ironicsilence
I dont think the media is helping this much, every story I've read today about this strike has told the story of some single mom with 3-5 kids who doesnt make enough money working at McDonalds for her family. The media seems to paint all the fast food workers with a broad stroke. I should feel bad for someone that made a bunch of mistakes in her life and got a bunch of kids and now cant provide for her family with her part time job at mcdonalds? I'd have a little more sympathy for the fast food workers if the media wasnt lumping them all together in the same "sob" story Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote: daedalus wrote: Ahtman wrote:People seem to forget that you should always ask for more than you think you can get. This is true of Fortune 500 CEO's and fast food workers.
If you ask too much, you risk getting laughed away from the bargaining table. Completely and literally unskilled labor has no real hold on their employers, as all the managers need to do is hang a sign saying now hiring and there is a new high school kid for every one they had previously.
I think they are unionized. My labor law is hazy but I don't think they can just be fired.
from what I read on CNN the fast food workers arent unionized, being able to form a union without any retaliation is one of the "demands"
221
Post by: Frazzled
oh ok.
Oh I forgot Workers of the World Unite!
55659
Post by: pities2004
ironicsilence wrote:I dont think the media is helping this much, every story I've read today about this strike has told the story of some single mom with 3-5 kids who doesnt make enough money working at McDonalds for her family. The media seems to paint all the fast food workers with a broad stroke. I should feel bad for someone that made a bunch of mistakes in her life and got a bunch of kids and now cant provide for her family with her part time job at mcdonalds? I'd have a little more sympathy for the fast food workers if the media wasnt lumping them all together in the same "sob" story
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: daedalus wrote: Ahtman wrote:People seem to forget that you should always ask for more than you think you can get. This is true of Fortune 500 CEO's and fast food workers.
If you ask too much, you risk getting laughed away from the bargaining table. Completely and literally unskilled labor has no real hold on their employers, as all the managers need to do is hang a sign saying now hiring and there is a new high school kid for every one they had previously.
I think they are unionized. My labor law is hazy but I don't think they can just be fired.
from what I read on CNN the fast food workers arent unionized, being able to form a union without any retaliation is one of the "demands"
Which isn't going to happen
19370
Post by: daedalus
@Ahtman:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd be taking them more seriously if they asked for 11.00 and settled for 9.00. Their demand is gratuitous.
And, like I said, I think they SHOULD make more.
72490
Post by: gossipmeng
In Toronto fast food workers earn $10.25-11.00 per hour.
$15 is pretty laughable though.
34390
Post by: whembly
gossipmeng wrote:In Toronto fast food workers earn $10.25-11.00 per hour.
$15 is pretty laughable though.
Has there been a study comparing those rates to the standard of living?
Toronto is an expensive place to live in...no? Or, am I confusing Toronto with Vancouver?
241
Post by: Ahtman
daedalus wrote:@Ahtman:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd be taking them more seriously if they asked for 11.00 and settled for 9.00. Their demand is gratuitous.
And, like I said, I think they SHOULD make more.
I agree, but I understand why they went higher. I think [$15 an hour] probably is to much, but maybe they also wanted to make sure it got coverage, so they went with an exorbitant number. I could be wrong as well. They may want $15 an hour and expect to get it, which is delusional.
8922
Post by: ironicsilence
I wonder how many "strikers" will get fired. Pretty sure you dont get much strike protection when your non union
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
A walkout for higher minimum wage is a great idea. even it is is a 1.00 higher. That would mean an extra 80$ a month for me. If you can significantly disrupt the system, they will listen t you. Like we have a subway driver strike right where i am. And the company is bending ovr backward to make sure it doesnt happen? Why? because thousands of people would not be able to get to work if they do not
But 15 s too much. what i d isnt worth 15$ an hour. maybe 10. but not 15
12313
Post by: Ouze
Frazzled wrote:Workers of the World Unite!
Frazzled wrote:I agree. I fully support their right to strike for a living wage. If you heartless capitalist swine don't see their plight then too bad for you. Workers of the World Unite!
Frazzled wrote:You're just being a capitalist running dog. All wages must be raised for all oppressed workers. For too long have the 1%ers kept their foot on the neck of the American Worker. RIse up and take back whats yours you Patriots!
Frazzled wrote:oh ok.
Oh I forgot Workers of the World Unite!
I know since you were previously a mod you're never going to get banned regardless of how obviously you are spamming, but i just want to point out if anyone else did what you do every day, they'd be shown the door within a month.
Anyway, I feel for these guys and I wish them the best of luck, but realistically wages in America aren't set by "fairness", they're set by demand; and flipping burgers or pulling espresso or other relatively-easily-trained, entry level jobs are not skills that Americans hold in very high demand.
Should they be set by "fairness"? Probably not. Most countries that try and set price controls along these lines have not done very well, because the government is (theoretically) good at building level playing fields, but not as good when they start rigging the games and picking winners and losers - correct me if I'm wrong, if there are countries that have pulled this off successfully.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Why is that spamming. I am just showing support like you are.
33160
Post by: Iur_tae_mont
Just because The companies overall are making Billions, doesn't mean each store contributes the same amount
In Tiger Point, We have all sorts of people that work various jobs. From Retirees on Social Security and folks working in Fast Food/Retail to Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, and Military Officers.
HOWEVER: None of those Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, or Military Officers WORK in Tiger Point. They work in Navarre, or Gulf Breeze Proper, or Pensacola, or Fort Walton.
So during work hours, the only people in Tiger Point are Retirees and Retail/Fast Food Employees, working their Retail/Fast Food jobs in Tiger Point.
I work at The UPS Store and see (during 9-5 work hours) Retirees and Retail/Fast Food people coming in during their breaks or on their Day off shipping packages and dropping their jaws at the fact that it costs 12-15 bucks to ship a package. That's could be a couple days of food for them. Now from 5pm-7pm or 8am-9am the folks leaving tiger point might swing in, spend 50-75 bucks and not blink an eye, and walk out.( assuming they didn't go to a UPS Store in Proper, Navarre, Pensacola, or Ft Walton during their lunch break.)
All of those people with the big money jobs get lunch in Proper, Navarre, Pensacola, or Ft Walton. They don't drive home to the local McDonalds or Arby's. Those Fast Food jobs in Tiger Point don't make enough money off of Retirees, Retail, and Fast Food workers to stomach a $7/h raise for all 10-15 employees. Even moreso if the prices go up, because then They lose out of Retirees on Fixed Income and Retail workers who didn't get a 7 dollar raise. Which means a lot of lost jobs where I live, or a massive cut in everyone's hours.
I know for a fact (since I did payroll at my old Fast Food Job. Hoorah for Lazy Managers and Delegating paperwork to the guy that likes math!) that the local stores could prolly stomach $1.50 and only lose out one maybe one or two employees( which would bring them up to about $9, minimum wage in FL being like 7.50 or something to that tune), but 11 is the limit most would be able to handle, and 15 would pretty much kill my town.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Compromise. Give em $10 an hour, that's good enough. I have a job that requires a helluva lot more than "do you want fries with that?" And I only get paid $14.50 an hour (except on days where I work for the military, then it's a lot more). Their time isn't worth MORE than mine.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
timetowaste85 wrote:Compromise. Give em $10 an hour, that's good enough. I have a job that requires a helluva lot more than "do you want fries with that?" And I only get paid $14.50 an hour (except on days where I work for the military, then it's a lot more). Their time isn't worth MORE than mine.
And is the time of ceos worth exponentially more than even yours?
However, this isnt an argument of 'i only get paid' it is a case of raising the minimum wage to something that a person can actuallu live on.
You cant possibly imagine the wages of everyonr elae will remain static? I remember seeing in another thread some union workers pay rate is based on whatever the minimum pay is, so i imagine they would be very happy for the minimum wage to go up
55659
Post by: pities2004
hotsauceman1 wrote:A walkout for higher minimum wage is a great idea. even it is is a 1.00 higher. That would mean an extra 80$ a month for me. If you can significantly disrupt the system, they will listen t you. Like we have a subway driver strike right where i am. And the company is bending ovr backward to make sure it doesnt happen? Why? because thousands of people would not be able to get to work if they do not
But 15 s too much. what i d isnt worth 15$ an hour. maybe 10. but not 15
Is a walk out such a great idea if they all get canned? If they were a union that's one thing, but they aren't
23
Post by: djones520
Yeah, this thing kicked off in Detroit. I highly doubt they'll have difficulty finding unskilled laborers to fill the gaps.
If you want to make $15 an hour, then get a skill that is worth $15 an hour. Flipping burgers and making fries is not one.
8922
Post by: ironicsilence
Seems like there are 2 clear things coming forward in this topic
1. Working in fast food doesnt pay enough to make earn a living wage
2. Seems to be a lot of support for the theory that you should get paid what your worth and people dont seem to feel like fast food workers are worth $15 an hour.
I think part of the struggle with this issue is its hard to look at a fast food job in isolation without trying to compare the work to what someone else who makes $15 an hour. I agree with both points. I think jobs should pay enough for people to live on but I also agree that I dont feel like a fast food job is on the same level as other "skilled" jobs
36934
Post by: logg_frogg
When are people going to understand that raising minimum wage by large amounts does nothing to help?
A large raise in minimum wage will help in the short term but will quickly cause a spike in inflation.
$15/hr for fats food workers is fine if you feel like paying $20 for you meal at mcdonalds.
All raising minimum wage by a large amount does is screw the middle class. All the people who bust their ass to get educated and get a good job and start at $20/hr get hit the hardest.
Plain stupidity if you ask me
8922
Post by: ironicsilence
since your not from america frogg you might not understand that the solution to all of our problems is to screw the middle class
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
SilverMK2 wrote: timetowaste85 wrote:Compromise. Give em $10 an hour, that's good enough. I have a job that requires a helluva lot more than "do you want fries with that?" And I only get paid $14.50 an hour (except on days where I work for the military, then it's a lot more). Their time isn't worth MORE than mine.
And is the time of ceos worth exponentially more than even yours?
However, this isnt an argument of 'i only get paid' it is a case of raising the minimum wage to something that a person can actuallu live on.
You cant possibly imagine the wages of everyonr elae will remain static? I remember seeing in another thread some union workers pay rate is based on whatever the minimum pay is, so i imagine they would be very happy for the minimum wage to go up 
Seeing how I answer directly to the CEO of my company, hell yes, his time is worth more than mine. Lol. I see the crap he has to deal with, and the responsibilities he has, and I'll fully admit his time is more valuable than mine. $15 for a burger flipping job is ridiculous. The $10 I suggested is more than fair.
68355
Post by: easysauce
LOL really? people dont think CEO's actually do anything?
sounds like some people get all their info from dilbert or something...
CEO's make that much because its a high stress, elite skill set, where you make multi million/billion dollar decisions every day.
just like doctors make 100's of thousands a year because they have to make important life or death decisions,
but the guy cleaning out the bedpans makes 25k a year...
even though its "harder" work, or unpleasant, guess what?
literally anyone off the street can do it, so despite it being "real" work, its not gonna pay as much as the DR's who really do nothing but deligate work, or write prescriptions, ect.
241
Post by: Ahtman
ironicsilence wrote:since your not from america frogg you might not understand that the solution to all of our problems is to screw the middle class
Yeah, because it is the poor that screws the middle class, what with their huge political lobby and PACs. There are two groups that screw the middle class:
1. The Rich
2. The Middle Class
The poor get screwed by them all, the difference being that the Rich and Poor tend to realize where it comes from whereas the Middle Class seems to like to blame everyone that isn't at fault.
I don't think anyone has said CEO's do nothing, but if you compare CEO pay in the US versus, well, every other developed nation in the world's CEOs, you find a staggering gulf between the two.
11029
Post by: Ketara
A man should have the right to withdraw his labour. It has been shown over the years that that right is often all that stands between workers and ruthless exploitation.
However, $15 an hour? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. $10 an hour? Reasonable.
1206
Post by: Easy E
pities2004 wrote: SilverMK2 wrote:I'm all for a living minimum wage. Best of luck to the fast food workers striking at the fat clogged heart of America.
............................................................................
Fast food is not a career and should not be paid like one
Perhaps it is time for the rest of us to start demanding more form our careers then. Maybe we should all strike?
19370
Post by: daedalus
Ketara wrote:A man should have the right to withdraw his labour. It has been shown over the years that that right is often all that stands between workers and ruthless exploitation.
However, $15 an hour? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. $10 an hour? Reasonable.
Oh, absolutely. Withdraw away. Just don't hold your breath.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
I keep hearing this "living wage" nonsense. To me a living wage doesn't include a cell phone. It doesn't include cable. It doesn't NEED to include a car payment. For people that need to make a "living wage" off of a fast food job, it sure as gak doesn't include paying student loans.
There are too many things that have somehow become "rights" in the US that are not, in fact, rights at all. And if you can't support your family on your gakky fast food job, close your legs and don't pop out any more kids.
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
I want to support their right to strike for a minimum wage that they can live off of, but at the same time, I only make between 12-20 an hour on most stagehand jobs I do, and I work far worse hours, in more dangerous conditions, and do a lot harder work than any of them are doing.
I would think 10 -12 would be reasonable, but 15 bucks an hour is really pushing it for what they do on a day to day basis. If they're wanting more pay for what's essentially a dead end job, factories and warehouses are almost always hiring. Heck, Amazon will pay you 11.75 an hour to push around a shopping cart and grab books and dildos off shelves, and they're always hiring.
61310
Post by: Rainbow Dash
though the jobs aren't careers, and never will be, due to the crappiness of the job market and the growing gap between rich and poor, its often the only thing offered to most people
so what, how do you survive when this is all that is offered to you?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
You know, it's kind of funny how people are insisting that these people don't "deserve" more than $X/hour. What happened to good old fashioned capitalism where the free market sets the price of labor? If fast food workers can negotiate $15/hour successfully then that is what their labor is worth. Don't like it? Offer to take the job for $14/hour and take that money.
61310
Post by: Rainbow Dash
cincydooley wrote:I keep hearing this "living wage" nonsense. To me a living wage doesn't include a cell phone. It doesn't include cable. It doesn't NEED to include a car payment. For people that need to make a "living wage" off of a fast food job, it sure as gak doesn't include paying student loans.
There are too many things that have somehow become "rights" in the US that are not, in fact, rights at all. And if you can't support your family on your gakky fast food job, close your legs and don't pop out any more kids.
to be fair there are no such things as rights, because rights aren't rights if they can be taken away
33816
Post by: Noir
ironicsilence wrote:I wonder how many "strikers" will get fired. Pretty sure you dont get much strike protection when your non union
Better then being in a union that strikes becouse they can, causing the company to close. Only to have the company sell off it's IP to "itself" and reopen. Twinkies still on the shelf, empolyees on the street.
37034
Post by: Marine_With_Heart
ironicsilence wrote:since your not from america frogg you might not understand that the solution to all of our problems is to screw the middle class
Kind of Sounds like Australia at the moment...
Back on topic, I think the minimum wage should go up for them, just not the extent that they are wanting... I'm with those saying that $10 if not $11 an hour would be substantial for working in fast food (heck, I would be happy with any raise if I was earning what they earn an hour). Of course I could kind of see prices of the products going up if they succeed in somehow getting their large increase, it's just business to pass the expenses on to the customer as much as possible if new taxes or pay increases occur *cough* Carbon Tax *cough*... Or at least that's how I find it tends to be in my job of retail.
5470
Post by: sebster
easysauce wrote:if your job is worth 9$/ hr, you dont get to make 15$/ hr... its simple math/economics... Yes, simple economics. Very simple economics. So simple it's completely and utterly fething wrong. There is no inherent 'worth' to a job. You don't hire a dish washer and watch him generate $9 worth of business activity every hour. If he costs $9 or $15 you hire him either way, because you need the dishes cleaned. What actually determines what a job pays is just supply and demand - more people offer to do a job and the price the employer has to pay goes dfown. But people have this idea that because the market determines a wage, that wage must be what a person is inherently worth. That is only true in a perfect market (which economists will tell you over and over again never ever happens). For the price of labour to be completely fair then everyone involved would have to have the same level of knowledge of market conditions, no party involved would have any ability to influence the overall market price, it would have to be completely free and easy for a person to switch jobs, and there must be no possibility for weaker and strong bargaining positions (ie a person would never accept a job with a crappy wage because he needs to make this month's rent). But given those things happen, and we know that when we let the market take over entirely we end up with sweatshops and workhouses, well it only makes sense that we should step in and limit the excesses of the market. Which is why historically we did just that. Now, I suspect $15 an hour is too high, certainly in the short term its too big a jump too suddenly. But given the minimum wages around the world that allow for a sustainable, very profitable fast food industry, it's pretty clear the US could tolerate a an increase in the minimum wage of $1 an hour, each year, with an idea to eventually reach $12 or thereabouts. Automatically Appended Next Post: daedalus wrote:On the other hand, 15/hour is 31,200/year at full time. About 5 years ago, the job I was at paid 36,000, and that was a job that required a massive amount of knowledge and skill on my part to be able to do. Pay grade isn't a competition, but I'm concerned about a society that rates the difference between flipping burgers and replicating technical issues in a complicated infrastructure at only being worth 13% more. Were I not now making much more, I would probably go with the burger flipping at that point. Less stress, work never follows you home.
Yes, but you moved up and started to earn more. When I started work some friends without degrees earned more, in one case more than five grand more (the work they were doing manual, but it wasn't McJob stuff). But because of my qualifications and the kind of work I was doing I quickly moved past their incomes, and then kept on going.
People understand that, and they will be willing to do a tougher job now, because it has the prospect for promotion down the track. Automatically Appended Next Post: gossipmeng wrote:In Toronto fast food workers earn $10.25-11.00 per hour.
$15 is pretty laughable though.
In Australia the minimum wage is $16.37, and higher in some states. Reduce that by the exchange rate, and in USD that'd be about $14.73. But that's still overstated, because the exchange rate does not reflect the actual cost of rent, food and everything else (purchasing parity), and it drops to about $11.50 USD.
Which fast food companies can tolerate and still remain very profitable. McNuggets would probably go up a little bit in price, though. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ouze wrote:Should they be set by "fairness"? Probably not. Most countries that try and set price controls along these lines have not done very well, because the government is (theoretically) good at building level playing fields, but not as good when they start rigging the games and picking winners and losers - correct me if I'm wrong, if there are countries that have pulled this off successfully.
Yeah, complete command economy price setting is going to produce some very sub-optimal results. But you can have a free labour market, and just control for its excesses of very poorly paid labour by putting a minimum wage in place (as the US has done), and then raising that over time to reflect inflation and rising standards of living (as the US has not done). Automatically Appended Next Post: logg_frogg wrote:When are people going to understand that raising minimum wage by large amounts does nothing to help?
A large raise in minimum wage will help in the short term but will quickly cause a spike in inflation.
Because it isn't true. As I seem to end up explaining in every single one of these minimum wage threads.
Even if we assume an uncompetitive market where an increase in the cost of labour can be entirely transferred to the consumer with a price increase, then the only way the minimum wage worker ends up breaking even is if wages are the only cost of producing fast food, and all workers are on the minimum wage. To the extent that inputs other than wages make up the cost of the burger, and to the extent that people earn something other than the minimum wage, is the extent to which you'll see the price increase born by other elements of the economy.
$15/hr for fats food workers is fine if you feel like paying $20 for you meal at mcdonalds.
You need to check your maths. For that to be true a McValue meal would have to have a minimum wage cost component of about 300% of its cost.
All raising minimum wage by a large amount does is screw the middle class. All the people who bust their ass to get educated and get a good job and start at $20/hr get hit the hardest.
While it is important that middle class certainly earn more to provide an incentive for people to get educated and get high end jobs, I don't think we can extend that to feeling sympathy for engineers and IT managers having to pay 5% more for a Fillet'o'Fish.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Rainbow Dash wrote:though the jobs aren't careers, and never will be, due to the crappiness of the job market and the growing gap between rich and poor, its often the only thing offered to most people
so what, how do you survive when this is all that is offered to you?
Work harder, improve your skills, learn English. These are literally the jobs with the least effort required.
This is a union scam. They are trying to push for a higher minimum wage for everyone, while at the same time having an open door to illegal immigrants. Note the amount of signs not even in English.
I don't know about where you are, but here if you go into a McDonalds or Burger King no one you see will be a native English speaker, and these aren't legal immigrants either. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote:You know, it's kind of funny how people are insisting that these people don't "deserve" more than $X/hour. What happened to good old fashioned capitalism where the free market sets the price of labor? If fast food workers can negotiate $15/hour successfully then that is what their labor is worth. Don't like it? Offer to take the job for $14/hour and take that money.
I agree wholeheartedly. If they can negotiate for $15 an hour then more power to them. inversely the stores invlved should have the absolute right to terminate them on the spot.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Lots of people saying, 'Why should they be paid $15/h to flip burgers when I'm doing highly skilled work at $18/h?' I've seen highly specialised work being paid peanuts, presumably they are taking advantage of a poor economy and the 'offer' of more work. This is typical of internships in particular which are exploitative.
I would say the issue with the sort of person I describe above on $18 is that they are not paid enough for their skill set. It's been politically managed that workers turn on each other rather than on the system. Instead of hating on people wanting a rise to $15 for unskilled work (which isn't a huge amount in absolute terms) take issue with your employers who are ripping you off and paying you a lot less than your skill set deserves. There's an attitude to attack other people for getting a pay rise instead of going after the people who are taking advantage of you. Support the fast food workers against corporations, don't attack them and side with the corporation, that means you're helping the system hold them down, and ultimately it's the culture that holds your pay down also. A culture where a tiny minority have colossal wages, and many workers get a pittance.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Noir wrote: ironicsilence wrote:I wonder how many "strikers" will get fired. Pretty sure you dont get much strike protection when your non union
Better then being in a union that strikes becouse they can, causing the company to close. Only to have the company sell off it's IP to "itself" and reopen. Twinkies still on the shelf, empolyees on the street.
You have no idea what happend at Hostess do you?
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Howard A Treesong wrote:I would say the issue with the sort of person I describe above on $18 is that they are not paid enough for their skill set. It's been politically managed that workers turn on each other rather than on the system. Instead of hating on people wanting a rise to $15 for unskilled work (which isn't a huge amount in absolute terms) take issue with your employers who are ripping you off and paying you a lot less than your skill set deserves. There's an attitude to attack other people for getting a pay rise instead of going after the people who are taking advantage of you. Support the fast food workers against corporations, don't attack them and side with the corporation, that means you're helping the system hold them down, and ultimately it's the culture that holds your pay down also. A culture where a tiny minority have colossal wages, and many workers get a pittance.
Entirely agree
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
15$ an hour for flipping burgers? Just fire them all on the spot and bring on the next batch!
221
Post by: Frazzled
One disadvantage they face is that, in the dirt poor area of fast food these stores represents, many people, myself included, would rather interface with a computer, and rather have machines actually do the "cooking."
Mighty Fine, and the local barbeque joint are one thing. The hell of McDonalds is something completely different. The immigrants working there are typically hardworking, but often have a difficulty understanding English. But the native speakers-wow, just wow.
44089
Post by: Shadowseer_Kim
I am here to add to the debate about what a job is "worth".
Quite a few people in this thread have said if you can negotiate a higher wage, that is what your job is now worth, etc. Always looking at the pay increase.
The reality is, it goes the other way. In the free market, a job is only worth whatever the lowest amount someone is willing to be paid for the job.
Not the other way around.
Burger flipping and asking "do you want fries with that?" may be currently paying around $8-$9 an hour, but only because of minimum wage law.
Some teens would probably do the job, to eat free fast food everyday, and get some extra cash, amounting to $5 an hour.
I know a teen will work for $5 an hour, because this is the standard going rate for hiring your neighbors child to help you work on some home remodel job. And if they happily accept the $5 an hour.
The only reason they do not, is because of the artificial floor on wages.
So the reality is fast food is probably a $5 an hour job, that people are getting paid $8-$9 for, and are now striking to get $15.
I say abolish the minimum wage, and then let's sort it out.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
While we are at it let's get rid of age laws too, then we can move all those jobs back from 3rd world gak holes and give them to 'MURICAN CHILDUN who deserve to work 16 hour days for pennies...
34390
Post by: whembly
Easy E wrote:Noir wrote: ironicsilence wrote:I wonder how many "strikers" will get fired. Pretty sure you dont get much strike protection when your non union
Better then being in a union that strikes becouse they can, causing the company to close. Only to have the company sell off it's IP to "itself" and reopen. Twinkies still on the shelf, empolyees on the street.
You have no idea what happend at Hostess do you?
yeah... both parties at the table fethed up. Automatically Appended Next Post: Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I am here to add to the debate about what a job is "worth".
Quite a few people in this thread have said if you can negotiate a higher wage, that is what your job is now worth, etc. Always looking at the pay increase.
The reality is, it goes the other way. In the free market, a job is only worth whatever the lowest amount someone is willing to be paid for the job.
Not the other way around.
Burger flipping and asking "do you want fries with that?" may be currently paying around $8-$9 an hour, but only because of minimum wage law.
Some teens would probably do the job, to eat free fast food everyday, and get some extra cash, amounting to $5 an hour.
I know a teen will work for $5 an hour, because this is the standard going rate for hiring your neighbors child to help you work on some home remodel job. And if they happily accept the $5 an hour.
The only reason they do not, is because of the artificial floor on wages.
So the reality is fast food is probably a $5 an hour job, that people are getting paid $8-$9 for, and are now striking to get $15.
I say abolish the minimum wage, and then let's sort it out.
No way jose... that's a bad idea.
A better idea is to fething enforce the immigration laws.
I find it ironic that the Unions / Traditional Democrats are all gung-ho over immigration policy... and yet totally blind/deaf to what kind of effect illegal migrant workers does to wages.
All you have to look at is this: Many Employers are ambivalent (or, at worst, supportive) of illegal workers because of the downward pressure they cause on wages. That should tell ya something....
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
whembly wrote:I find it ironic that the Unions / Traditional Democrats are all gung-ho over immigration policy... and yet totally blind/deaf to what kind of effect illegal migrant workers does to wages.
Not for the Democrats no. It means that they get the votes of millions of people who can now vote, and claim that they listened to the wishes of the Hispanic community, and as wages get deflated it means more people on some form of government assistance so who is going to vote for the GOP which favours smaller government?
As far as the Unions go, well they blindly followed this Administration over the ACA without realising what it would do to them, so their stance over immigration doesn't surprise me.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Many unions aren't suportive actually. The ones that are, are trying to recruit them into unions now. This whole thing is part of that.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Maybe it's just my area (Cincinnati, Ohio), or maybe it's because in college I worked in a restraunt with a lot of immigrants (dunno if they were illegal), but I don't have a problem with the immigrants that work at these types of jobs (though I agree, Frazz, they could speak better Engrish). Mostly because, from my experience, they work significantly harder than, for lack of a better term, "white trash." I've seen a lot of "good ole boy 'Murican's" that like to bitch and moan about illegal immigration "taking their jobs" but in reality they have no interest in working to begin with when Uncle Sam is paying their way. Automatically Appended Next Post: Dreadclaw69 wrote:
As far as the Unions go, well they blindly followed this Administration over the ACA without realising what it would do to them, so their stance over immigration doesn't surprise me.
No kidding, right?
34390
Post by: whembly
cincydooley wrote:Maybe it's just my area (Cincinnati, Ohio), or maybe it's because in college I worked in a restraunt with a lot of immigrants (dunno if they were illegal), but I don't have a problem with the immigrants that work at these types of jobs (though I agree, Frazz, they could speak better Engrish). Mostly because, from my experience, they work significantly harder than, for lack of a better term, "white trash." I've seen a lot of "good ole boy 'Murican's" that like to bitch and moan about illegal immigration "taking their jobs" but in reality they have no interest in working to begin with when Uncle Sam is paying their way.
Legal immigrant isn't the problem.
It's those "undocumented labor force" that's the problem.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
No, and I'm right with you, but the jobs that the illegals typically find themselves in are the ones all the lazy white trash don't want to do anyways.
I have problems with illegal immigration, but mostly in their use of our social services without putting into the system. I have much less of a problem with them coming here to work.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
SilverMK2 wrote: pities2004 wrote: SilverMK2 wrote:I'm all for a living minimum wage. Best of luck to the fast food workers striking at the fat clogged heart of America.
............................................................................
Major corporations, banks etc start at about 14-15 dollars an hour, which is much more demanding and requiring more life skills.
Fast food is not a career and should not be paid like one
Most workers are underpaid and undervalued, regardless of the industry they work in. It doesn't matter if your are scrubbing toilets, flipping burgers, or working in any other unskilled role; you should be able to live on the wage you earn - you shouldn't have to have a "career" to be able to afford to keep a roof over your head and food on the table.
People can survive just fine on the current minimum wage. If they can't, then they need to consider getting a second job. I work 3 jobs (teach at a university, work in research, and do consulting part-time). If they want to "live big", then maybe they should work harder.
221
Post by: Frazzled
cincydooley wrote:Maybe it's just my area (Cincinnati, Ohio), or maybe it's because in college I worked in a restraunt with a lot of immigrants (dunno if they were illegal), but I don't have a problem with the immigrants that work at these types of jobs (though I agree, Frazz, they could speak better Engrish). Mostly because, from my experience, they work significantly harder than, for lack of a better term, "white trash." I've seen a lot of "good ole boy 'Murican's" that like to bitch and moan about illegal immigration "taking their jobs" but in reality they have no interest in working to begin with when Uncle Sam is paying their way.
Agreed on all points. My only issue is that, at least in Texas, I pretty much guarantee that these hardworking folks aren't legal yet.
Close the door behind them, and moon Mexico while chanting "hah hah we got all your hard workers now hah hah..."
34390
Post by: whembly
Just keep in mind folks...
The higher the wage... you'll see more and more automation.
Also, some Fast Food companies are looking to to have places like India provide the "remote" ordering voice... rather paying for someone locally to do that.
The point is, if the wage goes up, don't be surprise when businesses starts looking to drive down cost by offsite services and/or more automation.
Frankly... I just wish they'd hurry up with the touchscreen ordering interfaces at driveups...
221
Post by: Frazzled
I thought BK already did that when you went through the dirve through. I am now surprised.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
If I was in charge of McDonalds, and the big McD's was a corporate empire instead of a large chain of franchises, I would have fired the ENTIRE human staff by now. I would replace them with machines and one to two guys in back to repair the machines and load fresh burger patties. We have the tech for this. It was called an automat or something like that back in the day.
Labor is one of the largest expenses in any possible endeavour I can do better by my stockholders and my staff teams by reducing it significantly.
19370
Post by: daedalus
My only thought is that the blowback from firing that many people would be crippling to business.
People get fidgety when you start talking about machines replacing humans.
16689
Post by: notprop
Id be more worried about the blowback in your burger if they don't get it?
34390
Post by: whembly
daedalus wrote:My only thought is that the blowback from firing that many people would be crippling to business.
People get fidgety when you start talking about machines replacing humans.
Nah... just look at the regular food procession industry.
That candy bar you just bought? Was mixed / cooked / packaged by a machine...
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
notprop wrote:Id be more worried about the blowback in your burger if they don't get it?
If any staff "blowback" into a customer's burger because of a strop over the government not getting them get their way over an outrageous pay hike then maybe that person should consider their job prospects elsewhere.
40664
Post by: mega_bassist
cincydooley wrote:I keep hearing this "living wage" nonsense. To me a living wage doesn't include a cell phone. It doesn't include cable. It doesn't NEED to include a car payment. For people that need to make a "living wage" off of a fast food job, it sure as gak doesn't include paying student loans.
This is easily the one thing I agree with in this thread. I'm not saying that they're aren't people making sacrifices to pay the bills, but in my experience, plenty of people do not really have their priorities straight.
34390
Post by: whembly
Also, for the record, a $15 an hour wage is more than local EMT workers, substitute teachers and correctional officers make in St. Louis, MO.
So, say burger flippers get $15 increase (or any significant increase)... about about them?
221
Post by: Frazzled
whembly wrote:Also, for the record, a $15 an hour wage is more than local EMT workers, substitute teachers and correctional officers make in St. Louis, MO.
So, say burger flippers get $15 increase (or any significant increase)... about about them?
You see the intent there now?
241
Post by: Ahtman
Wow, most of the Correctional Officers I know get paid a lot more than $15 an hour. Sounds like St. Louis may be stingy with greenbacks.
23
Post by: djones520
Ahtman wrote:Wow, most of the Correctional Officers I know get paid a lot more than $15 an hour. Sounds like St. Louis may be stingy with greenbacks.
Starting pay in Michigan is $16 an hour. Illinois seems to a be a good bit heftier at $20 an hour. Seems to just vary by state.
61310
Post by: Rainbow Dash
Frazzled wrote: Rainbow Dash wrote:though the jobs aren't careers, and never will be, due to the crappiness of the job market and the growing gap between rich and poor, its often the only thing offered to most people
so what, how do you survive when this is all that is offered to you?
Work harder, improve your skills, learn English. These are literally the jobs with the least effort required.
This is a union scam. They are trying to push for a higher minimum wage for everyone, while at the same time having an open door to illegal immigrants. Note the amount of signs not even in English.
I don't know about where you are, but here if you go into a McDonalds or Burger King no one you see will be a native English speaker, and these aren't legal immigrants either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote:You know, it's kind of funny how people are insisting that these people don't "deserve" more than $X/hour. What happened to good old fashioned capitalism where the free market sets the price of labor? If fast food workers can negotiate $15/hour successfully then that is what their labor is worth. Don't like it? Offer to take the job for $14/hour and take that money.
I agree wholeheartedly. If they can negotiate for $15 an hour then more power to them. inversely the stores invlved should have the absolute right to terminate them on the spot.
I'm Canadian btw
And in some places, like the crappy city I live in, they are the only jobs one can really get, so unemployment is rampant amongst young people, they leave and the town drops in population and more and more businesses die
you should see the sad excuse for a shopping mall we have (2 floors, half the second floor is offices, cheaper then building an office building)
I don't have any money to go to school because I can't get a job-even if I could, they pay like crap.
12313
Post by: Ouze
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I would replace them with machines and one to two guys in back to repair the machines and load fresh burger patties. We have the tech for this. It was called an automat or something like that back in the day.
Labor is one of the largest expenses in any possible endeavour I can do better by my stockholders and my staff teams by reducing it significantly.
Have you used the self-checkouts at the supermarket? I have tried them and I've found they absolutely do not perform a better job than a human as a whole - someone always screwed it up and needs a clerk to come fix whatever they did; and that's a fairly close parallel, I think. I agree this is eventually where we'll be but I don't think we're there yet.
23
Post by: djones520
Ouze wrote: KalashnikovMarine wrote:I would replace them with machines and one to two guys in back to repair the machines and load fresh burger patties. We have the tech for this. It was called an automat or something like that back in the day.
Labor is one of the largest expenses in any possible endeavour I can do better by my stockholders and my staff teams by reducing it significantly.
Have you used the self-checkouts at the supermarket? I have tried them and I've found they absolutely do not perform a better job than a human as a whole - someone always screwed it up and needs a clerk to come fix whatever they did; and that's a fairly close parallel, I think. I agree this is eventually where we'll be but I don't think we're there yet.
As I understand it, most of Europe's McDonald's already made that change to automated tellers.
241
Post by: Ahtman
djones520 wrote: Ahtman wrote:Wow, most of the Correctional Officers I know get paid a lot more than $15 an hour. Sounds like St. Louis may be stingy with greenbacks.
Starting pay in Michigan is $16 an hour. Illinois seems to a be a good bit heftier at $20 an hour. Seems to just vary by state.
The last one I saw was $24 an hour. Things might have changed I suppose, though not for the better it would seem. Most of the guys I know that were COs were in that range, or at least pretty darn close to $19. It could be that the $16 is probationary, and if you get hired on full time it gets a bump.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
KalashnikovMarine wrote:If I was in charge of McDonalds, and the big McD's was a corporate empire instead of a large chain of franchises, I would have fired the ENTIRE human staff by now. I would replace them with machines and one to two guys in back to repair the machines and load fresh burger patties. We have the tech for this. It was called an automat or something like that back in the day.
Labor is one of the largest expenses in any possible endeavour I can do better by my stockholders and my staff teams by reducing it significantly.
What happened when I go in to complain about my order and how it was wrong? What is the machine decided to sprout LAzers or something.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
whembly wrote:Also, for the record, a $15 an hour wage is more than local EMT workers, substitute teachers and correctional officers make in St. Louis, MO.
So, say burger flippers get $15 increase (or any significant increase)... about about them?
Then I guess that would mean that the free market finds burger flippers more valuable than EMTs, teachers, and correctional officers. Well, that or burger flippers as a whole are better at using the free market to maximize their personal gain.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I went to Mcdonalds a little while ago, and got 11 mcnuggets in my 10 piece.
I now think at least one person there deserves a raise.
23
Post by: djones520
Ahtman wrote: djones520 wrote: Ahtman wrote:Wow, most of the Correctional Officers I know get paid a lot more than $15 an hour. Sounds like St. Louis may be stingy with greenbacks.
Starting pay in Michigan is $16 an hour. Illinois seems to a be a good bit heftier at $20 an hour. Seems to just vary by state.
The last one I saw was $24 an hour. Things might have changed I suppose, though not for the better it would seem. Most of the guys I know that were COs were in that range, or at least pretty darn close to $19. It could be that the $16 is probationary, and if you get hired on full time it gets a bump.
According to the Michigan state website the pay scaled from $16 up to $24. I'd almost be interested in the job, but I think I'd want a bit more then $16 an hour starting out to deal with a daily risk of getting shivved.
43066
Post by: feeder
Think of all the confiscated terlit sangria!
11978
Post by: greenskin lynn
Ouze wrote:I went to Mcdonalds a little while ago, and got 11 mcnuggets in my 10 piece.
I now think at least one person there deserves a raise.
to bad their slip-up in giving you extra means they probably got shoved into a fryer
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
whembly wrote:Also, for the record, a $15 an hour wage is more than local EMT workers, substitute teachers and correctional officers make in St. Louis, MO. So, say burger flippers get $15 increase (or any significant increase)... about about them? In the UK substitute teachers are often paid more on the hour than regular teachers, because they're in demand and it makes up for the sporadic working hours. But everything I've heard about the teaching profession in the US generally is that they are treated like rubbish on poor wages. It simply not a valued profession.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Surely the wages will vary on a state by state basis?
I hope they manage to get a raise. I have nothing but good experiences with fast food "burger flipping" places. The staff are polite enough and you get what you pay for. If McDonals/(insert fast food chain here) are making substantial profits they can probably afford to pass the good stuff down to the guys that generate those profits.
23
Post by: djones520
Medium of Death wrote:Surely the wages will vary on a state by state basis?
I hope they manage to get a raise. I have nothing but good experiences with fast food "burger flipping" places. The staff are polite enough and you get what you pay for. If McDonals/(insert fast food chain here) are making substantial profits they can probably afford to pass the good stuff down to the guys that generate those profits.
I haven't been to a "good" McDonalds since I left Japan. There are very few fast food joints I enter where I feel like i'm a valued customer.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Howard A Treesong wrote: whembly wrote:Also, for the record, a $15 an hour wage is more than local EMT workers, substitute teachers and correctional officers make in St. Louis, MO.
So, say burger flippers get $15 increase (or any significant increase)... about about them?
In the UK substitute teachers are often paid more on the hour than regular teachers, because they're in demand and it makes up for the sporadic working hours. But everything I've heard about the teaching profession in the US generally is that they are treated like rubbish on poor wages. It simply not a valued profession.
Substitutes are basically glorified babysitters here in the states, which sucks because most of those people have teaching degrees and can teach the content. When I was doing my student teaching we had a sub a few days, and the instructions were basically, "Alf knows what to do, he can run the class, if he has any problems, please do x, y, or z" and that was basically it.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Alfndrate wrote: Howard A Treesong wrote: whembly wrote:Also, for the record, a $15 an hour wage is more than local EMT workers, substitute teachers and correctional officers make in St. Louis, MO.
So, say burger flippers get $15 increase (or any significant increase)... about about them?
In the UK substitute teachers are often paid more on the hour than regular teachers, because they're in demand and it makes up for the sporadic working hours. But everything I've heard about the teaching profession in the US generally is that they are treated like rubbish on poor wages. It simply not a valued profession.
Substitutes are basically glorified babysitters here in the states, which sucks because most of those people have teaching degrees and can teach the content. When I was doing my student teaching we had a sub a few days, and the instructions were basically, "Alf knows what to do, he can run the class, if he has any problems, please do x, y, or z" and that was basically it.
Doing my student teaching while I was certified as a sub in the school too, I didn't have to have a sub as well, as I counted as one-so those days I got paid to student teach! I did check in with my college adviser and it was allowed (doesn't happen very often). Another day though, I was called to sub in a different class that had a student teacher, and I just had to sit in the back and read comic books all day-didn't have to do anything. Which is the norm for subs when student teachers are there too. And it is often the case that subs are glorified babysitters, but if you've built a rapport with the teacher in question and they know you know the material, they can/might have you teach the course. I've taught many a math and English class when the kids thought they'd have a study hall instead. Oops
Big danger of being a sub in the US is that if you're a good enough sub (cause no problems, kids like you, teachers like you, dependable, etc), they won't hire you on as a full teacher because they'd lose one of their better subs. I wish I was just being cynical about that, but it was something I was warned about by a few teachers, and then it happened. I walked out with a smile and a wave when I got a better job.
TLDR: sub jobs in the US are a joke most of the time, but being a good sub can keep you from getting a teaching job.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
What do you do for long term supply? For illness or maternity? You can't baby sit for a term, you need someone who will fill the teaching post properly.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Ouze wrote:Have you used the self-checkouts at the supermarket? I have tried them and I've found they absolutely do not perform a better job than a human as a whole - someone always screwed it up and needs a clerk to come fix whatever they did; and that's a fairly close parallel, I think. I agree this is eventually where we'll be but I don't think we're there yet.
I use them pretty regularly with few problems. Those few problems that do arise are solved by a staff member that oversees at least a dozen terminals, and doesn't require my waiting on a manager to resolve my issue.
59176
Post by: Mathieu Raymond
timetowaste85 wrote: Alfndrate wrote: Howard A Treesong wrote: whembly wrote:Also, for the record, a $15 an hour wage is more than local EMT workers, substitute teachers and correctional officers make in St. Louis, MO.
So, say burger flippers get $15 increase (or any significant increase)... about about them?
In the UK substitute teachers are often paid more on the hour than regular teachers, because they're in demand and it makes up for the sporadic working hours. But everything I've heard about the teaching profession in the US generally is that they are treated like rubbish on poor wages. It simply not a valued profession.
Substitutes are basically glorified babysitters here in the states, which sucks because most of those people have teaching degrees and can teach the content. When I was doing my student teaching we had a sub a few days, and the instructions were basically, "Alf knows what to do, he can run the class, if he has any problems, please do x, y, or z" and that was basically it.
Doing my student teaching while I was certified as a sub in the school too, I didn't have to have a sub as well, as I counted as one-so those days I got paid to student teach! I did check in with my college adviser and it was allowed (doesn't happen very often). Another day though, I was called to sub in a different class that had a student teacher, and I just had to sit in the back and read comic books all day-didn't have to do anything. Which is the norm for subs when student teachers are there too. And it is often the case that subs are glorified babysitters, but if you've built a rapport with the teacher in question and they know you know the material, they can/might have you teach the course. I've taught many a math and English class when the kids thought they'd have a study hall instead. Oops
Big danger of being a sub in the US is that if you're a good enough sub (cause no problems, kids like you, teachers like you, dependable, etc), they won't hire you on as a full teacher because they'd lose one of their better subs. I wish I was just being cynical about that, but it was something I was warned about by a few teachers, and then it happened. I walked out with a smile and a wave when I got a better job.
TLDR: sub jobs in the US are a joke most of the time, but being a good sub can keep you from getting a teaching job.
Same thing here. I've been subbing for four years, and only get special ed short term contracts because no one wants them. There are 180 people ahead of me, in my field alone. And they cut back on 70 teachers board-wide. The previous government kept spouting "We desperately need more teachers" without adding the "in the far north" part. And since most boomers were supposed to retire starting in 2005, the field was supposed to be pretty dynamic, but no one is retiring. They have the best jobs at a pretty decent pay (73K before deductions, about 30K net), the retirement funds were bled dry a some years ago so they hold on to their wages. I can somewhat understand them, but it doesn't make it any easier for me. Now I had to buy a car to go up to 90 minutes away in some cases for the opportunity of a job. (I can't move, my girlfriend bought a business and we're signed into a 5 years commercial rent)
Now if I compare to working for Ultramar (an oil company) where wages were much higher, and I only had a high school diploma at the time, not my current B.Ed, I'm uneasy even stepping into a fast food. Most people would spend their time online, chatting away (I called it playing bus stop) and hoping the lower rungs would do the job they couldn't anymore. Because most of the employees also only had high school diplomas, and couldn't speak English to boot. Embarassing when you're owned by a Texan company, to say the least. My department's boss was a Michael-Scott-lite. At least the fast food worker, you know, works. This is all very anecdotal, so I am absolutely not passing judgement on your experiences or your perceptions. Just throwing in my 2¢. Which have been discontinued, incidentally.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
That was precisely my experiment with subbing after I got laid off. I was almost exclusively in English, History, or communications classes that I could teach the content in (even AP classes) and was having a lot of trouble getting the time of day for new positions. The teachers liked having a sub that the kids respected and knew the content so they could take days without actually "losing" them.
Coupled with the fact that the retirement requirements in Ohio changed drastically, and no one is leaving the profession that previously could have retired (basically for full retirement it went from 30 years to 35 years, leaving teachers that were at 31/32 years hanging on for another 2-4 when they didn't actually want to). And the teachers unions let this happen, which is the crappiest part. They sadly, IMO, do very little to help young teachers but rather focus on their older, entrenched constituency. But that's another matter.
That's why I'm no longer teaching.
Back on topic. I still have a problem with this "living wage" crap. A fast food job isn't intended to support a family unless perhaps you're in management. It especially isn't intended to support irresponsible people making irresponsible choices like building tons of debt or having tons of kids. It's real hard for me to feel bad for them at all.
And fwiw, when I got laid off from my teaching job due to levy failure, I got a 2nd job (in addition to subbing) within 10 days and cancelled our cable (cutting some $70 a month in expense) because I didn't need it to live. And oh yeah, because I got that second job, I didn't qualify for any income based payments on my student loans. So I've been there, done that, and don't feel an ounce of pity or support for these over entitled mouth breathers.
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
At least if McDonalds paid their workers 15 dollars an hour the country would start to get healthier, as no one would want to eat 8 dollar quarter pounders for lunch.
It's horrible when people don't realize that minimum wage hikes drives up the cost of living, soon making said minimum wage hike irrelevant.
59176
Post by: Mathieu Raymond
But that's the thing. Unless you still want to pay shareholders the same amount of profit, which admittedly that is what the standard model calls for, then yes, the burger has to go up.
But if you accept that you're still making insane amounts of money, not just as much, then the burger can remain at the same price.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
pities2004 wrote:It's really a joke, they want to get paid more without having to work for it. I joined the military, went to school got a career and I make 20ish an hour, if a lowly McDonalds worker can make 15 dollars an hour with no education or life skills then I will be truly disappointed.
I do not think you realize that $15 an hour is about 28K a year.
Not horrible for a single person, but for a dad that works and the wife stays home to watch the 2 kids that is only 5k a year above the poverty line in the U.S.A. and if they have 3 kids they are only a few hundred dollars a year above the poverty line in the U.S.A. worse if they live in Alaska or Hawaii
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/tools-for-advocates/guides/federal-poverty-guidelines.html
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Well, don't try to support a family of 4-5 on a McDonalds salary then.
If its the only thing available, tough luck man. Get some real skills or wait, if you have skills, till the economy improves and you can get a job that pays what can support your family. Which ever is applicable.
There is wiggle room for what a burger flipper can get paid, but $15/hour is not in that zone.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I have never heard of someone trying t support a family as a Mcdonalds employee. Granted that is my experiance. but over here most of college students or immigrants.
73999
Post by: Haight
Frazzled wrote: SilverMK2 wrote:I'm all for a living minimum wage. Best of luck to the fast food workers striking at the fat clogged heart of America.
I agree. I fully support their right to strike for a living wage. If you heartless capitalist swine don't see their plight then too bad for you. Workers of the World Unite!
I completely agree. I'm actually really happy to see this. Everyone deserves a fair, living wage. Human dignity is worth more than capital profit. No one should thumb their nose at a cleaner, food handler, porter, etc. etc. That's ingrained elitism.
I also support the current organization of the child care industry into unions as well - good on 'em.
If this means the burger at wendies i get goes from 1.20 (jr. bacon cheeseburger), to 4-5 bucks - fine. I get healthier, other people get to make a living wage, poverty gets lower (and thereby crime), education, and quality of life, and basic human dignity all increase, urban blight decreases.
Don't believe me ? Take a good hard and do some studying of Sweden as an economic and political model.
Btw, Frazzled, I love that you used the Wobblies slogan.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
AegisGrimm wrote:At least if McDonalds paid their workers 15 dollars an hour the country would start to get healthier, as no one would want to eat 8 dollar quarter pounders for lunch.
It's horrible when people don't realize that minimum wage hikes drives up the cost of living, soon making said minimum wage hike irrelevant.
It's not like many other countries support a much higher minimum wage than the US. How do we manage it? America has some of the poorest laws governing workers rights to job security, pay and sick/maternity leave in the west. The way you carry on, things like ending the power for employers to sack people at any time without cause, mandatory maternity leave/pay and a higher minimum wage would make your country fall in. Most decent countries achieve these things, it's not impossible to make these changes.
23
Post by: djones520
Haight wrote: Frazzled wrote: SilverMK2 wrote:I'm all for a living minimum wage. Best of luck to the fast food workers striking at the fat clogged heart of America.
I agree. I fully support their right to strike for a living wage. If you heartless capitalist swine don't see their plight then too bad for you. Workers of the World Unite!
I completely agree. I'm actually really happy to see this. Everyone deserves a fair, living wage. Human dignity is worth more than capital profit. No one should thumb their nose at a cleaner, food handler, porter, etc. etc. That's ingrained elitism.
I also support the current organization of the child care industry into unions as well - good on 'em.
If this means the burger at wendies i get goes from 1.20 (jr. bacon cheeseburger), to 4-5 bucks - fine. I get healthier, other people get to make a living wage, poverty gets lower (and thereby crime), education, and quality of life, and basic human dignity all increase, urban blight decreases.
Don't believe me ? Take a good hard and do some studying of Sweden as an economic and political model.
Btw, Frazzled, I love that you used the Wobblies slogan.
You do realize that in your post you explain exactly why this won't work.
You'd stop buying the food. So would everyone else.
Then the business closes. Then the employees loose their job. Then they are worse off then they are now.
So how does that help?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I'd also like to make another point. Everyone does not deserve a fair, livable wage. Human dignity is not worth more then payroll profit.
Everyone is entitled the right to EARN a fair livable wage. Everyone is entitled the right to perserve their own human dignity.
No one has the right to demand it from others.
59176
Post by: Mathieu Raymond
But no one's going to stop buying the food, really. Maybe buy less, but I don't think we'll all stop. Even I step into a McD once in a blue moon. (We have a lot of little cafés and bistros near our store)
It would undoubtedly lower the profits of the company. It might slow down Wall Street. Okay, it will slow down Wall Street. Is that such a bad thing? Automatically Appended Next Post: And look, I have to admit, I am an employer, and I can't afford to pay that much for a job that is going to require a lot more *discernement* than "flipping burgers." Hell, my fiancee and I have decided to cut down our own pay at our own store down under that 15$ line, to make sure we'll stay afloat until the economy goes back up.
I do wish I could pay our future employee more. If they'd apply at all...
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
We're too addicted to our greasy, fatty, salty foods to just give them up... Hell we spend our the wazoo on plastic, metal, and resin MAN DOLLIES, why wouldn't we bitch and complain about food going up and then still getting it
59176
Post by: Mathieu Raymond
Exactly.
Though I do wish my self-imposed salary would allow more plastic men.
Actually... I take that back, I wish the products I wanted were out (Mecha Front, Dreamforge) but at the moment, I'm quite happy not having gaming money.
23
Post by: djones520
I call BS that you guys would pay $3.50 for a regular BK Cheeseburger, and $8 for a Whopper, before you add the fries and drink.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
djones520 wrote: Haight wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I'd also like to make another point. Everyone does not deserve a fair, livable wage. Human dignity is not worth more then payroll profit.
Wow, you are basically saying profit is more important then the workers. I disagree, Everyone is entitled to a living wage. the problem is our living wage in america is to hi
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
djones520 wrote:I haven't been to a "good" McDonalds since I left Japan. There are very few fast food joints I enter where I feel like i'm a valued customer.
Can I take that as a tacit agreement that you support the wage increase, then? If the workers were paid more, they might not greet each customer with hatred and disdain. That is how the market works, right: you get what you pay for? pities2004 wrote:It's really a joke, they want to get paid more without having to work for it. I joined the military, went to school got a career and I make 20ish an hour, if a lowly McDonalds worker can make 15 dollars an hour with no education or life skills then I will be truly disappointed.
I find your silly statements about bootstrapping offensive to every part of the brain that functions beyond the concrete operational stage, and thus shall retort with some cheap Calvinism of my own: HAHAHAHAHA you spent all that time in the military and in school and the best you can do now is $20 per hour? Maybe if you worked harder, you'd have a real career, because $20 per hour is still just a job. Or, y'know, you could attempt to consider that not everyone may have had the same circumstances as you. Either way. djones520 wrote:I call BS that you guys would pay $3.50 for a regular BK Cheeseburger, and $8 for a Whopper, before you add the fries and drink.
I wouldn't pay $0.99 for a single thing BK offers. But for what it's worth, this is actually less than the cost of the BK menu that you'll find inside major theatre chains, and people pay that all the time.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
Alfndrate wrote: Howard A Treesong wrote: whembly wrote:Also, for the record, a $15 an hour wage is more than local EMT workers, substitute teachers and correctional officers make in St. Louis, MO.
So, say burger flippers get $15 increase (or any significant increase)... about about them?
In the UK substitute teachers are often paid more on the hour than regular teachers, because they're in demand and it makes up for the sporadic working hours. But everything I've heard about the teaching profession in the US generally is that they are treated like rubbish on poor wages. It simply not a valued profession.
Substitutes are basically glorified babysitters here in the states, which sucks because most of those people have teaching degrees and can teach the content. When I was doing my student teaching we had a sub a few days, and the instructions were basically, "Alf knows what to do, he can run the class, if he has any problems, please do x, y, or z" and that was basically it.
It really depends on the school and the district. I used to sub in three districts, and the differences are stark.
In the upper-middle class district, the children were self-starting and motivated. They brought free reading books to read after they finished their work. The only teaching I got to do involved students wanting to get ahead of the class, asking questions and learning as much as possible. I was basically a baby sitter.
In the lower-middle/lower class school district, I was highly sought after as one of the only subs able to teach Calculus. (My student teaching was in Geometry, Calculus AB and Calculus BC). I did a lot of teaching, in math. I also subbed for a lot of other subjects and taught what I could in them. However, teachers who did not specifically request me as a sub would usually leave worksheets, videos or tests, since they had no idea what capabilities their subs would have. Also, some of the schools were good for subs, with a system that backed us up and rewarded good behavior, but other schools were terrible, out of control messes. Generally, outside of math, most of my classes were spend managing student behavior rather than teaching, which can be very frustrating.
In the other lower class district, I was pretty much a prison warden. I'm never going back.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
My biggest fear as a teacher is going to a lower class district.
Im like, Why?
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Ouze wrote: KalashnikovMarine wrote:I would replace them with machines and one to two guys in back to repair the machines and load fresh burger patties. We have the tech for this. It was called an automat or something like that back in the day.
Labor is one of the largest expenses in any possible endeavour I can do better by my stockholders and my staff teams by reducing it significantly.
Have you used the self-checkouts at the supermarket? I have tried them and I've found they absolutely do not perform a better job than a human as a whole - someone always screwed it up and needs a clerk to come fix whatever they did; and that's a fairly close parallel, I think. I agree this is eventually where we'll be but I don't think we're there yet.
I only use the self-checkouts personally, and I've never had a problem.
73999
Post by: Haight
This, and Sweden's model proves this.
-- Haight
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote:I call BS that you guys would pay $3.50 for a regular BK Cheeseburger, and $8 for a Whopper, before you add the fries and drink.
You can call bs all you want, some people's convictions are stronger than their greed.
Not a shot at you ; but my altruism and belief that, maybe, someday, a better society can be made outweigh my personal greed and desire to accumulate massive wealth i can't spend, and property i can do nothing with other than bequeath or rent.
You can't believe in that dream - as idealistic and impossible as it may seem - but really have an ulterior goal to subvert it in your own interest. Doesn't work that way.
I am okay with less for myself, if it means more for all. I am not okay with an elite concentration of wealth, a modern day serf state. Particularly when that wealth has been concentrated through the duality of exploitation and governmental acquiescence.
It is ridiculous that in this day and age of technology and enlightment, in one of the most industrialized and developed nations in the world that if you lose your job, you lose your right to basic healthcare that does not come with the real and pervasive threat of bankruptcy.
So good on the organizers and the very brave people that are willing to stand up and organize. That takes a ton of nerve and bravery.
34390
Post by: whembly
hotsauceman1 wrote:My biggest fear as a teacher is going to a lower class district.
Im like, Why?
Well... check out the payscale of St. Louis City School District. They have the highest pay scale than the surrounding counties.
Same goes for in places in Vegas...
The thing is, there are school district that are often poor performers, thus the teacher have to deal with more BS from the administrators.
9883
Post by: Cyporiean
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Ouze wrote: KalashnikovMarine wrote:I would replace them with machines and one to two guys in back to repair the machines and load fresh burger patties. We have the tech for this. It was called an automat or something like that back in the day.
Labor is one of the largest expenses in any possible endeavour I can do better by my stockholders and my staff teams by reducing it significantly.
Have you used the self-checkouts at the supermarket? I have tried them and I've found they absolutely do not perform a better job than a human as a whole - someone always screwed it up and needs a clerk to come fix whatever they did; and that's a fairly close parallel, I think. I agree this is eventually where we'll be but I don't think we're there yet.
I only use the self-checkouts personally, and I've never had a problem.
Same here, I've never had to call the human over other then to verify my age on things like spray paint, glue, and Ducktales...
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Haight wrote:
This, and Sweden's model proves this.
-- Haight
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote:I call BS that you guys would pay $3.50 for a regular BK Cheeseburger, and $8 for a Whopper, before you add the fries and drink.
You can call bs all you want, some people's convictions are stronger than their greed.
Not a shot at you ; but my altruism and belief that, maybe, someday, a better society can be made outweigh my personal greed and desire to accumulate massive wealth i can't spend, and property i can do nothing with other than bequeath or rent.
You can't believe in that dream - as idealistic and impossible as it may seem - but really have an ulterior goal to subvert it in your own interest. Doesn't work that way.
I am okay with less for myself, if it means more for all. I am not okay with an elite concentration of wealth, a modern day serf state. Particularly when that wealth has been concentrated through the duality of exploitation and governmental acquiescence.
It is ridiculous that in this day and age of technology and enlightment, in one of the most industrialized and developed nations in the world that if you lose your job, you lose your right to basic healthcare that does not come with the real and pervasive threat of bankruptcy.
So good on the organizers and the very brave people that are willing to stand up and organize. That takes a ton of nerve and bravery.
Wow. You must just be an awesome person. You can go on paying for other people. Many of us don't want to.
And brave my ass. They're greedy and entitled.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
I wouldn't call wanting basic things like universal healthcare and being able to afford shelter, post-secondary education and food greedy but whatever.
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
Cheesecat wrote:I wouldn't call wanting basic things like universal healthcare and being able to afford shelter, post-secondary education and food greedy but whatever.
Post secondary education? You're talking about universities, I assume? If so, that is quite definitely not "basic" in any way. Education in the UK (because I don't know gak about the US system) continues until you're 18, by which point you should have learnt quite a lot of stuff. In actual fact, you should know enough stuff that you can go and get a job.
If you want to learn more and get a job requiring certain skills, good for you. You can pay for that. But don't act as though a university degree is always necessary, or "basic".
... However, I do agree with you about healthcare, shelter and food. Those are human rights; they're slightly different.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
cincydooley wrote: Haight wrote:
This, and Sweden's model proves this.
-- Haight
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote:I call BS that you guys would pay $3.50 for a regular BK Cheeseburger, and $8 for a Whopper, before you add the fries and drink.
You can call bs all you want, some people's convictions are stronger than their greed.
Not a shot at you ; but my altruism and belief that, maybe, someday, a better society can be made outweigh my personal greed and desire to accumulate massive wealth i can't spend, and property i can do nothing with other than bequeath or rent.
You can't believe in that dream - as idealistic and impossible as it may seem - but really have an ulterior goal to subvert it in your own interest. Doesn't work that way.
I am okay with less for myself, if it means more for all. I am not okay with an elite concentration of wealth, a modern day serf state. Particularly when that wealth has been concentrated through the duality of exploitation and governmental acquiescence.
It is ridiculous that in this day and age of technology and enlightment, in one of the most industrialized and developed nations in the world that if you lose your job, you lose your right to basic healthcare that does not come with the real and pervasive threat of bankruptcy.
So good on the organizers and the very brave people that are willing to stand up and organize. That takes a ton of nerve and bravery.
Wow. You must just be an awesome person. You can go on paying for other people. Many of us don't want to.
And brave my ass. They're greedy and entitled.
Would you care to clarify why you think so?
I think he does sound like a pretty awesome person. Particularly by contrast to someone who appears to be a cheap bargain-bin Calvinist. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and hope that you can rationally explain your judgemental position.
5534
Post by: dogma
djones520 wrote:I call BS that you guys would pay $3.50 for a regular BK Cheeseburger, and $8 for a Whopper, before you add the fries and drink.
Burger King still exists? Automatically Appended Next Post: Ouze wrote:
Have you used the self-checkouts at the supermarket? I have tried them and I've found they absolutely do not perform a better job than a human as a whole - someone always screwed it up and needs a clerk to come fix whatever they did; and that's a fairly close parallel, I think. I agree this is eventually where we'll be but I don't think we're there yet.
Self-checkouts work well when they're monitored correctly. Unfortunately many businesses treat them as though they represent the automation of the entire purchase process.
I'll also say that, when I make a large grocery purchase, I prefer the presence of a cashier and bagger due to my laziness regarding such things.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Cheesecat wrote:I wouldn't call wanting basic things like universal healthcare and being able to afford shelter, post-secondary education and food greedy but whatever.
And guess what. Health care for everyone is already covered when you need it. The hospitals account for people without health insurance already.
Post-secondary education? That's fething laughable.
73999
Post by: Haight
cincydooley wrote: Cheesecat wrote:I wouldn't call wanting basic things like universal healthcare and being able to afford shelter, post-secondary education and food greedy but whatever.
And guess what. Health care for everyone is already covered when you need it. The hospitals account for people without health insurance already.
Post-secondary education? That's fething laughable.
I am an awesome person, thanks for noticing (to your last post, which quoted me). Or were you being a cynical, sarcastic contrarian ? Tone reads so difficultly in text format, sometimes, it's hard to tell.
To those opposed to those touting the more social democratic ideals in this thread, i haven't noted a single suggestion towards an improved society. So you're all okay with 92% of the wealth in the country being concentrated in 8% of the population - with a full on half of that, concentrated in the top 1.5%.
Truly, none of you see any correlation between poverty, crime, sickness - a lack of education and access to resources (both social and financial), as being more culprit than some ephemeral "inability or unwillingness to work hard" ?
You can't be that obtuse. You can't be that ... uniformed. There's literally tens of thousands of books on the subject. And if that's too much effort, hell, spend twenty minutes googling it.
To your healthcare note quoted above - note that i said "you shouldn't lose your job, and lose your healthcare coverage that doesn't come with the real and pervasive threat of bankruptcy. A hospital cannot refuse you treatment in this country, yes. What they can do is destroy you financially should you have the misfortune to both lose your job, not be able to afford cobra, and get something nasty, like, say Cancer, before you get a new one. Or even something simple like appendicitis. Or when you get that new job, and get that health care, get denied cuz, ya know, pre-existing condition, sorry pal. You got that cancer before we covered you, and now it's on you to fight us to cover it.
And what about post-secondary education is laughable ? Are we to determine that in addition to having no desire for an egalitarian society, and by proxy a firm desire in a laissez-faire imperative (how very very gilded age of you), that you also find an educated populace at odds with your beliefs ?
Laughable to want a world where there's equal access to resources, education, basic healthcare - a world where human dignity matters more than symbols and men dead for hundreds of years printed on paper.
This is what you're advocating is laughable ?
If so, that is laughable.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
We have too many people going to college as it is.
If we had a dedicated and non frowned upon trade system that wasn't considered a "dumping ground" for "bad" kids, our country would be much better off.
Give me a carpenter over a communications major 8 days a week.
73999
Post by: Haight
cincydooley wrote:We have too many people going to college as it is.
If we had a dedicated and non frowned upon trade system that wasn't considered a "dumping ground" for "bad" kids, our country would be much better off.
Give me a carpenter over a communications major 8 days a week.
Btw, i'm a construction project manager.  Started out as a field measure tradesman in the carpentry union (measuring window mullions). I now work in the mechanical field.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
That's what I'm saying. That kind of gak is much more functional and beneficial to society as a whole than the degrees lots of people are graduating with.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Haight wrote:To those opposed to those touting the more social democratic ideals in this thread, i haven't noted a single suggestion towards an improved society. So you're all okay with 92% of the wealth in the country being concentrated in 8% of the population - with a full on half of that, concentrated in the top 1.5%.
Truly, none of you see any correlation between poverty, crime, sickness - a lack of education and access to resources (both social and financial), as being more culprit than some ephemeral "inability or unwillingness to work hard" ?
You can't be that obtuse. You can't be that ... uniformed. There's literally tens of thousands of books on the subject. And if that's too much effort, hell, spend twenty minutes googling it.
To your healthcare note quoted above - note that i said "you shouldn't lose your job, and lose your healthcare coverage that doesn't come with the real and pervasive threat of bankruptcy. A hospital cannot refuse you treatment in this country, yes. What they can do is destroy you financially should you have the misfortune to both lose your job, not be able to afford cobra, and get something nasty, like, say Cancer, before you get a new one. Or even something simple like appendicitis. Or when you get that new job, and get that health care, get denied cuz, ya know, pre-existing condition, sorry pal. You got that cancer before we covered you, and now it's on you to fight us to cover it.
And what about post-secondary education is laughable ? Are we to determine that in addition to having no desire for an egalitarian society, and by proxy a firm desire in a laissez-faire imperative (how very very gilded age of you), that you also find an educated populace at odds with your beliefs ?
Laughable to want a world where there's equal access to resources, education, basic healthcare - a world where human dignity matters more than symbols and men dead for hundreds of years printed on paper.
This is what you're advocating is laughable ?
If so, that is laughable.
I like my money too much to spend it subsidizing the rest of you.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
cincydooley wrote:We have too many people going to college as it is.
If we had a dedicated and non frowned upon trade system that wasn't considered a "dumping ground" for "bad" kids, our country would be much better off.
Give me a carpenter over a communications major 8 days a week.
Ah. I see now. You don't understand the difference between training and education. Well, good luck with that.
Seaward wrote:I like my money too much to spend it subsidizing the rest of you.
For an air force pilot (that is you, right?) that's a very strange attitude to take. It's almost as though you believe that those jets magically appeared, and weren't at all the byproduct of a push to promote post-secondary education.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Please don't ever insult me like that again.
It's almost as though you believe that those jets magically appeared, and weren't at all the byproduct of a push to promote post-secondary education.
So commissioning officers in the military is an elaborate "go to university!" scheme? That's a new one.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
I still find Haight's theory that people would willingly spend $10 for a McMeal laughable. I don't care what your convictions are, gak food that's barely worth a buck doesn't become magically worth $5 over night. If that's your conviction, you can exercise it now. Tip counter service at fast food restaurants.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
azazel the cat wrote:cincydooley wrote:We have too many people going to college as it is.
If we had a dedicated and non frowned upon trade system that wasn't considered a "dumping ground" for "bad" kids, our country would be much better off.
Give me a carpenter over a communications major 8 days a week.
Ah. I see now. You don't understand the difference between training and education. Well, good luck with that.
How is that? Please, enlighten me. There's a world of difference between a university education and trade education. Huge. I took classes on Medieval literature. They're worthless. I'd much rather have taken an engine repair class as a trade school.
Seaward wrote:I like my money too much to spend it subsidizing the rest of you.
For an air force pilot (that is you, right?) that's a very strange attitude to take. It's almost as though you believe that those jets magically appeared, and weren't at all the byproduct of a push to promote post-secondary education.
For HIGHLY qualified engineers. Which is a small minority of those attending a university.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
cincydooley wrote:That's what I'm saying. That kind of gak is much more functional and beneficial to society as a whole than the degrees lots of people are graduating with.
I personally love the fact that Mike Rowe (the Dirty Jobs guy) has actually appeared before congress to combat that sort of belief.... Honestly, Carpenters, Construction Workers, Plumbers and other "menial labor" type jobs do deserve better pay than someone who can manage to flip a burger to an alarm, whilst high on pot or cocaine (or whatever)
73999
Post by: Haight
cincydooley wrote:That's what I'm saying. That kind of gak is much more functional and beneficial to society as a whole than the degrees lots of people are graduating with.
I failed to mention that my degrees (all 3 of them!) are in law related fields.
And though i'm not a police officer, or lawyer, i would not trade my degrees, or education for anything.
In fact, my education taught me how to think, and that's why i am good at what i do today, though it's largely an industry where a degree is fairly optional (i'm generalizing... but generally speaking, that is). Automatically Appended Next Post: KalashnikovMarine wrote:I still find Haight's theory that people would willingly spend $10 for a McMeal laughable. I don't care what your convictions are, gak food that's barely worth a buck doesn't become magically worth $5 over night. If that's your conviction, you can exercise it now. Tip counter service at fast food restaurants.
Understandable that you're resistant to the idea ; most are. Again, spend some time studying Sweden's model. You might be surprised at what you find.
If i can recommend Michael Newman's "Socialism: A very short introduction". 165 pages, fair assessment of the political school of thought, and addresses how bolshevism / soviet communism are pervsions of true socialism.
It's worth a read : even if it doesn't change your mind, you'll be better armed with some facts to support your own stance.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
You guys realize that a lot of trades still require post-secondary education.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Honesty, studying sweden as a model for the United States is pointless. Their population demographics look nothing like ours (few countries do). Further, it's much easier to institute socialist ideals on smaller populations of like individuals than it is in a country as diverse as the United States.
You'll also note that vocational education in Sweden is incorporated in their secondary schools and isn't frowned upon. In fact, that's the model most of the high achieving European countries use. I wish the US used that. But we don't. Instead we push the "everyone should go to college" agenda which is the wrong thing to do, because everyone shouldn't. And FYI, it appears that over half of the Swedish student population chooses the vocational route.
73999
Post by: Haight
Cheesecat wrote:You guys realize that a lot of trades still require post-secondary education.
Cant' speak for every trade, clearly, but in construction... not so much. Sure if you want to join a private firm and work up to management.
Mostly for construction laborers, unionized, you just need the apprenticeship (which leads to journeyman, and master), and the appopriate licenses. I've worked in a lot of divisions of american construction. It's fairly ubiquitous that way.
That said, a degree does not hurt you at all in a trade... but it's hardly compulsory. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why?
Their population demographics look nothing like ours (few countries do).
Clarify, past scale, please.
Further, it's much easier to institute socialist ideals on smaller populations of like individuals than it is in a country as diverse as the United States.
Again, clarify, past the argument of scale. If anything, scale makes socialism (particularly democratic socialism) easier.
You'll also note that vocational education in Sweden is incorporated in their secondary schools and isn't frowned upon.
True - but is it frowned upon in the states ? You keep saying it's frowned upon here. I've never met anyone who said "i'm an electrician" and was snubbed at a social gathering.
In fact, that's the model most of the high achieving European countries use.
True, however if anything, in Europe post-secondary school is even more strongly encouraged than it is stateside.
I wish the US used that. But we don't. Instead we push the "everyone should go to college" agenda which is the wrong thing to do, because everyone shouldn't. And FYI, it appears that over half of the Swedish student population chooses the vocational route.
I'm still confused where you're getting this idea that trade = bad in america. I've really seen no evidence to support this. I will agree that some kids that show they have trouble with traditional scholastic pursuits are encouraged to seek out a trade education, but this isn't really derogatory. You want to talk to someone who can show you how to practically apply math ? Talk to a carpenter. You want to talk to someone who can practically employ physics for you ? Talk to a mechanical estimator.
I will agree with you though, the degree to which education has become a business in the US is pretty distasteful. Academia should not be for profit. It loses it's mission in the search for profit if it does. Or rather it's primary mission (education) becomes subservient to profit.
I can understand businesses doing that, but schools doing that is kinda shameful.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Haight wrote:
True - but is it frowned upon in the states ? You keep saying it's frowned upon here. I've never met anyone who said "i'm an electrician" and was snubbed at a social gathering.
This is true, however it is prior to gaining that employment/career as an electrician.... During our High School years. I know when I was still in HS, it was basically drummed into our heads that the *only* way to be a true success was to go to college and get a degree.
We adults know that this is simply not true, but at the time, I was fairly hard on myself for not being in a good position to go to college. We as a society also seem to place heavy importance on being good in athletics, would it not be better to teach our kids, as a society to live healthy lifestyles, seek out what they love and make money doing it? I know that by the time I left my HS, the electives classes offered had been cut in half by my senior year. This means that semi-vocational based courses went out the window, which is a damn shame because those sorts of classes may have been the only opportunity for someone to find their passion and what they want to do once they enter the "working man's world"
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Mathieu Raymond wrote:But that's the thing. Unless you still want to pay shareholders the same amount of profit, which admittedly that is what the standard model calls for, then yes, the burger has to go up.
But if you accept that you're still making insane amounts of money, not just as much, then the burger can remain at the same price.
You missed his point.
The complaints about America being such an "unhealthy country" stem from the fact that it costs more for a student or other individual who might actually be working at a McDonald's as a "living wage" cannot realistically afford to live off anything except fast food/junk food.
Quality food gets priced so high that you would think it was GW setting the prices. The chicken breasts that I use for making my own food can maybe be used for three meals and costs as much as a week of just me eating fast food.
5470
Post by: sebster
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:The only reason they do not, is because of the artificial floor on wages.
So the reality is fast food is probably a $5 an hour job, that people are getting paid $8-$9 for, and are now striking to get $15.
I say abolish the minimum wage, and then let's sort it out.
When you talk about the minimum wage as an 'artificial floor' on wages and then argue for its abolition, you are in effect arguing that economic purity is more important than working people being paid a living wage.
That's fething nuts.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Haight wrote:
True - but is it frowned upon in the states ? You keep saying it's frowned upon here. I've never met anyone who said "i'm an electrician" and was snubbed at a social gathering.
This is true, however it is prior to gaining that employment/career as an electrician.... During our High School years. I know when I was still in HS, it was basically drummed into our heads that the *only* way to be a true success was to go to college and get a degree.
We adults know that this is simply not true, but at the time, I was fairly hard on myself for not being in a good position to go to college. We as a society also seem to place heavy importance on being good in athletics, would it not be better to teach our kids, as a society to live healthy lifestyles, seek out what they love and make money doing it? I know that by the time I left my HS, the electives classes offered had been cut in half by my senior year. This means that semi-vocational based courses went out the window, which is a damn shame because those sorts of classes may have been the only opportunity for someone to find their passion and what they want to do once they enter the "working man's world"
This is really my point. As adults we don't frown upon it. But when kids are in school the "path to success" is very clearly painted as going to university. Vocational schools in the US are, at least in Ohio and Kentucky, stigmatized as where the "bad" or "lazy" kids go. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's how it is.
5470
Post by: sebster
Dreadclaw69 wrote:As far as the Unions go, well they blindly followed this Administration over the ACA without realising what it would do to them, so their stance over immigration doesn't surprise me.
Once they saw ACA wasn't in their interests as it would cost them their sweet middle man cash cow they stopped supporting it. So we know the unions are willing to leave the Democrats when policy doesn't suit them. As such, the only way that legalisation of migrants could be supported by the unions against their own best interests would be if we believed that somehow the unions failed to see how it was harmful, while you could see it so clearly that you assume it is self-evident.
I think that's a pretty out there assumption, to be honest.
The answer is more like Fraz suggested - illegal immigrants aren't joining unions, while legal immigrants might (and are much likely to do so if the union played a role in getting them authorised). Add in that legal immigrants are subject to standard work and pay conditions, and so place little downward pressure on wages. Automatically Appended Next Post: whembly wrote:Just keep in mind folks...
The higher the wage... you'll see more and more automation.
Yes and no. I mean, yeah, automation replaces human labour as labour gets more expensive. But there's industries where that happens, and industries where it doesn. If you look around the world and the higher minimum wages on offer, as I've been asking people to do through this thread, we don't have robotic KFCs. That's because assembling a twister combo might be mind-numbingly easy work for a human, it's not the kind of thing robot tend to be very good at (unless you get a really, really sophisticated robot).
Frankly... I just wish they'd hurry up with the touchscreen ordering interfaces at driveups...
I'm a little wary about using a touch screen that's been used by your average McDonalds customer. I don't even want to use the EFTPOS in those places.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
You could just stop going to fast food ;-). It's Better for you in the long run anyways
5470
Post by: sebster
whembly wrote:Nah... just look at the regular food procession industry. That candy bar you just bought? Was mixed / cooked / packaged by a machine... Absolutely. But humans aren't rational animals - they're unlikely to get bothered by something they can't see - like the automated process that produced their chocolate bar, while they are likely to bothered if they look in the fast food restaurant and see hardly any humans. That said, I doubt that's all that much of an issue. People make noise and threaten to boycott a store, and then a week later there's some other issue and everyone is turning up to that place again. Remember the Chik-a-fila nonsense? Loads of anti-gay marriage people turned up, and loads of pro-gay marriage people boycotted, and a few weeks later everyone became sensible again, and started basing their decision on what they wanted to eat. People make lots of noise if a new Walmart opens up, but then a few months later everyone shops there. Nah, I think the biggest issue is that robotics work wonderfully well in manipulating precise items, but fast food is not at all precise. It's a chaotic mess, and humans are simply still better than robots, for the cost, at assembling a hamburger. Automatically Appended Next Post: whembly wrote:Also, for the record, a $15 an hour wage is more than local EMT workers, substitute teachers and correctional officers make in St. Louis, MO. That's an argument for higher wages for all kinds of poorly paid positions, its hardly an argument against someone else getting a decent wage. Automatically Appended Next Post: AegisGrimm wrote:At least if McDonalds paid their workers 15 dollars an hour the country would start to get healthier, as no one would want to eat 8 dollar quarter pounders for lunch. A quarter pounder currently costs $3, so you're predicting an increase in price of 167%. If the $15 pay was granted, it'd be an increase of 114%. As such, for your prediction to be correct, wages would have to represent 146% of the total cost of producing a hamburger. Which is, of course, completely nuts. It's horrible when people don't realize that minimum wage hikes drives up the cost of living, soon making said minimum wage hike irrelevant. It's a lot more horrible when people just make up stupid numbers in their heads, and use those stupid numbers to justify someone else being paid a really, really gakky wage. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mathieu Raymond wrote:But that's the thing. Unless you still want to pay shareholders the same amount of profit, which admittedly that is what the standard model calls for, then yes, the burger has to go up. But if you accept that you're still making insane amounts of money, not just as much, then the burger can remain at the same price. Or more likely, the company takes a small hit on its bottom line, and the burger goes up slightly in price. The wealthy earn a little less return on their shares, and the middle class pay slightly more for a hamburger, while the working poor get something close to a decent wage. Automatically Appended Next Post: hotsauceman1 wrote:I have never heard of someone trying t support a family as a Mcdonalds employee. Granted that is my experiance. but over here most of college students or immigrants. The median age of fast food workers in the US is 28. I mean, I think we all agree that fast food work is supposed to be a temporary thing that you do while you're young and wanting some spare cash, but unfortunately that isn't what's happening in the real world. And so when those jobs really are what people are forced to take, well then we need to recognise that and accept that they need to be paid a decent wage that can provide a decent life for their kids. Even if that means quarter pounders increase by 4 or 5% Automatically Appended Next Post: djones520 wrote:I call BS that you guys would pay $3.50 for a regular BK Cheeseburger, and $8 for a Whopper, before you add the fries and drink. Fortunately it's complete and total bs that the price would reach those levels. Automatically Appended Next Post: Cheesecat wrote:I wouldn't call wanting basic things like universal healthcare and being able to afford shelter, post-secondary education and food greedy but whatever. I think it's the blackest of comedy that a person complaining about their hamburger going up by 3-5% would call the person wanting a living wage greedy. Automatically Appended Next Post: cincydooley wrote:Honesty, studying sweden as a model for the United States is pointless. Their population demographics look nothing like ours (few countries do). Further, it's much easier to institute socialist ideals on smaller populations of like individuals than it is in a country as diverse as the United States. Really, the idea that you can only have a higher tax rate and spend that money on public goods when everyone has the same skin colour and the population doesn't exceed x is just completely nuts. I mean, there's lots of reasons that the Swedish model won't work in the US, but they're all cultural, and almost entirely reliant on that strange conviction that freedom means having a low top marginal tax rate. When you guys entered the Second World War you transitioned in to a state planned control economy incredibly quickly and with remarkably little difficulty, and the presence of people who weren't white and having a population larger than Sweden didn't impact that at all.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Seaward wrote:
Please don't ever insult me like that again.
It's almost as though you believe that those jets magically appeared, and weren't at all the byproduct of a push to promote post-secondary education.
So commissioning officers in the military is an elaborate "go to university!" scheme? That's a new one.
I don't believe you're this obtuse without actually trying to miss the point. Commissioned officers didn't design or build the planes; I'm not sure why you brought them up.
cincydooley wrote:How is that? Please, enlighten me. There's a world of difference between a university education and trade education. Huge. I took classes on Medieval literature. They're worthless. I'd much rather have taken an engine repair class as a trade school.
Medieval literature falls under the broad category of "arts", which is part of an education, as opposed to merely being trained. Being educated is what makes someone a complete person. Training without education just makes you a tool to be used by complete persons. Even past that, the arts tend to be what makes life worthwhile. However much you may love being an electrician, I'm willing to bet that you don't spend your leisure time reading up on how to be more of an electrician. The media you enjoy? the culture? That came from the Arts.
So next time you want to be entertained, I suggest you either open up some electrical diagnostic manuals and read those for your enjoyment, or else eat your words about medieval literature being worthless. It might not be to your tastes (odd, if you chose to take the class to begin with) but it is to someone, just as that movie or band you like might be construed as worthless to some other tradesperson without the ability to see past his own nose.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
One of my degrees is in English. You're missing the point. My point is that all of the medieval lit I read, all of the Shelly and Byron and Chaucer, they have little to no impact on my life or job now. They're functionally worthless.
So my statement stands. I'd much rather, as an employed, educated adult, have taken a class on engine repair than many of the literature ones I did. Being able to diagnose engine problems would be much more functionally now than my ability to write in iambs or dissect a sonnet. Automatically Appended Next Post: And quite frankly, your ascertain that people that are "trained" in a trade are simply tools to be manipulated is insulting. There are plenty of opportunities to be well rounded critical thinkers within the realm of a a given trade. No arts required.
Oh, and in addition to having a degree in English, I also was in an acapella group in college and directed two plays while I was a teacher. So I fully appreciate the value of the arts.
5470
Post by: sebster
cincydooley wrote:So my statement stands. I'd much rather, as an employed, educated adult, have taken a class on engine repair than many of the literature ones I did. Being able to diagnose engine problems would be much more functionally now than my ability to write in iambs or dissect a sonnet.
The mistake here is in thinking of literature and automotive repair as an either/or thing.
That isn't just your mistake, of course, but one made by pretty much every tertiary education system in the world. We've transformed universities from places of higher learning to vocational colleges for white collar jobs, without really spending the time to consider how that might best operate.
As such, the idea that a person might train to become a car mechanic, but have access to elective courses in history or whatever else, that they could take purely for the sake of being a better educated, smarter person has been ignored entirely. Similarly, the idea that a person might want to become an doctor, but might also find an elective unit on car maintenance and repair both interesting and beneficial just doesn't register.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
azazel the cat wrote:.
cincydooley wrote:How is that? Please, enlighten me. There's a world of difference between a university education and trade education. Huge. I took classes on Medieval literature. They're worthless. I'd much rather have taken an engine repair class as a trade school.
Medieval literature falls under the broad category of "arts", which is part of an education, as opposed to merely being trained. Being educated is what makes someone a complete person. Training without education just makes you a tool to be used by complete persons. Even past that, the arts tend to be what makes life worthwhile. However much you may love being an electrician, I'm willing to bet that you don't spend your leisure time reading up on how to be more of an electrician. The media you enjoy? the culture? That came from the Arts.
So next time you want to be entertained, I suggest you either open up some electrical diagnostic manuals and read those for your enjoyment, or else eat your words about medieval literature being worthless. It might not be to your tastes (odd, if you chose to take the class to begin with) but it is to someone, just as that movie or band you like might be construed as worthless to some other tradesperson without the ability to see past his own nose.
No class is ever useless. There are useless majors. but classes are never useless. I took a philosophy class as a electiv filler. Can I do anything practical?No not really. But it was interesting and broadened my knowledge, same with the film class, it allows me to enjoy films in new ways. Taking different classes boradens your mind. Nobel Prize Winners are never exclusive to their interests, they study many things on off time for joy.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
sebster wrote: cincydooley wrote:So my statement stands. I'd much rather, as an employed, educated adult, have taken a class on engine repair than many of the literature ones I did. Being able to diagnose engine problems would be much more functionally now than my ability to write in iambs or dissect a sonnet.
The mistake here is in thinking of literature and automotive repair as an either/or thing.
That isn't just your mistake, of course, but one made by pretty much every tertiary education system in the world. We've transformed universities from places of higher learning to vocational colleges for white collar jobs, without really spending the time to consider how that might best operate.
As such, the idea that a person might train to become a car mechanic, but have access to elective courses in history or whatever else, that they could take purely for the sake of being a better educated, smarter person has been ignored entirely. Similarly, the idea that a person might want to become an doctor, but might also find an elective unit on car maintenance and repair both interesting and beneficial just doesn't register.
That actually sounds like a great idea is there any universities that do that?
5470
Post by: sebster
Cheesecat wrote:That actually sounds like a great idea is there any universities that do that?
None that I know of. Universities and vocational colleges here in Australia are starting to work together more closely* and the idea has come out of that, but I don't think it's past the talking stage anywhere.
It seems not only a good idea, but a really good starting point for realising how much of our tertiary education is still based on how things used to work generations ago (trade school vs life of the mind stuff... these days they're both about teaching you a job and the seperation is increasingly artificial).
*So mechanics at a vocational college might be able to take an elective in some complex physics thing that relates to their course at the engineering dept of a university.
5534
Post by: dogma
In the US many schools have separate admission policies for students that are not seeking a degree, so a person studying a trade might also enroll as a student at a school offering a physics course. Additionally, good community colleges offer vocational training as well as education in subjects such as physics.
5470
Post by: sebster
dogma wrote:In the US many schools have separate admission policies for students that are not seeking a degree, so a person studying a trade might also enroll as a student at a school offering a physics course. Additionally, good community colleges offer vocational training as well as education in subjects such as physics.
The same is offered here, but there's no government subsidy for students who aren't part of degree programs which means you can pay four or five times as much and so no-one other than some bored doctor's wives does it (though funnily enough its still less than you're likely to pay in the US  ).
33125
Post by: Seaward
azazel the cat wrote:I don't believe you're this obtuse without actually trying to miss the point. Commissioned officers didn't design or build the planes; I'm not sure why you brought them up.
I'm not sure why you brought the planes up, either, but you say a lot of crazy gak, so I just went with it.
So building planes is just a back door method of incentivizing college. Got it. That's not flying rodent gak at all.
73999
Post by: Haight
cincydooley wrote:One of my degrees is in English. You're missing the point. My point is that all of the medieval lit I read, all of the Shelly and Byron and Chaucer, they have little to no impact on my life or job now. They're functionally worthless.
So my statement stands. I'd much rather, as an employed, educated adult, have taken a class on engine repair than many of the literature ones I did. Being able to diagnose engine problems would be much more functionally now than my ability to write in iambs or dissect a sonnet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And quite frankly, your ascertain that people that are "trained" in a trade are simply tools to be manipulated is insulting. There are plenty of opportunities to be well rounded critical thinkers within the realm of a a given trade. No arts required.
Oh, and in addition to having a degree in English, I also was in an acapella group in college and directed two plays while I was a teacher. So I fully appreciate the value of the arts.
You're missing a grander point about reading shelley and byron though...
Yes, quoting them directly may not be a part of your individually daily life. However, the study, and analysis of them has contributed to the thinker you are today.
The same can be said of my law education. My bosses love me and assign me non-construction project related special assignments because i'm very analytical, and an excellent contingency theorist. This is directly because of my law education - analyzing precedent, stare decisis, case law, etc. It's because of my education that i'm excellent at dissecting any process, finding flaws, weaknesses, things that can go wrong. Other PM's hate it when i'm assigned to critique their project, but my superiors like it, because we end up with a stronger process.
This is all due to my law education - i did not just pop out of the womb that way.
So even those things that may seem to have no direct correlation, at the time, they contributed, piecemeal, to the intellect you now possess.
Rome was not built in a day. Neither is the human intellect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:In the US many schools have separate admission policies for students that are not seeking a degree, so a person studying a trade might also enroll as a student at a school offering a physics course. Additionally, good community colleges offer vocational training as well as education in subjects such as physics.
I think you're praising community colleges here, and if so, i'll second that.
I learned a lot at my community college, and had some incredible professors. I recommend a good community college to anyone. Save money and just as good, sometimes, better education, and you're surrounded, mostly by a student body that is there because they want to be, not just because it's the thing to do.
Edits: gah, i can't spell today.
75903
Post by: KommissarKiln
sebster wrote:Absolutely. But humans aren't rational animals - they're unlikely to get bothered by something they can't see - like the automated process that produced their chocolate bar, while they are likely to bothered if they look in the fast food restaurant and see hardly any humans.
That said, I doubt that's all that much of an issue. People make noise and threaten to boycott a store, and then a week later there's some other issue and everyone is turning up to that place again. Remember the Chik-a-fila nonsense? Loads of anti-gay marriage people turned up, and loads of pro-gay marriage people boycotted, and a few weeks later everyone became sensible again, and started basing their decision on what they wanted to eat. People make lots of noise if a new Walmart opens up, but then a few months later everyone shops there.
The best way to an American's political beliefs is through the brands they buy from!
Median, maybe. That's hardly a useful statistic. Find the average age, and you'll find that it's much, much lower. A little bit misleading.
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
Minimum wage jobs are not supposed to be a career. They are dead-end bottom of the skill level jobs. I know, I have one, and every minute sucks. At least for me, a pay increase would not make it any better to put up with.
They are jobs you are supposed to start out with and then better yourself and move up.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Why is everyone thinking that it's in a vacuum of ONE worker being increased to $15 an hour, and how that won't increase the cost of cheeseburgers?
Currently it's $7.25. Increase that to $15, that's $7.75 increase per person, PER HOUR. Now multiply that per person working (Usually about ten in these sorts of places), and that's $77.50 extra you as a CEO are losing, PER HOUR. If all of them are part time and only work 20 hours a week (Being conservative), that's $1550 you are losing, per week, per store.
Now let's say there are two stores in every city; $3100 lost, in one week. Let's say there are twenty cities in each state that are large enough to support two McD's, and that's $62,000, per state, per week. Fifty states in the union, and that's $3,100,000, per week.
In one year, being as conservative as (I feel I have been in ) this, that's $161,200,000 per year that McD's has to come up with extra. That's One Hundred Sixty-One Million, Two Hundred Thousand dollars. Or a whole hell of a lot of Big Macs.
Keep in mind that you have people working both less and more than 20 hours, prices of certain items differ, more/less towns can support more/less McD's, yadda yadda yadda. Wage increases quickly build up.....
Not saying that I'm for or against this due to labor's worth or whatever, but that's a massive amount of money because you are essentially doubling their salary. Prices WILL go up, and people will stop going to Mc Donalds; I can pay eight dollars for a Big Mac, or I can go to Buffalo Wild Wings and get a decent burger for nine dollars....
McD's thrives off of cheap food that anyone can afford, if you increase the salary of their workers by that much, Mcdonalds as we know it will cease to be (Might not be a bad thing) due to their primary strength in the food industry being nullified.
241
Post by: Ahtman
No one has argued that they should; having a livable wage isn't the same as being a career. Automatically Appended Next Post: Slarg232 wrote:In one year, being as conservative as (I feel I have been in ) this, that's $161,200,000 per year that McD's has to come up with extra. That's One Hundred Sixty-One Million, Two Hundred Thousand dollars. Or a whole hell of a lot of Big Macs.
It only seems like a lot if one isn't accustomed to dealing with big numbers; McDonald's works in the billions and billions of dollars.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Ahtman wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slarg232 wrote:In one year, being as conservative as (I feel I have been in ) this, that's $161,200,000 per year that McD's has to come up with extra. That's One Hundred Sixty-One Million, Two Hundred Thousand dollars. Or a whole hell of a lot of Big Macs.
It only seems like a lot if one isn't accustomed to dealing with big numbers; McDonald's works in the billions and billions of dollars.
People who have money typically only keep it because they don't like seeing it leave; i.e. they are incredibly cheap.
The moment they lose their money from increasing salaries, they will figure out a way to get that money back.
*Ominous voice/music* Mark my woooooooords......
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Livable wage shouldnt include 4 kids, cable, cell phones, or tons of other assorted gak that people figure in.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
cincydooley wrote:Livable wage shouldnt include 4 kids, cable, cell phones, or tons of other assorted gak that people figure in.
I doubt $15 an hour could get you that so you won't have to worry then.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Slarg232 wrote: Ahtman wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slarg232 wrote:In one year, being as conservative as (I feel I have been in ) this, that's $161,200,000 per year that McD's has to come up with extra. That's One Hundred Sixty-One Million, Two Hundred Thousand dollars. Or a whole hell of a lot of Big Macs.
It only seems like a lot if one isn't accustomed to dealing with big numbers; McDonald's works in the billions and billions of dollars.
People who have money typically only keep it because they don't like seeing it leave; i.e. they are incredibly cheap.
The moment they lose their money from increasing salaries, they will figure out a way to get that money back.
*Ominous voice/music* Mark my woooooooords......
By that reasoning they don't even want to pay their employees salaries in the first place, as it would allow them to keep more of their precious monies. They did, of course, used to do things like that, in the form of corporate serfdom, slavery, indentured servitude, sweat shops, ect. If the minimum wage (a product of realizing companies and people will screw others over if given a chance) is increased they will adjust and move on as they always have, kicking and screaming all the way, as they always have.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Ahtman wrote: Slarg232 wrote: Ahtman wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slarg232 wrote:In one year, being as conservative as (I feel I have been in ) this, that's $161,200,000 per year that McD's has to come up with extra. That's One Hundred Sixty-One Million, Two Hundred Thousand dollars. Or a whole hell of a lot of Big Macs.
It only seems like a lot if one isn't accustomed to dealing with big numbers; McDonald's works in the billions and billions of dollars.
People who have money typically only keep it because they don't like seeing it leave; i.e. they are incredibly cheap.
The moment they lose their money from increasing salaries, they will figure out a way to get that money back.
*Ominous voice/music* Mark my woooooooords......
By that reasoning they don't even want to pay their employees salaries in the first place, as it would allow them to keep more of their precious monies. They did, of course, used to do things like that, in the form of corporate serfdom, slavery, indentured servitude, sweat shops, ect. If the minimum wage (a product of realizing companies and people will screw others over if given a chance) is increased they will adjust and move on as they always have, kicking and screaming all the way, as they always have.
Then why do corporations hire illegal workers, buy parts from china, or store money in foreign banks? Because it saves them money, and at the end of the day, all they need to do to keep their job is keep the company in the Black.
And that's what I'm saying, the Price of the burger will increase because they will adjust and move on.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Cheesecat wrote: cincydooley wrote:Livable wage shouldnt include 4 kids, cable, cell phones, or tons of other assorted gak that people figure in.
I doubt $15 an hour could get you that so you won't have to worry then.
But that's what's expected as part of this "livable wage". That's the point. As someone that has waited to have kids until we can afford them the way feel is responsible, I have very little pity for people that have kids and are expecting to be able to support them while working as a fry cook at a fast food restaurant.
But then again, I don't think you should be able to get Red Bull with WIC (in Ohio you certainly can) so I'm probably just a callous bastard.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
In this economy, Cincy, that time will never come for millions of Americans. So, the poors just shouldn't breed, then?
I don't think you understand just how little opportunity there is in the US right now for someone who wasn't born into the middle class. Just because YOU made it, doesn't mean all the people who didn't are complete failures who should essentially self-sterilise.
Also, deciding all the people who had unplanned children that they don't deserve a living wage will put their children firmly into the "never getting a break" camp. Congratulations, you just started a cycle.
43066
Post by: feeder
No, no, the poor are weak and should be punished for it. It's Uncle Sam's, and by extension, God's will. Duh.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Wait? I'm suppose to feel bad for those that are stuck in a Fast Food job who has no future? Those who pretty much in their mind condemn themselves to their situation? Are we going by the assumption that Fast Food workers consist of high school students, spouses, and older age individuals? Are we probably thinking of individuals who rather not make "sacrifices" but stay in an area they know? IMO its the individual motivation to improve their life. IMO I do not owe these individuals in any sense or form anything.
6229
Post by: Gearhead
What gets me is how many people seem to have no idea how money actually works. High-paying McJobs would be a very quick way to devalue your currency. It's like the idea of printing trillions of new dollars to pay off the US national debt (or that stupid trillion-dollar coin idea): sure, it would technically work, but it would ruin our economy because it would make our currency a complete joke.
Jihadin, I take the stance of showing people how to better themselves. True, nobody owes them anything, but if they're willing to learn, and if someone is willing to teach them, then everyone benefits. Giving them massive raises because they think they deserve it wouldn't solve anything, and probably wouldn't improve their quality of life, either. A lot of folks just don't know how to manage their finances; one article described a worker as struggling to pay a numb of expenses, one of which was CABLE TV. Sorry, entertainment is NOT a necessity, but a lot of folks consider it so, and it represents a significant drain on their finances. I remember one guy who got personally offended (and angry) when someone suggested that if maybe he didn't spend so much on snacks and cigarettes each month, he migh actually have enough in his social security check to pay for a place to live.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
BobtheInquisitor wrote:In this economy, Cincy, that time will never come for millions of Americans. So, the poors just shouldn't breed, then?
Honestly? I feel like the beginning 5 minutes of Idiocracy gets more true every day. And that makes me sad for our country.
I don't think you understand just how little opportunity there is in the US right now for someone who wasn't born into the middle class. Just because YOU made it, doesn't mean all the people who didn't are complete failures who should essentially self-sterilise.
As someone that WAS laid off, yes, I do understand. It took me 10 days to find something to supplement my incredibly paltry and inconsistent substitute teaching income. Because I looked and didn't consider any job below me. I never said they were failures, but I'm sorry. Non-management Fast Food is literally the bottom rung of employment. If that's "all you can find" you're not looking hard enough, or at all.
Also, deciding all the people who had unplanned children that they don't deserve a living wage will put their children firmly into the "never getting a break" camp. Congratulations, you just started a cycle.
I don't think anyone deserves anything. You have to make the right choices and earn what you get. And let's be honest. Not having a kid isn't hard at all. I've been having regular sex with my wife for 10 years and we've never gotten pregnant. And it's been a lot cheaper than a kid would ever be.
Further, a single part time job is not intended to support a family. Automatically Appended Next Post: Gearhead wrote: them massive raises because they think they deserve it wouldn't solve anything, and probably wouldn't improve their quality of life, either. A lot of folks just don't know how to manage their finances; one article described a worker as struggling to pay a numb of expenses, one of which was CABLE TV. Sorry, entertainment is NOT a necessity, but a lot of folks consider it so, and it represents a significant drain on their finances. I remember one guy who got personally offended (and angry) when someone suggested that if maybe he didn't spend so much on snacks and cigarettes each month, he migh actually have enough in his social security check to pay for a place to live.
See, this is the thing I have a real problem with. People include so many things in these "livable wage" evaluations that have no business being in there. Cable, Internet, cell phones, cigarettes, snack food, etc.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Gearhead wrote:What gets me is how many people seem to have no idea how money actually works. High-paying McJobs would be a very quick way to devalue your currency. It's like the idea of printing trillions of new dollars to pay off the US national debt (or that stupid trillion-dollar coin idea): sure, it would technically work, but it would ruin our economy because it would make our currency a complete joke.
Do you specialize in economics?
32484
Post by: zman111
cincydooley wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gearhead wrote: them massive raises because they think they deserve it wouldn't solve anything, and probably wouldn't improve their quality of life, either. A lot of folks just don't know how to manage their finances; one article described a worker as struggling to pay a numb of expenses, one of which was CABLE TV. Sorry, entertainment is NOT a necessity, but a lot of folks consider it so, and it represents a significant drain on their finances. I remember one guy who got personally offended (and angry) when someone suggested that if maybe he didn't spend so much on snacks and cigarettes each month, he migh actually have enough in his social security check to pay for a place to live.
See, this is the thing I have a real problem with. People include so many things in these "livable wage" evaluations that have no business being in there. Cable, Internet, cell phones, cigarettes, snack food, etc.
Sounds right- my work at taco hell pays for exactly what I need- food and rent, (my apartment building pays for utilities) i donate plasma and that pays for all the warhammering and fast fooding and intertubes
73999
Post by: Haight
Gearhead wrote:What gets me is how many people seem to have no idea how money actually works. High-paying McJobs would be a very quick way to devalue your currency. It's like the idea of printing trillions of new dollars to pay off the US national debt (or that stupid trillion-dollar coin idea): sure, it would technically work, but it would ruin our economy because it would make our currency a complete joke.
An understandable statement, and well put.
That said, analyze what you have said, and it boils down to this (please, please do not take this in the pejorative tone, it's not - it goes back to what i said much earlier in the thread) - More for all means less for me.
It's that fear - and it is a fear, this is NOT a shot at you, it is an ingrained mindset in America, and most (if not all) capitalist nations - that somehow our "hard work" will get negated, or that you only get results if you work hard (... so not true. Many studies to prove this. Environment has nearly as much to do with results as effort), or that what you've rightfully accumulated will be taken from you.
When you realize that with increased access to resources for all, comes decreased crime, more education, less racism, less poverty, less blight ... it's worth it.
Again, what do you need with wealth you could never have the time to spend, or property you can't do anything with other than bequeath or rent ?
It's also this mentality (again, not a shot at you gearhead, but this mindset) that makes me realize what a long, hard, possibly impossible road that social democracy would have in America.
One of the best campaigns against socialism that has been the most successful is the one that painted socialism as something that seeks to take from people, rather than level the playing field (a field, by the way, which as i mentioned earlier had been made unlevel by exploitation and acquiescence). That's all socialism seeks to do - level the playing field.
The only people that would be "taken" from are those that have earned such ubiquitous and unfair advantage because of self-propagating capital and policy to protect those that control capital.
-- Haight
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Given that Socialism has a bad track record... I'll stick with Capitalism thank you very much.
Sure, it sounds all nice and pretty, but it has a very bad dark side as Soviet Russia so eloquently showed.
The dark side of capitalism is also bad, but its not as bad as the alternative.
43066
Post by: feeder
Fact: Soviet Russia was not a socialist democracy.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Not relevant.
5470
Post by: sebster
KommissarKiln wrote:The best way to an American's political beliefs is through the brands they buy from! 
Once you realise that politics is largely just brands, then yeah
Median, maybe. That's hardly a useful statistic. Find the average age, and you'll find that it's much, much lower. A little bit misleading.
Umm, first up the median is an average. Mean, mode and median are all types of average.
Second up, median depresses the number. The mean would actually be much higher. Automatically Appended Next Post: AegisGrimm wrote:Minimum wage jobs are not supposed to be a career. They are dead-end bottom of the skill level jobs. I know, I have one, and every minute sucks. At least for me, a pay increase would not make it any better to put up with.
They are jobs you are supposed to start out with and then better yourself and move up.
Yes, but as I already explained, you don't deal with what the economy should be, you deal with what the economy is. And in the real world fast food jobs are being filled by full time, mature age workers without any better prospects - as shown by the stat that the median age in this places is 28.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Haight wrote:That's all socialism seeks to do - level the playing field.
The problem is that you need to constantly re-level it. Some people are always going to rise, some are always going to fall. Pretending that we're all equally capable is nonsense.
The only people that would be "taken" from are those that have earned such ubiquitous and unfair advantage because of self-propagating capital and policy to protect those that control capital.
My money didn't just start breeding, no. I got paid like gak for ten years, then maneuvered myself into a position to make substantially more. Exactly none of my current tax bracket can be attributed to old or even "easy" money.
23
Post by: djones520
Haight wrote:
The only people that would be "taken" from are those that have earned such ubiquitous and unfair advantage because of self-propagating capital and policy to protect those that control capital.
-- Haight
86% of todays millionaires are self made. First generation folks. People who rose up and made the money themselves. It's a myth that all of the money out there is held by trust fund children.
121
Post by: Relapse
Seaward wrote: Haight wrote:That's all socialism seeks to do - level the playing field.
The problem is that you need to constantly re-level it. Some people are always going to rise, some are always going to fall. Pretending that we're all equally capable is nonsense.
The only people that would be "taken" from are those that have earned such ubiquitous and unfair advantage because of self-propagating capital and policy to protect those that control capital.
My money didn't just start breeding, no. I got paid like gak for ten years, then maneuvered myself into a position to make substantially more. Exactly none of my current tax bracket can be attributed to old or even "easy" money.
You are up against the Occupy style propaganda machine which runs the line that anyone with money didn't do a thing to earn it and they should automatically give away any excess they might have to everyone else. Our fine president loves to feed this lie.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
djones520 wrote: Haight wrote:
The only people that would be "taken" from are those that have earned such ubiquitous and unfair advantage because of self-propagating capital and policy to protect those that control capital.
-- Haight
86% of todays millionaires are self made. First generation folks. People who rose up and made the money themselves. It's a myth that all of the money out there is held by trust fund children.
Citation?
5470
Post by: sebster
Slarg232 wrote:Why is everyone thinking that it's in a vacuum of ONE worker being increased to $15 an hour, and how that won't increase the cost of cheeseburgers?
No-one is. Don't know where you got that from.
Currently it's $7.25. Increase that to $15, that's $7.75 increase per person, PER HOUR. Now multiply that per person working (Usually about ten in these sorts of places), and that's $77.50 extra you as a CEO are losing, PER HOUR. If all of them are part time and only work 20 hours a week (Being conservative), that's $1550 you are losing, per week, per store.
Now let's say there are two stores in every city; $3100 lost, in one week. Let's say there are twenty cities in each state that are large enough to support two McD's, and that's $62,000, per state, per week. Fifty states in the union, and that's $3,100,000, per week.
In one year, being as conservative as (I feel I have been in ) this, that's $161,200,000 per year that McD's has to come up with extra. That's One Hundred Sixty-One Million, Two Hundred Thousand dollars. Or a whole hell of a lot of Big Macs.
When talking about very big things like major corporations, its very easy to just list absolute numbers, and get a quick 'ooh that's a big number response'. But it's also junk, because everything to do with McDonalds is massive. Instead you have to see the cost increase in the context of the company's massive revenue base - which is about 18 billion.
Second up, making up numbers like that really isn't that useful. Unforunately its been something companies have been doing all week - Forbes reported the cost increase would be about 17%, then had to retract that as it turned out the calculation they'd relied on was back of the envelope nonsense, it included all McDonalds staff (so all levels of management up to an including the CEO would get the 100% pay increase) but at the same time it was calculated using the franchise revenue, but not the salary cost of staff working at those franchises. So basically it produced a figure that could be much higher, or much, much lower, and is basically useless.
What we can instead say is that workers on that base level of pay make up some percentage of the cost of production. All the other elements - rent, food & materials, costs of higher paid staff, advertising and all the rest - those remain the same. So we're talking about the doubling of one item of the company's costs - and let's say that represents 10% of the cost of every big mac sold. Well if that cost element doubles, it means for company profit to remain constant they'll have to increase prices by 5%. It might not be 10%, it might be 15% or 20%, but it also might be 5% - I don't know. Point is, even at 20% the price is only increasing 10%.
Not saying that I'm for or against this due to labor's worth or whatever, but that's a massive amount of money because you are essentially doubling their salary. Prices WILL go up, and people will stop going to Mc Donalds; I can pay eight dollars for a Big Mac, or I can go to Buffalo Wild Wings and get a decent burger for nine dollars....
Yes, but it's not going to 8 dollars. The only way a big mac would double in cost would be if the base level worker made up 100% of McDonalds costs.
That said, it's worth pointing out that if McDonalds alone suddenly doubled the wage paid to its base level workers, well then yeah they'd get non-competitive quickly. I think the idea here is that all service workers receive a similar benefit. Automatically Appended Next Post: cincydooley wrote:Livable wage shouldnt include 4 kids, cable, cell phones, or tons of other assorted gak that people figure in.
Did you see what McDonalds themselves used to plan a person's budget? There was no four kids and no cable. There was $600 a month rent and no heating bill, and you still had to get a second job to make ends meet.
43066
Post by: feeder
Right. Soviet Russia is not relevant to this discussion on minimum wage earners and the tangential discussion on the merits of social democracy. Let's leave the boogeyman in the closet.
59176
Post by: Mathieu Raymond
feeder wrote:Fact: Soviet Russia was not a socialist democracy.
Grey Templar wrote:Not relevant.
Oh good, just learned how to do this thingy!
I think it might be, if anyone keeps insisting on comparing any socialist system to its one glaring perversion and failure. Haigth's book suggestion on the topic sounds like a very good idea.
Can we all at least agree that an individual willing to work full-time ought to have the opportunity to, and that by doing so, the dignity of certain basic needs should be fullfilled?
I'm not saying a mansion, or a spiffy car, or that all-unlimited mobile plan with the latest smart phone, or branded threads.
Furthermore, someone or a group other than corporate entities should determine those basic needs and what are appropriate fullfillments?
I know I'm *a few* pages late on the community college and trade part of the debate (the yard sale was quite strenuous this weekend, a lot of customers, I couldn't keep up with the thread) but I have been telling my "students" that trades really aren't a bad way to go if they don't like to write, read and think. It might be negative, but I'd rather see my little poors get a trade rather than become the fourth generation in a row on welfare. I don't think there are useless majors, I just think people should have a clear idea on how they'll market their skills once they exit university, and what the market really looks like for, say, medieval studies. If the only answer you can come up with is "further studies," you might need to re-evaluate.
5470
Post by: sebster
Slarg232 wrote:Then why do corporations hire illegal workers, buy parts from china, or store money in foreign banks? Because it saves them money, and at the end of the day, all they need to do to keep their job is keep the company in the Black.
And that's what I'm saying, the Price of the burger will increase because they will adjust and move on.
That's not really how it works. Companies do what they can to maximise profit, and if they could they'd charge us all a billion dollars for every tiny thing we buy, and they'd make those things without employing anyone to save on labour costs. But there are basic limit to how far they can take that.
The price is simply what the market can bear, before we decide to buy some other company's product. They simply can't just charge more for the product, because they exist in a competitive market. I mean think about it - if they could just up the price by $1 without losing sales, why wouldn't they have done that already, and increased profits?
And the labour they accept is what is needed to produce their product. If they could simply do without staff, why wouldn't they have let them go already, and increased profits? Automatically Appended Next Post: cincydooley wrote:But that's what's expected as part of this "livable wage". That's the point. As someone that has waited to have kids until we can afford them the way feel is responsible, I have very little pity for people that have kids and are expecting to be able to support them while working as a fry cook at a fast food restaurant.
I remember when the right wing used to satisfy themselves with hating welfare recipients.
Now they're arguing people working a basic, but full time job shouldn't be able to provide for a family, and therefore shouldn't have one.
Once again, the right wing finds a new low, when I thought they'd already hit the bottom. Automatically Appended Next Post: Jihadin wrote:Wait? I'm suppose to feel bad for those that are stuck in a Fast Food job who has no future?
No, we long ago gave up on requesting that dakkaites show basic human functions like empathy.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
I probably have missed this.... and call me a cynic... but is it wrong if I feel that a pay raise is utterly meaningless in the end? I cannot help but feel like an increase in pay will lead to an increase in the cost of everything else only degrading higher wages whilst shafting people working at fast food restaurants to the same place they are. Perhaps I am wrong though! I personally feel 15 might be pushing it though. Maybe more like 10-12? Apologies for the arbitrary number
5470
Post by: sebster
Gearhead wrote:What gets me is how many people seem to have no idea how money actually works. High-paying McJobs would be a very quick way to devalue your currency.
The price increase on McDonalds would be somewhere in the realm of 5 to 10%. Big Macs, while certainly quite popular, don't actually make up that much of the consumer price basket  In fact, McDonalds is 18 billion out of a total GDP of about 15 trillion. So even if McDonalds prices increased by 50% the impact on CPI in that year would be 0.06%.
Basically, for future reference, when talking about pricing for a single company don't talk about the effect on national CPI. And even if its an industry, unless that product is oil, don't bother either.
It's like the idea of printing trillions of new dollars to pay off the US national debt
Umm, the money wasn't printed to pay off debt. It was printed to prevent deflation, and keep inflation within the target band. You don't know what you're talking about.
(or that stupid trillion-dollar coin idea): sure, it would technically work, but it would ruin our economy because it would make our currency a complete joke.
That coin would never have entered circulation, it would have been a function performed between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, and never impacted the money supply. Seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. Automatically Appended Next Post:
No, but a full time job is. That's the whole fething point of the family unit. Automatically Appended Next Post: Grey Templar wrote:Given that Socialism has a bad track record... I'll stick with Capitalism thank you very much.
Sure, it sounds all nice and pretty, but it has a very bad dark side as Soviet Russia so eloquently showed.
The dark side of capitalism is also bad, but its not as bad as the alternative.
Given that Gilded Age economics also has a woeful track record, I'll reject both capitalism and socialism and opt for the compromised in-between system we have now, thanks.
And that system means that yes, we offer people more money to become skilled workers, but that we also offer a living wage to anyone who works a full time job.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Yes. Heaven forbid you should reap what you sow with the decisions you make. Just because you can make children doesn't mean you should. Just because you do procreate doesn't mean everyone else should have to take part in fiscally supporting your choice.
If you want to support a family, get a job that enables you to do so. McDonalds, or any fast food, as a fry cook isn't one of them. That's their own damn fault. Automatically Appended Next Post: If they want to make an attempt to unionize and argue for higher wages, great. I don't think they deserve a dime of it for the menial gak they do.
If you want to make more money, do what every other successful person In the country does: work your ass off to get educated or to move up where you are.
5470
Post by: sebster
StarTrotter wrote:I probably have missed this.... and call me a cynic... but is it wrong if I feel that a pay raise is utterly meaningless in the end? I cannot help but feel like an increase in pay will lead to an increase in the cost of everything else only degrading higher wages whilst shafting people working at fast food restaurants to the same place they are.
Sort of. If every cost was wages and everyone got a 50% pay increase, then yeah everything would cost 50% more and we'd be back where we started. But wages are only part of the story - people also generate income through rent, dividends, interest and the like. So what would happen is that wages would go up, and prices would increase by some, but not all, while other forms of revenue would lose out.
And then remember we're only talking about one industry, and only for some workers in that industry. So wages for other jobs would remain the same, and so the overall price level wouldn't increase that much. So what you'd actually see is people in one industry benefitting a lot, while everyone else loses out slightly.
Perhaps I am wrong though! I personally feel 15 might be pushing it though. Maybe more like 10-12? Apologies for the arbitrary number
$15 is definitely too high. I mean, the more socialised countries around the world don't sustain minimum wages that high. I agree that something more like $11 or $12 would be sustainable, and even that would have to be phased in over a few years, perhaps a $1 increase each until that $11 or $12 is reached. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mathieu Raymond wrote:I think it might be, if anyone keeps insisting on comparing any socialist system to its one glaring perversion and failure.
It's hardly the one instance of failure. No-one should be all that keen to attempt the Chinese, Cuban or Vietnamese experiences either.
Can we all at least agree that an individual willing to work full-time ought to have the opportunity to, and that by doing so, the dignity of certain basic needs should be fullfilled?
Yeah, we should.
And what's really sad is that the right wing used to as well. They used to hate on welfare recipients, and wax lyrical about the nobility of the blue collar worker. Now they show them nothing but contempt.
It's fething sad, really, what's happened in the last couple of decades. Automatically Appended Next Post: cincydooley wrote:Yes. Heaven forbid you should reap what you sow with the decisions you make. Just because you can make children doesn't mean you should. Just because you do procreate doesn't mean everyone else should have to take part in fiscally supporting your choice.
If you want to support a family, get a job that enables you to do so. McDonalds, or any fast food, as a fry cook isn't one of them. That's their own damn fault.
It isn't the kid's fault though.
What you're talking about is having kids raised in poverty, despite the parent working, out of what seems to be little more than class based spite.
If you want to make more money, do what every other successful person In the country does: work your ass off to get educated or to move up where you are.
Yeah, that's what we need to encourage people to do in order to live a comfortable, middle class life. But just to live a basic life, where the necessities are covered? Well a full time job, any full time job, should be able to do that.
And that was something everyone used to agree on. But the right wing has once again drifted even further to the right.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
So why not give the opportunities to the kid via better (Cheaper) schools, scholarships, and other such things?
Not only do you provide the kid with everything he/she needs, you also allow the parents to be seen as an example; apply yourself and don't stick with flipping burgers.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
HAs anyone blames the tacos or the burgers yet? It's their fault workers wages are so low.
23
Post by: djones520
Slarg232 wrote:So why not give the opportunities to the kid via better (Cheaper) schools, scholarships, and other such things?
Not only do you provide the kid with everything he/she needs, you also allow the parents to be seen as an example; apply yourself and don't stick with flipping burgers.
Why not apply higher expectations on the kids to do things with their lives at the same time?
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Slarg232 wrote:So why not give the opportunities to the kid via better (Cheaper) schools, scholarships, and other such things?
Not only do you provide the kid with everything he/she needs, you also allow the parents to be seen as an example; apply yourself and don't stick with flipping burgers.
Like thru a voucher system that allows students to be bussed out of failing schools at that schools expense? Already done.
Like pell grants that basically make college free for poor kids? Already done.
There are two outcomes of kids that have crappy, lower class upbringings: they see how gakky it is and want to get out of there, or the learn that the government will provide for them and the cycle continues. Sadly, the way our social services are set up does nothing but foster learned helplessness as a lifestyle.
And guess what? McDonalds had a scholarship program for employees that excel. That's what we should be pushing for, not 28 year olds supporting families while working what should be a part time job.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Bullockist wrote:HAs anyone blames the tacos or the burgers yet? It's their fault workers wages are so low.
Nah, this is Dakka Dakka, and the Tacos and Burgers are the Victims. We can't blame them.
djones520 wrote: Slarg232 wrote:So why not give the opportunities to the kid via better (Cheaper) schools, scholarships, and other such things?
Not only do you provide the kid with everything he/she needs, you also allow the parents to be seen as an example; apply yourself and don't stick with flipping burgers.
Why not apply higher expectations on the kids to do things with their lives at the same time?
Yes, why not? There is a time and a place to be a kid, usually around 4-17 years of age. 35 years old is not that time. Automatically Appended Next Post: cincydooley wrote: Slarg232 wrote:So why not give the opportunities to the kid via better (Cheaper) schools, scholarships, and other such things?
Not only do you provide the kid with everything he/she needs, you also allow the parents to be seen as an example; apply yourself and don't stick with flipping burgers.
Like thru a voucher system that allows students to be bussed out of failing schools at that schools expense? Already done.
Like pell grants that basically make college free for poor kids? Already done.
There are two outcomes of kids that have crappy, lower class upbringings: they see how gakky it is and want to get out of there, or the learn that the government will provide for them and the cycle continues. Sadly, the way our social services are set up does nothing but foster learned helplessness as a lifestyle.
And guess what? McDonalds had a scholarship program for employees that excel. That's what we should be pushing for, not 28 year olds supporting families while working what should be a part time job.
Well obviously we need the government to stop providing for people then, don't we?
Not every person, but still. If the fact that the government paying for someone so as that people can " learn that the government will provide for them and the cycle continues", obviously we need to stop letting people learn they will be taken care of.
You don't expect an alcoholic or gambling addict to learn they can't drink or gamble WHILE DRINKING AND GAMBLING, do you?
5470
Post by: sebster
Slarg232 wrote:So why not give the opportunities to the kid via better (Cheaper) schools, scholarships, and other such things?
Not only do you provide the kid with everything he/she needs, you also allow the parents to be seen as an example; apply yourself and don't stick with flipping burgers.
Not everyone is going to end up a professional. I mean, that's a basic impossibility - ultimately there's only so much need for legal advice, and only so many people to sit around in offices moving paper around. Ultimately someone needs to stand there turning the meat over when the timer bings.
5534
Post by: dogma
Haight wrote:
I think you're praising community colleges here, and if so, i'll second that.
I learned a lot at my community college, and had some incredible professors. I recommend a good community college to anyone. Save money and just as good, sometimes, better education, and you're surrounded, mostly by a student body that is there because they want to be, not just because it's the thing to do.
Agreed. As a rule I tend to dissuade people from enrolling in a university with a doctoral program without first fulfilling their general education requirements; unless they're confident that they can test out of them. I say this because, as someone who has taught these courses as a doctoral candidate, the people often leading the class are probably phoning it in.
5470
Post by: sebster
cincydooley wrote:There are two outcomes of kids that have crappy, lower class upbringings: they see how gakky it is and want to get out of there, or the learn that the government will provide for them and the cycle continues. Sadly, the way our social services are set up does nothing but foster learned helplessness as a lifestyle.
The rest of the developed world has much, much more generous social services, and much higher rates of pay for base level work. And yet the rest of the developed world has much, much greater social mobility than the US.
In the rest of the developed world it is much easier to remain on welfare, and the living standard for minimum wage work is higher... and yet far more people actually move up from lower socio-economic classes into higher ones, than manage that in the US.
Basically, the idea people in the US remaining stuck in poverty because it's comfortable enough is total nonsense. Automatically Appended Next Post: Slarg232 wrote:Well obviously we need the government to stop providing for people then, don't we?
Not every person, but still. If the fact that the government paying for someone so as that people can " learn that the government will provide for them and the cycle continues", obviously we need to stop letting people learn they will be taken care of.
Seriously, look at the rest of the world. We have far more generous welfare, and much higher minimum wages, and much higher social mobility. Your theory that welfare makes people stay there is complete and total bunk.
Smart, well funded social welfare programs actually increase the number of people moving up in to well paying jobs.
5534
Post by: dogma
Gearhead wrote:Sorry, entertainment is NOT a necessity, but a lot of folks consider it so, and it represents a significant drain on their finances.
Cable TV is not a necessity, but entertainment surely is.
All work and no play doesn't make Jack a dull boy, it threatens his sanity.
cincydooley wrote:
See, this is the thing I have a real problem with. People include so many things in these "livable wage" evaluations that have no business being in there. Cable, Internet, cell phones, cigarettes, snack food, etc.
Wait, are you seriously questioning the necessity of a cell phone in 2013?
I mean, yeah, you can get away with a land-line (which also costs money) if you live alone or with people who can be relied upon to relay missed calls to you, but otherwise you need a cell phone.
33550
Post by: Jubear
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slarg232 wrote:Well obviously we need the government to stop providing for people then, don't we?
Not every person, but still. If the fact that the government paying for someone so as that people can " learn that the government will provide for them and the cycle continues", obviously we need to stop letting people learn they will be taken care of.
Seriously, look at the rest of the world. We have far more generous welfare, and much higher minimum wages, and much higher social mobility. Your theory that welfare makes people stay there is complete and total bunk.
Smart, well funded social welfare programs actually increase the number of people moving up in to well paying jobs.
I am a current great example of this working. I have spent the last yeah getting paid to study by the government (with some part time work mixed in so i have some cash for fun) As a result I have moved out of unskilled retail work and into a much higher pay bracket in my chosen field, Instead of having to work a gakky job full time and spending years studying part time I got to focus on my study and got the result I wanted much easier and faster and that translates into me being a nice little earner for the government.
5534
Post by: dogma
Jihadin wrote:IMO I do not owe these individuals in any sense or form anything.
It isn't really about whether or not you owe someone anything, it is about creating and maintaining a society which functions well.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Jubear wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slarg232 wrote:Well obviously we need the government to stop providing for people then, don't we?
Not every person, but still. If the fact that the government paying for someone so as that people can " learn that the government will provide for them and the cycle continues", obviously we need to stop letting people learn they will be taken care of.
Seriously, look at the rest of the world. We have far more generous welfare, and much higher minimum wages, and much higher social mobility. Your theory that welfare makes people stay there is complete and total bunk.
Yeah, 19% of welfare recipients are on welfare for less than 7 months.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
5534
Post by: dogma
cincydooley wrote:
Like thru a voucher system that allows students to be bussed out of failing schools at that schools expense? Already done.
Well, at the expense of the people who support that school by way of taxation.
And, bear in mind, it is very difficult to create a voucher system which reduces per-student cost without also reducing the quality of education.
cincydooley wrote:
Like pell grants that basically make college free for poor kids? Already done.
Pell Grants were capped at 5,550 USD for the 2011-12 academic year. The average cost of studying at a 4-year, public institution in the 2010-11 academic year was 15,918 USD per academic year.
Hardly a free ride.
cincydooley wrote:
There are two outcomes of kids that have crappy, lower class upbringings: they see how gakky it is and want to get out of there, or the learn that the government will provide for them and the cycle continues.
They might also learn that many people write them off as lower class (read: worthless), and so determine that the probability of successful advancement is very low.
5470
Post by: sebster
Jubear wrote:I am a current great example of this working. I have spent the last yeah getting paid to study by the government (with some part time work mixed in so i have some cash for fun) As a result I have moved out of unskilled retail work and into a much higher pay bracket in my chosen field, Instead of having to work a gakky job full time and spending years studying part time I got to focus on my study and got the result I wanted much easier and faster and that translates into me being a nice little earner for the government.
Exactly. It just shouldn't be that hard to realise that if people have a little spare time and money they might use that to help make something more of themselves.
And then there's this interesting finding I posted here yesterday;
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/08/how-poverty-taxes-brain/6716/
That reports on a recent study that the financial stress of being poor reduces the amount of time that can be spent on more useful activities, which would make it more likely that that person would remain poor. So reducing that stress by making life a little more livable will increase the chance of someone moving up in the world.
33550
Post by: Jubear
sebster wrote: Jubear wrote:I am a current great example of this working. I have spent the last yeah getting paid to study by the government (with some part time work mixed in so i have some cash for fun) As a result I have moved out of unskilled retail work and into a much higher pay bracket in my chosen field, Instead of having to work a gakky job full time and spending years studying part time I got to focus on my study and got the result I wanted much easier and faster and that translates into me being a nice little earner for the government.
Exactly. It just shouldn't be that hard to realise that if people have a little spare time and money they might use that to help make something more of themselves.
And then there's this interesting finding I posted here yesterday;
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/08/how-poverty-taxes-brain/6716/
That reports on a recent study that the financial stress of being poor reduces the amount of time that can be spent on more useful activities, which would make it more likely that that person would remain poor. So reducing that stress by making life a little more livable will increase the chance of someone moving up in the world.
Agreed its hard to focus on much when you are not sure when you will eat next or how you are going to make rent. To get back to the core issue it is bloody shameful that someone can work full time and have to be subsidized bey welfare, if your willing to work hard (at any job) you should be able to get ahead and expect a decent quality of life. Does a fast food worker deserve to earn as much a doctor? Well of course not but we already live in a world where people with real useable skills (tradesmen) get paid less then a white color office worker and that is frankly pants on head slowed.
5470
Post by: sebster
Jubear wrote:Agreed its hard to focus on much when you are not sure when you will eat next or how you are going to make rent. To get back to the core issue it is bloody shameful that someone can work full time and have to be subsidized bey welfare, if your willing to work hard (at any job) you should be able to get ahead and expect a decent quality of life. Does a fast food worker deserve to earn as much a doctor? Well of course not but we already live in a world where people with real useable skills (tradesmen) get paid less then a white color office worker and that is frankly pants on head slowed.
Judging by what we ended up getting charged for a plumber to come out and look at a heating system, I'm not sure that's true
But you know, that's Perth. Most of the tradies got drawn out on to the mines, and the ones that are left know they can charge whatever they please.
33550
Post by: Jubear
Yeah to be honest I think tradies do quite well for themselves these days but it was not that way not to long a go. I think its to do with a shortage of skilled labor in most 1st world countries.
One of my mates puts it best if you have a job that provides skills that would be useful a zombie apocalypse then chances are you contribute a lot more to society then a paper pusher (im a IT tech so I am one of the useless ones)
5534
Post by: dogma
sebster wrote:
The same is offered here, but there's no government subsidy for students who aren't part of degree programs which means you can pay four or five times as much and so no-one other than some bored doctor's wives does it (though funnily enough its still less than you're likely to pay in the US  ).
Less per credit, or less per course? And is that absent the various forms of financial aid in the US, or inclusive of them?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Bullockist wrote:HAs anyone blames the tacos or the burgers yet? It's their fault workers wages are so low.
Well, if wages go up, the restaurants will have to automate and source cheaper meat.
Surplus population...need for cheap meat = PROFIT!
33125
Post by: Seaward
dogma wrote:Wait, are you seriously questioning the necessity of a cell phone in 2013?
I mean, yeah, you can get away with a land-line (which also costs money) if you live alone or with people who can be relied upon to relay missed calls to you, but otherwise you need a cell phone.
I also hear, at some point in the distant past, they had these mythical creations called "answering machines" that you could hook up to your (cheap-ass) landline phone to answer and record missed calls for you.
So no, you don't "need" a cellphone, though I'm amused that question horrifies you.
23
Post by: djones520
Seaward wrote: dogma wrote:Wait, are you seriously questioning the necessity of a cell phone in 2013?
I mean, yeah, you can get away with a land-line (which also costs money) if you live alone or with people who can be relied upon to relay missed calls to you, but otherwise you need a cell phone.
I also hear, at some point in the distant past, they had these mythical creations called "answering machines" that you could hook up to your (cheap-ass) landline phone to answer and record missed calls for you.
So no, you don't "need" a cellphone, though I'm amused that question horrifies you.
Before we dropped our land line, I recall my service provided this "answering machine" thing. At no extra cost even.
And let me tell you, that land line was a HELL OF A LOT cheaper then our cell phones. Stupid contract....
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
cincydooley wrote:Like pell grants that basically make college free for poor kids? Already done.
Wish that were true  There is so much wrong with the Pell Grant and FAFSA that it's not even funny... I applied, every year like I was supposed to, and my pell grant capped out on the dollars it could provide. We were "poor" for the most part. My dad declared bankruptcy when I was 13 years old, we moved house to house from that point until I was 19, we barely made enough money to be over the poverty line, and yet my university education still cost me over 100 thousand dollars in federal and private student loans. Now granted, it was for 5 years of schooling and not 4, granted my degree program was impossible to finish in 4 years without summer classes and AP credit coming in (a fact they neglected to tell me until my first senior year was coming to a close), and granted my grades slipped from a 3.2 to a 2.75 Sophomore and Junior year, but both Senior years I got a 3.4, with a 3.8 my last semester. There is far too much wrong with the current post-secondary education system in this country that I've stopped telling people they should go to college unless they want to be something that requires a degree. The first question I ask anyone going for any type of degree is, "what job can you get with that degree?" To put it in perspective, my university just cut tuition 37% this year for the 2014 year. It's now cheaper to go to my school than when I started back in fall of 2007. Yet it's still almost 30,000 dollars a year. Now you can say, "well Alf you could have gone to a state school." I applied for several state schools and a few private schools, and my university made it extremely affordable for the first year. Ohio University was 18,000 dollars when I applied, my university was 32,000 (almost double). With federal loans, grants, and scholarships, they managed to knock it down to 12k, and Ohio University hadn't responded with financial aid. So I went to Ashland University, the worst 5 years of educational experiences of my life. BUT if I hadn't spent that time there I wouldn't have gotten the IT experience nor the fraternity social networking that has landed me the job I currently have.
59176
Post by: Mathieu Raymond
As for the pregnancies... if I recall sex is still a relatively cheap form of entertainment, so we shouldn't be denying them that. The biological imperative to procreate is very strong, it's hard to deny. And since (from the news I've seen, remember, I'm an outsider) the only funding for sex education has been for abstinence only programs (which have been repeatedly shown not to work) and abortion is a hot-topic issue, I'd say the parents can also be considered victims in a way. Of the system, I mean.
My local example is even worse. We had one of the lowest birth rates on the planet (similar to Japan's) and everyone was scared that the "French fact" would disappear from North 'Muricah, so the government adopted an aggressive natalist policy, which rewarded any family willing to have three or more children heftily. Most people still don't go for it, but some people are turning around because we've let in "those other peoples" onto our fair land. One of my welfare students explained to me that if you are on welfare and have six kids, then you are actually receiving more money than a couple working full time (it scales the more kids you have, apparently) when on welfare.
241
Post by: Ahtman
If only we could all be (American) CEO's, where job performance doesn't matter.
One of the great American delusions is meritocracy — the idea that everyone competes on an even playing field, and then gets what they deserve. In a meritocratic society, we would expect top-earning chief executives to represent the best and the brightest. Or, at the very least, to be good at their jobs.
Consider the case of Richard Fuld, who ran Lehman Brothers from 1994 until 2008. Fuld made the list of America’s twenty-five highest-paid executives for eight years in a row, until the bank collapsed under a slew of bad investments. The Lehman bust was the largest bankruptcy in the nation’s history and a defining event in the financial crisis. For his leadership in the eight years prior to the collapse, while the firm was making bad bets and covering them up with accounting tricks, Fuld raked in more than $466 million.
Then there’s Vikram Pandit, former CEO of Citigroup. Pandit made the top-twenty-five list in 2008, earning $38 million. That same year, his firm laid off 75,000 employees, and took government bailouts ultimately exceeding $472 billion. Pandit accepted only $1 for his services while his firm was in the red, but by 2011 he was back on the list of top earners.
These cases of gross overcompensation for poor performance seem exceptional, but in fact they’re representatives of a trend. A twenty-year review released today by the Institute for Policy Studies found that the records of nearly 40 percent of America’s top-earning executives include leading their firms to bankruptcy, government bailouts, fraud-related fines and settlements, and their own firing.
34390
Post by: whembly
dogma wrote: cincydooley wrote:
Like thru a voucher system that allows students to be bussed out of failing schools at that schools expense? Already done.
Well, at the expense of the people who support that school by way of taxation.
So what then? Keep the students in underperforming districts and tell them to suck it? Would you be in favor if the state taking over the district (firing everyone in the process)? There are political realities that must be understood before advocating/dissuading these sorts of options.
And, bear in mind, it is very difficult to create a voucher system which reduces per-student cost without also reducing the quality of education.
You're right about that... in fact, I'd say it'd be almost impossible to be "cheaper".
cincydooley wrote:
Like pell grants that basically make college free for poor kids? Already done.
Pell Grants were capped at 5,550 USD for the 2011-12 academic year. The average cost of studying at a 4-year, public institution in the 2010-11 academic year was 15,918 USD per academic year.
Hardly a free ride.
Then the solution is to rein in those cost... part of the reason why College Education is so expensive is because of the ease of getting federal school loans. These schools don't put in no where near enough "skin" in the game.
cincydooley wrote:
There are two outcomes of kids that have crappy, lower class upbringings: they see how gakky it is and want to get out of there, or the learn that the government will provide for them and the cycle continues.
They might also learn that many people write them off as lower class (read: worthless), and so determine that the probability of successful advancement is very low.
I simply can't wrap my head around this... I personally know many folks who are successful know who grew up poor (and I mean, dirt poor). I think that those who are abusing the system are small (maybe sizable)... but this is the case where the "good" outweighs the "bad". I don't really have an issue with the amount of $$$ being poured into the system... but, at the same time, I'm not against tweaking the system.... you know, prohibit wellfare funds from being used to purchase high-end cellphones (ie, droids, iphones, etc) or Satellite TV. If you want those, use your own money.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Well, the big reason college education is allowed to be so expensive is due to the fact that the gov't guarantees all of the loans because of the "everyone should go to college" myth.
Make those loans subject to bankruptcy like ANY other loan, and all of that will change. That's why the lending for education is so 'free and easy;' there's a ton less risk with them than any other type of lending.
Additionally, while a Pell grant won't pay for a full private (or in many cases now public) education, they WILL pay for a full year of most community colleges. So honestly, if you want to go to a private school (and I did for undergrad and graduate work, so I feel you Alf) you should have to either pay for it on your own or earn--emphasis on earn-- some merit based scholarships, which are readily available (especially to the working poor and minority groups). Automatically Appended Next Post: Mathieu Raymond wrote:As for the pregnancies... if I recall sex is still a relatively cheap form of entertainment, so we shouldn't be denying them that. The biological imperative to procreate is very strong, it's hard to deny. And since (from the news I've seen, remember, I'm an outsider) the only funding for sex education has been for abstinence only programs (which have been repeatedly shown not to work) and abortion is a hot-topic issue, I'd say the parents can also be considered victims in a way. Of the system, I mean.
.
Who wants to deny them that? No one.
I'm just saying it's really easy (and cheap) to have lots of sex and not get someone pregnant.
59176
Post by: Mathieu Raymond
That was the point of that paragraph. Not in the current abstinence-only system. Young people are not aware of the means of contraception, and their effectiveness, or how they work. Some groups (like some clinics in Virginia) even go so far as lying about how condoms, the pill, the shot all work. There is pushing from higher ups for people to have more children, for good or bad reasons.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Really? Thats not how its taught here. Further, I wouldn't think any kid actually didn't have that info available in this Decline of the US Empire level we're at.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Mathieu Raymond wrote:That was the point of that paragraph. Not in the current abstinence-only system. Young people are not aware of the means of contraception, and their effectiveness, or how they work. Some groups (like some clinics in Virginia) even go so far as lying about how condoms, the pill, the shot all work. There is pushing from higher ups for people to have more children, for good or bad reasons.
Ehhh... I don't know how true that is. I think plenty of young people are wholly aware of contraception; they just choose not to use it.
I mean, it doesn't help that popular music espouses to young males how awesome it is to feth bareback. Or that MTV glorifies babies having babies with their repugnant Teen Mom series.
59176
Post by: Mathieu Raymond
That too. And I agree that the information is available. I can only speak anectodically, but my ex-wife had never heard of a condom except on television, and so she didn't quite know what they did, she just had urges, so did the boys around her, and so she got pregnant at 16.
Frazzled: I don't think it's just the US, if that reassures you. Having information available for free, and much more of it, easier to access than in our times... seems to matter less today. The almost limitless power of that knowledge doesn't seem to hold sway over children, then again I can only speak anecdotically.
Cincy: There might be some of that too. I remember when I was in high school, girls would try to get pregnant to "keep their boyfriend from leaving." Some 14 year olds honestly thought they were ready for a family. We had no concrete idea of work at all, either, I grew up relatively sheltered, so it might have influenced their thinking.
33125
Post by: Seaward
So wait. If an underperforming CEO gets fired, that's conclusive that job performance doesn't matter?
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
cincydooley wrote:
See, this is the thing I have a real problem with. People include so many things in these "livable wage" evaluations that have no business being in there. Cable, Internet, cell phones, cigarettes, snack food, etc.
Personally, I think that anymore with the way our job market vocational systems are set up, it is increasingly necessary to have internet and at least a basic cell phone. The rest of your list I completely agree with.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
cincydooley wrote:Well, the big reason college education is allowed to be so expensive is due to the fact that the gov't guarantees all of the loans because of the "everyone should go to college" myth.
Make those loans subject to bankruptcy like ANY other loan, and all of that will change. That's why the lending for education is so 'free and easy;' there's a ton less risk with them than any other type of lending.
Additionally, while a Pell grant won't pay for a full private (or in many cases now public) education, they WILL pay for a full year of most community colleges. So honestly, if you want to go to a private school (and I did for undergrad and graduate work, so I feel you Alf) you should have to either pay for it on your own or earn--emphasis on earn-- some merit based scholarships, which are readily available (especially to the working poor and minority groups).
My pell grant pays for an entire year of community college, all 10$ of my tuition. There are ways to work the system. I get the pell grant and a fee waiver.
46630
Post by: wowsmash
I started in fast food at 5.75 an hour. Did I make a enough back then? No, I knew I need a second and sometimes a third job. That's how it's always been. If you want more then you have to work more until you move up the ladder. I worked in the orchards or dug ditches. I do what I have to do to pay the bills and get by. Even now I try and get extra work during the holidays for extra money. I didn't whine and cry and trot out every sob story in the book to make you feel sorry for me. I don't want help. I've got two hands, two feet and a will to work. I don't stand around waiting to be told my next task. I do my job and look for other things I could be doing to be productive.
the biggest problem in the working world today is nobody wants to work. They just want a check.
You want more then work harder.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
djones520 wrote: Seaward wrote: dogma wrote:Wait, are you seriously questioning the necessity of a cell phone in 2013?
I mean, yeah, you can get away with a land-line (which also costs money) if you live alone or with people who can be relied upon to relay missed calls to you, but otherwise you need a cell phone.
I also hear, at some point in the distant past, they had these mythical creations called "answering machines" that you could hook up to your (cheap-ass) landline phone to answer and record missed calls for you.
So no, you don't "need" a cellphone, though I'm amused that question horrifies you.
Before we dropped our land line, I recall my service provided this "answering machine" thing. At no extra cost even.
And let me tell you, that land line was a HELL OF A LOT cheaper then our cell phones. Stupid contract....
As a canadian who has worked for an american cell phone provider (actually, three US cellphone providers), I'd like to take this opportunity to let you know that you have no fething right to bitch about cellphone prices or contracts. None whatsoever.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Your statement lacks support. You need data. In terms of what it does a land line is typically a good deal cheaper in the US, by multiples, even now. However, if you have a cell phone as well, often an inexpensive plan with a little extra give is less expensive then a cell phone AND a land line. Unless you include my wife and daughter who talk a lot... "Yes could I look at your 16,200 minute a month plans?" or "cheeka your cell phone bill is more than the rent I payed before we got married!"
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Kovnik Obama wrote:As a canadian who has worked for an american cell phone provider (actually, three US cellphone providers), I'd like to take this opportunity to let you know that you have no fething right to bitch about cellphone prices or contracts. None whatsoever.
Why do we as consumers not have the right to complain about our service providers? Is it because we signed a contract? Edit: I am curious because I feel like I'm paying too much for the cell phones my mother and I use.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Careful. The NSA has signed a new agreement with them. Continued griping will result in your being put on the "special" list...
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Frazzled wrote:Careful. The NSA has signed a new agreement with them. Continued griping will result in your being put on the "special" list...
I'm sure my involvement on Dakka has me on a few lists
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Alfndrate wrote: Kovnik Obama wrote:As a canadian who has worked for an american cell phone provider (actually, three US cellphone providers), I'd like to take this opportunity to let you know that you have no fething right to bitch about cellphone prices or contracts. None whatsoever.
Why do we as consumers not have the right to complain about our service providers? Is it because we signed a contract?
Edit: I am curious because I feel like I'm paying too much for the cell phones my mother and I use.
Not at all, let's just say that the american cellphone market is (or was, my experience dates from 2006-2010) incredibly cheap in comparison to the canadian one, so seeing an American complain about the terms of his contracts slightly grinds my gears. Back then, it was a comfortable 20-30$ difference on a single plan, and it went much higher with family plans. Our cancellation policies were ridiculous too. ''Pay 500$ or 6 months of your contract, whichever is higher''. And I used to get death threats over the 175$ Cingular would charge for cancellations...
Also, regarding Dogma's and Seaward's argument, there's a clause in the contracts I used to handle stating that cellphone service is not meant to be a primary communication line. I imagine it's in order to placate the surprisingly numerous amount of people that call in everyday to complain that a loss of service made them lose business and that we are legally responsible to compensate them. Still, if having a cellphone is not a necessity nowadays, it certainly remains a very useful tool. My employer is too cheap to provide me with a company cellphone, but he sure as hell verifies that we have one when he does the hiring.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Isn't the Canadian market a regulated one or something? I believe one of the US companies wants to get into it. Thats what the Globe and Mail had in an article.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Mathieu Raymond wrote:My local example is even worse. We had one of the lowest birth rates on the planet (similar to Japan's) and everyone was scared that the "French fact" would disappear from North 'Muricah, so the government adopted an aggressive natalist policy, which rewarded any family willing to have three or more children heftily. Most people still don't go for it, but some people are turning around because we've let in "those other peoples" onto our fair land. One of my welfare students explained to me that if you are on welfare and have six kids, then you are actually receiving more money than a couple working full time (it scales the more kids you have, apparently) when on welfare.
If the salary of the couple working full time is minimum salary, I'm unsure as to what the problem is. I can hardly see myself, alone, on 14$ an hour raise a single kid, I don't think offering 20$/hour to a family of 7-8 is in any shape or form unreasonable.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Kovnik Obama wrote: Alfndrate wrote: Kovnik Obama wrote:As a canadian who has worked for an american cell phone provider (actually, three US cellphone providers), I'd like to take this opportunity to let you know that you have no fething right to bitch about cellphone prices or contracts. None whatsoever.
Why do we as consumers not have the right to complain about our service providers? Is it because we signed a contract?
Edit: I am curious because I feel like I'm paying too much for the cell phones my mother and I use.
Not at all, let's just say that the american cellphone market is (or was, my experience dates from 2006-2010) incredibly cheap in comparison to the canadian one, so seeing an American complain about the terms of his contracts slightly grinds my gears. Back then, it was a comfortable 20-30$ difference on a single plan, and it went much higher with family plans. Our cancellation policies were ridiculous too. ''Pay 500$ or 6 months of your contract, whichever is higher''. And I used to get death threats over the 175$ Cingular would charge for cancellations...
Also, regarding Dogma's and Seaward's argument, there's a clause in the contracts I used to handle stating that cellphone service is not meant to be a primary communication line. I imagine it's in order to placate the surprisingly numerous amount of people that call in everyday to complain that a loss of service made them lose business and that we are legally responsible to compensate them. Still, if having a cellphone is not a necessity nowadays, it certainly remains a very useful tool. My employer is too cheap to provide me with a company cellphone, but he sure as hell verifies that we have one when he does the hiring.
Those do not sound too far off from what I have to pay if I were to cancel my plan. Also I agree that a cell phone is not quite a necessity, though I'll end it with yet. My work provides managers with business cell phones as well as those that might keep odd hours (one of our sales reps has a work cell phone because he occasionally gets called in to do demos with potential clients from around the world).
Though this does bring the question up about the "Obamaphone" idea as it's popularly known as. The idea of subsidized cell phones, regardless of who provides them, would make it seem as if the cell phone is becoming the primary communication line simply because these types of programs exist. It would seem to me that in the next... 10 years, the land line will be a thing of the past, and mobile communications will be the norm.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I can. You're demanding a salary based on nothing related to the work, but on your (in)ability to keep it in your pants.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Frazzled wrote:Isn't the Canadian market a regulated one or something? I believe one of the US companies wants to get into it. Thats what the Globe and Mail had in an article.
Yeah, Verizon was apparently denied access to the market earlier today. The CRTC, our equivalent of the FCC, has been a lot more heavy handed in the last couple of years, and that's why our contracts aren't half as abusive as they were prior to 2010. The prices are still high, and they don't throw phones at us the way Cingular and ATT used to throw them at their clients, but it's still a lot better than it was. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:I can. You're demanding a salary based on nothing related to the work, but on your (in)ability to keep it in your pants.
Well, it's much more the needs of the children which are sought to be answered. Basically, by extension, they become welfare recipients. Ideally, everyone should realize that the hassle of working and climbing the payrates outweights the benefits of staying at home and getting the minimum guaranteed...
And keep in mind that breeding a plethora of snot monsters was (until a few years ago) a service to the Nation. Since we've now comfortably come back into a positive birth ratio, things like these ought to slowly be revised.
68355
Post by: easysauce
dogma wrote: Gearhead wrote:Sorry, entertainment is NOT a necessity, but a lot of folks consider it so, and it represents a significant drain on their finances.
Cable TV is not a necessity, but entertainment surely is.
All work and no play doesn't make Jack a dull boy, it threatens his sanity.
cincydooley wrote:
See, this is the thing I have a real problem with. People include so many things in these "livable wage" evaluations that have no business being in there. Cable, Internet, cell phones, cigarettes, snack food, etc.
Wait, are you seriously questioning the necessity of a cell phone in 2013?
I mean, yeah, you can get away with a land-line (which also costs money) if you live alone or with people who can be relied upon to relay missed calls to you, but otherwise you need a cell phone.
entertainment is not a necessity... you highlight yourself the complete disconnect that most people have between NEEDS (food, water, shelter, air, things nescessary to stay alive) and wants (everything else needed to increase one's enjoyment of life, but not nescessary at all)
also, when I was working for minimum wages, to raise myself up, I did just fine with a library card (which is free) and gives me: net access, free books/dvds/music
that is more then enough entertainment... should your sanity be in jeopardy because you cannot spend the 100$+ a month it costs for cable/net at home, I suggest you look for work as a servitor.
a phone, bare basic plan, is needed, but the cheapest phone/plan is all you need, you dont need data, or a smart phone, a land line with a answering machine or simple cell is very cheap.
TV's are free, the old cathode ray tube ones pop up for free on craigs list every day, yet these mc d's workers likely want/have large flat screens ect.
most often I see things like people complaining they cannot keep up with car payments... againa car is not a need, it is a luxury... the bus/subway/bike/ect will get you there much cheaper
fast food does already pay a living wage, the problem is that most people think a "living" wage should support a lifstyle that contaings more luxuries then they can actually afford.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Not seeing how having more kids helps society at this point.
They're taking jobs away from hard working qualified domestic robots. They're taking our jobs!
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
easysauce wrote:entertainment is not a necessity... you highlight yourself the complete disconnect that most people have between NEEDS (food, water, shelter, air, things nescessary to stay alive) and wants (everything else needed to increase one's enjoyment of life, but not nescessary at all)
If anything, that disconnect is a virtue of the modern world.
also, when I was working for minimum wages, to raise myself up, I did just fine with a library card (which is free) and gives me: net access, free books/dvds/music. That is more then enough entertainment... should your sanity be in jeopardy because you cannot spend the 100$+ a month it costs for cable/net at home, I suggest you look for work as a servitor.
I did the same thing after a small stint as a homeless bum. Did you happen to look around you while you were surfing the net in that public library? The average user of the public library internet access point is far from a picture of mental health.
TV's are free, the old cathode ray tube ones pop up for free on craigs list every day, yet these mc d's workers likely want/have large flat screens ect.
You have no way of knowing, and even on 15$/hour a large flat screen isn't easy to afford.
most often I see things like people complaining they cannot keep up with car payments... againa car is not a need, it is a luxury... the bus/subway/bike/ect will get you there much cheaper
I'd generally agree with you, if you live in a big city with a good public transport coverage. In certain towns, tho, a car is a necessity. Québec City is a good example of that.
fast food does already pay a living wage, the problem is that most people think a "living" wage should support a lifstyle that contaings more luxuries then they can actually afford.
Saying things like that in a vacuum doesn't resolve anything. A living wage should be deduced from the cost of life in the area we're speaking about. 7.50$ strikes me as very low, and 15.00$ strikes me as very high (for entry anyways).
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I work on minimum wage and i have a flatscreen.
And Cellphones are a necessaty. No. Not smart phones. No NOT phones with web, not even texting. But in this fast paced world a cell is needed. It allows you to make changes on a fly an being connected to other people is important.
A Car is as well, Although they cannot legally do it, many places will turn you right the hell down for no working car. my FLGS did that for many people who applied. This cities Public transit sucks so hard. it tkaes me two hours to get home by bus, when it would take me less car
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
hotsauceman1 wrote:I work on minimum wage and i have a flatscreen.
And Cellphones are a necessaty. No. Not smart phones. No NOT phones with web, not even texting. But in this fast paced world a cell is needed. It allows you to make changes on a fly an being connected to other people is important.
A Car is as well, Although they cannot legally do it, many places will turn you right the hell down for no working car. my FLGS did that for many people who applied. This cities Public transit sucks so hard. it tkaes me two hours to get home by bus, when it would take me less car
I imagine it can't be the same down the border, what with ya'll practically being savages, but here you can't be penalized in any form for lying to your employer about something they are not allowed to ask (like if you own a car when the job doesn't require one).
241
Post by: Ahtman
I thought you lived at home with your parents.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I have a flat screen and the wife lets me keep minimum wage... Automatically Appended Next Post: His jobs may require one. Its the whole "how the &)*& are you going to get here?" question.
I agree a cheap cell phone is a necessity for a parent though. But you can get one for dirt cheap.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
hotsauceman1 wrote:
A Car is as well, Although they cannot legally do it, many places will turn you right the hell down for no working car.
Car ownership is not a protected class. They can ask you, and most employers do as they know your home address, your proximity/commute to work and they can ask: "Do you have reliable transportation" or "You seem to live 30 miles away, are you sure you will be able to get to work on time?" or they can add to the job description simple things like "Must be able to make coffee runs/Pick up food for lunches" which then forces personal transportation in the form of a car. This is the same thing as 'Must be able to lift 50lbs unassisted' to weed out some candidates in the form of older people or unhealthy people.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Im being slightly sarcastic, I got the TV from Chirstmas money
About the Car though
Legallly they cannot require you to own something for a job short of a shirt and clothes. A car is part of that. One job asked if I ha reliable transportation, which I did in the form of my bike. But he didnt like that. He then went on to say in his blog "Although I cannot legally require you to own a car, You do require one"
5534
Post by: dogma
Seaward wrote:
I also hear, at some point in the distant past, they had these mythical creations called "answering machines" that you could hook up to your (cheap-ass) landline phone to answer and record missed calls for you.
Yes, and an answering machine is accessible to anyone that walks past it. Even in households that encourage aspiration that leads to lost opportunities, as anyone can hit the "delete all" button by intention or mistake.
More to the point, there are several companies (Virgin, Sprint, Cricket, etc.) which offer rates consistent with landlines.
Frazzled wrote:
In terms of what it does a land line is typically a good deal cheaper in the US, by multiples, even now.
I can get a prepaid cellphone at Walmart for 10 USD. Obviously service fees apply but they are significantly lower, and more easily controlled by the consumer, than those associated with a landline.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Legallly they cannot require you to own something for a job short of a shirt and clothes.
Yes they can... Pizza Delivery requires you to own and use your own car.
Lots of jobs can and do require cars. Some jobs even require you to own your own tools or equipment and they are legally allowed to do so. While they may reimburse for use of personal stuff, they can require it. Cell phones are another one, and will give an 'allowance' for employees which covers 25$ a month or something but you need a personal cell which will be used for work.
Companies may limit their candidate pool if they do, but that is their choice. None of it is illegal. Discrimination is not illegal unless it is done against protected class. That means they can require you to have a car and not hire you if your nose is too big or you smell funny.
19370
Post by: daedalus
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Legallly they cannot require you to own something for a job short of a shirt and clothes. A car is part of that. One job asked if I ha reliable transportation, which I did in the form of my bike. But he didnt like that. He then went on to say in his blog "Although I cannot legally require you to own a car, You do require one"
California might be different, but that makes me wonder about "self-owned and operated" trucking companies.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I can get a prepaid cellphone at Walmart for 10 USD. Obviously service fees apply but they are significantly lower, and more easily controlled by the consumer, than those associated with a landline.
Yes but you are time limited. With a land line you can breach the wall of time and talk infinitely. I've seen it in action. Oh the Humanity!
23
Post by: djones520
dogma wrote: Seaward wrote:
I also hear, at some point in the distant past, they had these mythical creations called "answering machines" that you could hook up to your (cheap-ass) landline phone to answer and record missed calls for you.
Yes, and an answering machine is accessible to anyone that walks past it. Even in households that encourage aspiration that leads to lost opportunities, as anyone can hit the "delete all" button by intention or mistake.
More to the point, there are several companies (Virgin, Sprint, Cricket, etc.) which offer rates consistent with landlines.
It is truly a wonder that civilization managed to not destroy itself during the dark period of years we had to exist before the advent of cell phones.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
djones520 wrote: dogma wrote: Seaward wrote:
I also hear, at some point in the distant past, they had these mythical creations called "answering machines" that you could hook up to your (cheap-ass) landline phone to answer and record missed calls for you.
Yes, and an answering machine is accessible to anyone that walks past it. Even in households that encourage aspiration that leads to lost opportunities, as anyone can hit the "delete all" button by intention or mistake.
More to the point, there are several companies (Virgin, Sprint, Cricket, etc.) which offer rates consistent with landlines.
It is truly a wonder that civilization managed to not destroy itself during the dark period of years we had to exist before the advent of cell phones.
It's almost as if how you got by in life in the middle ages required completely different skill sets, knowledge and technology than it does today.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Seaward wrote: azazel the cat wrote:I don't believe you're this obtuse without actually trying to miss the point. Commissioned officers didn't design or build the planes; I'm not sure why you brought them up.
I'm not sure why you brought the planes up, either, but you say a lot of crazy gak, so I just went with it.
So building planes is just a back door method of incentivizing college. Got it. That's not flying rodent gak at all.
You're either trolling or have become a complete idiot; either way I'll pander here:
-You fly planes and talk down about post-secondary education.
-The planes you fly were designed as a byproduct of a massive push for post-secondary education.
-The people who gained a post-secondary education were the ones who designed the planes that you fly.
In other words, it is very ironic that you hold such a negative position towards university, considering without such emphasis on universities in the past, your profession basically wouldn't exist and you'd be asking for a raise up to $15 per hour right now.
But I think you knew all this from the first post I made, and instead have done that thing you do almost every time, wherein you play dumb whenever someone calls you on your foolishness.
241
Post by: Ahtman
djones520 wrote:It is truly a wonder that civilization managed to not destroy itself during the dark period of years we had to exist before the advent of cell phones.
We also didn't use to have cars, trains, radio, tv, the internet, the printing press, and all sorts of other items that once integrated become difficult to function in modern society without either being seen as purposefully anachronistic or out of touch, neither of which are things employers are usually looking for. Like it or not cell phones have become the norm for operating in a modern society at a certain level, and as Dogma pointed out, there are ones available at the same cost as a land line. One need not have the newest iPhone to be able to have a sell phone; it isn't the purview of only the monied.
23
Post by: djones520
Yes, because 1990 is comparable to 1150.
If the best excuse that can be made to justify owning a cell phone over a land line is "someone might delete my answering machine messages", then there is no true excuse to justify it. There is no NEED to own a cell phone.
But hey, if someone wants to be thrifty with a $10 cell phone from Walmart, then that is perfectly acceptable as well. This whole thing is about living within your means.
241
Post by: Ahtman
djones520 wrote:Yes, because 1990 is comparable to 1150.
If the best excuse that can be made to justify owning a cell phone over a land line is "someone might delete my answering machine messages", then there is no true excuse to justify it.
The one living in the past would be the one pretending cell phones are somehow a prestigious item, as if it is the 80's still. The comparison was never about deleting messages, which is just as possible on voice mail as it is an answering machine.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Remember before the wide spread use of cell phines when the one foot long telephone "spaghetti" is strectched out to three feet and at times everyone think that the cord is out to "get them"
5470
Post by: sebster
Alfndrate wrote:There is far too much wrong with the current post-secondary education system in this country that I've stopped telling people they should go to college unless they want to be something that requires a degree. The first question I ask anyone going for any type of degree is, "what job can you get with that degree?" To put it in perspective, my university just cut tuition 37% this year for the 2014 year. It's now cheaper to go to my school than when I started back in fall of 2007. Yet it's still almost 30,000 dollars a year. The cost of tertiary education in the US is unbelievable. I used to work for a uni, and one of the first tricks I learned was that if I wanted to make our cost per student figures look great I'd compare them to US averages. Seriously, people think its cheaper over here because there's government money subsidising each student, but even with all that government money coming in the cost per student for the university I worked at was about half that of the average US tertiary facility. And the university I worked at was far from a model of efficiency. I think it could probably have cut about 25% of its expenditure without any impact on the education delivered. I have no idea how US colleges manage to waste many times that. whembly wrote:Then the solution is to rein in those cost... part of the reason why College Education is so expensive is because of the ease of getting federal school loans. These schools don't put in no where near enough "skin" in the game. Hardly. University here is vastly more subsidised but much, much cheaper overall. It's just... claiming a subsidy automatically makes something too expensive is way too simplistic. Having some or all of the money come from government doesn't matter, as long as whoever is spending the money has a keen eye for value and demands value for money... and well you might say 'ha ha! but the individual will always have a better eye for value than the government!' and that would be true, for most products, and is why it'd be a really terrible idea to have government start telling us which car would be best for us. But when it comes to education (and other really complex things like healthcare) the consumer is in a terrible place to judge the best value. That's why people can spend 100 grand on a degree from a place that delivers no better education than a community college. And I don't blame the student for that - assessing whether their money will be well spent or not is damn near impossible - I worked at a uni for just short of four years, in a role to specifically control costs, and I never got my head fully around how the money drives all the services the uni delivers. It's just, by its basic nature, a really obtuse kind of business. Nor is competition much of an answer, because a college offering a cheaper degree will, because we have little ability to assess the real quality of the product, automatically be assumed to be a lesser product. As a result, I think the only way to keep costs under control is through government intervention - direct control of the purse strings, coupled with informed reforms. That, of course, isn't even slightly practical given US culture, so instead you're basically going to have to accept really, really overpriced tertiary education is there to stay. I simply can't wrap my head around this... I personally know many folks who are successful know who grew up poor (and I mean, dirt poor). I think that those who are abusing the system are small (maybe sizable)... but this is the case where the "good" outweighs the "bad". Sure, but its a numbers game. The issue is how many move from poverty to wealth, and as I've shown with social mobility figures in a lot of these threads, the number that move up in the US is much lower than elsewhere in the world (which is terrible shame, considering a generation ago you left the world for dead in that category). I don't really have an issue with the amount of $$$ being poured into the system... but, at the same time, I'm not against tweaking the system.... you know, prohibit wellfare funds from being used to purchase high-end cellphones (ie, droids, iphones, etc) or Satellite TV. If you want those, use your own money. The problem is that that is really hard to do. Short of food stamps and direct handouts, there's no way of controlling whether the money is used on food or big screen tvs. Automatically Appended Next Post: cincydooley wrote: Ehhh... I don't know how true that is. I think plenty of young people are wholly aware of contraception; they just choose not to use it.
The cost is actually a major factor. I know, condoms are cheap. The pill much less so (once you factor in the cost of the prescription), but it's still very cheap compared to the alternative. So for a long time I thought the same as you.
But studies have shown by making contraception cheap and convenient (such as an IUD paid by government) cuts unwanted pregnancy by as much as 80%.
The thing ot realise is that we're talking about the poor here, who are likely to have been raised by poor people, possibly going back multiple generations. Poor financial decision making is a big part of the problem, so those condoms even at their very low price, aren't used anywhere near as much as they'd be used if they were free.
Or that MTV glorifies babies having babies with their repugnant Teen Mom series.
Huh? Are you saying you think people watching that show walk away thinking that teen parenthood is an easy thing? Because from what I've seen of that show those girls lives don't look glamorous at all.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
But they're quasi-celebrities that get paid to be on those shows. That's what teenagers see, sadly, and not those difficulties.
5470
Post by: sebster
Kovnik Obama wrote:If the salary of the couple working full time is minimum salary, I'm unsure as to what the problem is. I can hardly see myself, alone, on 14$ an hour raise a single kid, I don't think offering 20$/hour to a family of 7-8 is in any shape or form unreasonable.
The problem* is that you have two parents who could be working and providing for at least some of their children's needs instead of draining the government coffers, and providing decent role models as contributors to society, but instead they're choosing unemployment.
Now, I get your point that a family of six needs support when the parents earn close to minimum wage, but the answer to that is to provide support even if the parents are working (have it scale down slowly as income increases).
*assuming the situation described is true, I have no idea how Canadian welfare works. Automatically Appended Next Post: dogma wrote:Yes, and an answering machine is accessible to anyone that walks past it. Even in households that encourage aspiration that leads to lost opportunities, as anyone can hit the "delete all" button by intention or mistake.
More to the point, there are several companies (Virgin, Sprint, Cricket, etc.) which offer rates consistent with landlines.
Landline phone connections are also dependant on having a reliable, permanent place of residence. Something which not all, or even many, unemployed people will have. Automatically Appended Next Post: djones520 wrote:It is truly a wonder that civilization managed to not destroy itself during the dark period of years we had to exist before the advent of cell phones.
Human society existed for a long time without any written language or system of mathematics. And for a long time after that those skills were known only to a very small minority. And yet, if someone was to claim that reading, writing and arithmetic weren't necessary to finding reliable, decent employment, we'd all laugh at them.
So do you understand that while writing isn't necessary for a functioning society, once it becomes common place each individual needs to have it or get they placed at a massive disadvantage? Cell phones are the same - they're hardly essential to society as a whole, but once almost everyone has them then the few without are placed at a massive disadvantage.
And, well, when you want employment to be decided by ability and hard work, and not limited to the people who already have money, then you want to get rid of those disadvantages. Automatically Appended Next Post: djones520 wrote:If the best excuse that can be made to justify owning a cell phone over a land line is "someone might delete my answering machine messages", then there is no true excuse to justify it. There is no NEED to own a cell phone.
But hey, if someone wants to be thrifty with a $10 cell phone from Walmart, then that is perfectly acceptable as well. This whole thing is about living within your means.
A little while ago when McDonalds posted that unbelievably stupid budget that everyone made fun of... the one that had $600 monthly rent and no heating expense... it still included a cell phone.
You're being more ridiculous than one of the most ridiculous pieces of corporate cluelessness to come out in the last year. So stop it, please.
5534
Post by: dogma
easysauce wrote:
entertainment is not a necessity... you highlight yourself the complete disconnect that most people have between NEEDS (food, water, shelter, air, things nescessary to stay alive) and wants (everything else needed to increase one's enjoyment of life, but not nescessary at all)
Needs are predicated upon wants. For example, a person needs food, water, and shelter only because they want to stay alive. If you want to both stay alive, and be a functional member of society, then you also need to be sane. In order to be achieve sanity, or remain sane, you must be entertained. As most people want to be functional members of society, and most Western societies tend to be inclusive, entertainment can be classified as a necessity. That is, a thing which is necessary for the functioning of modern, Western societies.
easysauce wrote:
most often I see things like people complaining they cannot keep up with car payments... againa car is not a need, it is a luxury... the bus/subway/bike/ect will get you there much cheaper
There are many places in the US in which not owning a car either makes employment impossible, or significantly diminishes one's employment prospects.
I mean, I'm from one of the largest metropolitan areas in the nation and one of the first questions I was asked in post-collegiate interviews was "How do you intend to get to work?", often quickly followed by "I'm sorry, if you don't have a car we can't hire you."
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
I'm sorry Dogma, but a library card is free. Reading is entertainment. Therefore, some entertainment is free, and a TV/Internet does not need to come into living costs.
5534
Post by: dogma
-Shrike- wrote:I'm sorry Dogma, but a library card is free. Reading is entertainment. Therefore, some entertainment is free, and a TV/Internet does not need to come into living costs.
I never said that it did. I took issue with the notion that entertainment is not a necessity, as it plainly is. I mean, I even said that cable TV was not a necessity.
33125
Post by: Seaward
dogma wrote:-Shrike- wrote:I'm sorry Dogma, but a library card is free. Reading is entertainment. Therefore, some entertainment is free, and a TV/Internet does not need to come into living costs.
I never said that it did. I took issue with the notion that entertainment is not a necessity, as it plainly is. I mean, I even said that cable TV was not a necessity.
But cellphones are! Automatically Appended Next Post: azazel the cat wrote:You're either trolling or have become a complete idiot; either way I'll pander here:
-You fly planes and talk down about post-secondary education.
Can you point me to the post where I did that? I believe you're confusing me with someone else in this thread.
-The planes you fly were designed as a byproduct of a massive push for post-secondary education.
And that's just absurd. We were in the business of fighting wars via air power long before anybody started making the push for every American to go to college.
-The people who gained a post-secondary education were the ones who designed the planes that you fly.
A useful post-secondary education. They weren't designed by history and English majors.
In other words, it is very ironic that you hold such a negative position towards university, considering without such emphasis on universities in the past, your profession basically wouldn't exist and you'd be asking for a raise up to $15 per hour right now.
Well, you've got a point there. It's incredibly competitive to wind up getting aviation out of either the Academy or OCS. From there, it's incredibly competitive to get jets. From jets, it was (at the time) incredibly competitive to get Super Hornets over EA-6Bs or S-3s. But you've got a point. Without "such emphasis on universities in the past," people who fething land jets on aircraft carriers would be minimum wage earners. Because, really, all that separates them from you is a lucky break, right? You totally could've done something like that, if only it hadn't been for all those basketweaving classes or whatever.
But I think you knew all this from the first post I made, and instead have done that thing you do almost every time, wherein you play dumb whenever someone calls you on your foolishness.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Seaward wrote:A useful post-secondary education. They weren't designed by history and English majors.
Whilst the knowledge taught in such courses may not be directly useful to a lot of jobs, it is the skills learned which count for the value of the education received rather than, particularly, the subject studied. There are plenty of degrees which do not tie in directly with jobs but the people who undertake them are more employable, generally, in higher level roles than those who did not attend university.
33125
Post by: Seaward
SilverMK2 wrote:Whilst the knowledge taught in such courses may not be directly useful to a lot of jobs, it is the skills learned which count for the value of the education received rather than, particularly, the subject studied. There are plenty of degrees which do not tie in directly with jobs but the people who undertake them are more employable, generally, in higher level roles than those who did not attend university.
I understand that's what we liberal arts majors tell ourselves, but it quite simply isn't true. When I got out and wasn't getting that delicious Navy money anymore, I tried to make my history degree as appealing as possible when I was sending resumes around. Just like the thousands of other people out there with worthless BAs. I certainly wasn't hired for it.
Or...well, I'll let The Onion explain.
Company Immediately Calls Job Applicant Upon Seeing 'B.A. In Communications' On Résumé
5209
Post by: Baxx
20$ is a very low in my country Norway. I would expect most people working at restaurants earn at least that or more likely 22$ or more. I have the past 2 years without much education earned about 27$ per hour and would be disappointed with anything less.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Seaward wrote: SilverMK2 wrote:Whilst the knowledge taught in such courses may not be directly useful to a lot of jobs, it is the skills learned which count for the value of the education received rather than, particularly, the subject studied. There are plenty of degrees which do not tie in directly with jobs but the people who undertake them are more employable, generally, in higher level roles than those who did not attend university.
I understand that's what we liberal arts majors tell ourselves, but it quite simply isn't true. When I got out and wasn't getting that delicious Navy money anymore, I tried to make my history degree as appealing as possible when I was sending resumes around. Just like the thousands of other people out there with worthless BAs. I certainly wasn't hired for it.
Or...well, I'll let The Onion explain.
Company Immediately Calls Job Applicant Upon Seeing 'B.A. In Communications' On Résumé
Do we really need a STEM vs. Liberal Arts debate? It reminds me of the "Mommy Wars" and "Generational Wars" stuff. Just pointless.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Seaward wrote:I understand that's what we liberal arts majors tell ourselves
Speak for yourself, I have two masters in engineering
but it quite simply isn't true. When I got out and wasn't getting that delicious Navy money anymore, I tried to make my history degree as appealing as possible when I was sending resumes around. Just like the thousands of other people out there with worthless BAs. I certainly wasn't hired for it.
There are certainly a lot of people with degrees out there, that does not invalidate the point that demonstrating you are capable of working to a higher level of competence by obtaining a degree does make you, generally, more employable for some types of jobs. The ammount of degree holders out there has had an affect on the entry requirements for a lot of jobs; there are now plenty who would, 15-20 years ago, have taken on someone straight from highschool who now require you to have a degree. Some of that will be the number of people with them increasing, some of it will be the increasing demands and targets etc that those roles have.
1206
Post by: Easy E
SilverMK2 wrote: Seaward wrote:There are certainly a lot of people with degrees out there, that does not invalidate the point that demonstrating you are capable of working to a higher level of competence by obtaining a degree does make you, generally, more employable for some types of jobs. The ammount of degree holders out there has had an affect on the entry requirements for a lot of jobs; there are now plenty who would, 15-20 years ago, have taken on someone straight from highschool who now require you to have a degree. Some of that will be the number of people with them increasing, some of it will be the increasing demands and targets etc that those roles have.
and some of it is how easy it is for a HR program (or unpaid intern) to weed out non-degree vs. degree apllicants.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Easy E wrote: Seaward wrote: SilverMK2 wrote:Whilst the knowledge taught in such courses may not be directly useful to a lot of jobs, it is the skills learned which count for the value of the education received rather than, particularly, the subject studied. There are plenty of degrees which do not tie in directly with jobs but the people who undertake them are more employable, generally, in higher level roles than those who did not attend university.
I understand that's what we liberal arts majors tell ourselves, but it quite simply isn't true. When I got out and wasn't getting that delicious Navy money anymore, I tried to make my history degree as appealing as possible when I was sending resumes around. Just like the thousands of other people out there with worthless BAs. I certainly wasn't hired for it.
Or...well, I'll let The Onion explain.
Company Immediately Calls Job Applicant Upon Seeing 'B.A. In Communications' On Résumé
Do we really need a STEM vs. Liberal Arts debate? It reminds me of the "Mommy Wars" and "Generational Wars" stuff. Just pointless.
Well starting salaries for Chemical Engineering students is $80,000 at one institution. Art History...not so much...
Amazingly my boy is now a Chemical Engineering student...
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Baxx wrote:20$ is a very low in my country Norway. I would expect most people working at restaurants earn at least that or more likely 22$ or more. I have the past 2 years without much education earned about 27$ per hour and would be disappointed with anything less.
You say that, but I have to consider the value of your currency, the pricing structure of everyday goods in Norway,etc.
Also, one has to consider what you pay in taxes, and what you get in return? I mean, does the average Norwegian get free health care? what about your utilities, what do they cost? According to XE.com 1 USD is worth about 6.09 NOKs. This should also give people an idea that for the same level of "spending power" in Norway, you'd necessarily need more money.
5209
Post by: Baxx
What do you pay in taxes?
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
If I'm lucky? The government pays me back. This past year I got 1600 dollars returned to me from the State of Ohio and the US Federal Government, my local city took 300 dollars from me. Note: This is from a single taxpayer with no dependents that makes a little more than what these fast food workers are asking to have their minimum wages raised to. Also I got a chunk back from the federal government because I could write off chunks of my education. Next year I expect 250 from the state and 500 from the Federal government (if I'm lucky)
59176
Post by: Mathieu Raymond
Right now I pay myself 12$/hour, I only declare 35 hours a week and end up with 460$ bi-weekly, net. So Gross is 840$, net is 460$, I pay about 45% taxes. It's not all income taxes, though, as a wee bit goes to mandated UI, Provincial retirement fund (which should be bankrupt by the time I get to the age where I'd need it)
Quebec workers pay taxes to both their provincial government and federal government. Last time I checked, we were the only province to do so, it might have changed in the last few years, so don't hold me to that.
That money doesn't go very far... I do hope to find a job in a high school to supplement that. Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and since we have a little old lady doing the taxes for us... I rarely get anything back. When I did them on my own I might get a few hundreds from each government back come tax time.
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
Frazzled wrote:You're just being a capitalist running dog. All wages must be raised for all oppressed workers. For too long have the 1%ers kept their foot on the neck of the American Worker. RIse up and take back whats yours you Patriots!
I thought oppressed workers lived in India, Vietnam, China, Indonesia, and Mylamar making shoes, socks, and hoodies for the American Middle Class?
68355
Post by: easysauce
dogma wrote: easysauce wrote:
entertainment is not a necessity... you highlight yourself the complete disconnect that most people have between NEEDS (food, water, shelter, air, things nescessary to stay alive) and wants (everything else needed to increase one's enjoyment of life, but not nescessary at all)
Needs are predicated upon wants. For example, a person needs food, water, and shelter only because they want to stay alive. If you want to both stay alive, and be a functional member of society, then you also need to be sane. In order to be achieve sanity, or remain sane, you must be entertained. As most people want to be functional members of society, and most Western societies tend to be inclusive, entertainment can be classified as a necessity. That is, a thing which is necessary for the functioning of modern, Western societies.
easysauce wrote:
most often I see things like people complaining they cannot keep up with car payments... againa car is not a need, it is a luxury... the bus/subway/bike/ect will get you there much cheaper
There are many places in the US in which not owning a car either makes employment impossible, or significantly diminishes one's employment prospects.
I mean, I'm from one of the largest metropolitan areas in the nation and one of the first questions I was asked in post-collegiate interviews was "How do you intend to get to work?", often quickly followed by "I'm sorry, if you don't have a car we can't hire you."
you dont know what a "need" is at all... they are not predicated upon wants.... they are NEEDS,
wants are predicated on needs, not the other way around...
people do not need food/water/shelter because they want to stay alive... they need those things regardless of their wants... even if they want to die, they still need food/water/shelter.
that is so preposterous, and then you go on to say how entertainment is a need, which is most certainly is not, and I already explained how an ABUNDANCE of high class entertainement, full net acces, every book ever written, and lots of DVDs/movies/music is available for FREE from your local library.
most community halls also offer free soccer/baseball/ect programs
if your sanity is so precrious you cannot maintain it without your own personal cable TV, then it is a sad state of affairs you live in.
you NEED food to live, you need to live, want doesnt factor into it. I had plenty of jobs, where they "required" a car, where i just said I had a car, and took the bus to work.
but what would I know?
Im just a guy who started off on minimum wage, and worked my way up from there.
not like I have any experiance being dirt poor or anything.
maybe all that awesome free entertainment from the library i enjoyed for all those years wasnt "real" entertainment, and I just went insane.
Automatically Appended Next Post: azazel the cat wrote:You're either trolling or have become a complete idiot; either way I'll pander here:
quite insulting, you should adhere to a higher standard then insulting someone or accusing them of trolling when they OBS are not.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I needs me to disco!
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Mathieu Raymond wrote: Right now I pay myself 12$/hour, I only declare 35 hours a week and end up with 460$ bi-weekly, net. So Gross is 840$, net is 460$, I pay about 45% taxes. It's not all income taxes, though, as a wee bit goes to mandated UI, Provincial retirement fund (which should be bankrupt by the time I get to the age where I'd need it) Quebec workers pay taxes to both their provincial government and federal government. Last time I checked, we were the only province to do so, it might have changed in the last few years, so don't hold me to that. That money doesn't go very far... I do hope to find a job in a high school to supplement that. Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and since we have a little old lady doing the taxes for us... I rarely get anything back. When I did them on my own I might get a few hundreds from each government back come tax time. Something's awfully wrong with those numbers, or you are in some sort of special bracket I never want to set foot in. 12$/Hour, 35 hours a week should get you a taxation rate of 16% prov, 15% fed. Montreal's municipal taxes only go as high as 13% for appartment buildings (I looked at Rosemont, assuming it would be the highest).
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Crazy frenchies
4374
Post by: Spacemanvic
Baxx wrote:20$ is a very low in my country Norway. I would expect most people working at restaurants earn at least that or more likely 22$ or more. I have the past 2 years without much education earned about 27$ per hour and would be disappointed with anything less.
How much does a gallon of milk or a gallon of gas (petrol) cost in Norway?
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Spacemanvic wrote:
How much does a gallon of milk or a gallon of gas (petrol) cost in Norway?
according to a search i did, its around 9.63 per gallon (in USD), but apparently with their tax structures, the additional funds coming from that fuel cost goes into other services available to citizens.
http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2013-02-13/highest-cheapest-gas-prices-by-country.html#slide3
4374
Post by: Spacemanvic
And I think a gallon of milk comes out to about $11.75 USD.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Yeah, like I said, there are differences between conversion rates as well as taxation to consider...
I'm not saying Norwegian money has less value than the USD, or GBP, it's just that comparing what a person makes in one country compared to another isn't really the best argument to make.
5470
Post by: sebster
cincydooley wrote:But they're quasi-celebrities that get paid to be on those shows. That's what teenagers see, sadly, and not those difficulties.
That doesn't make the show repugnant, just the celebrity culture that surrounds it.
When I was in highschool they showed us a documentary about a girl who'd had a kid, and how her life got put on hold and she dropped out of school to deal with constant nappy changes and a crying baby. It was a pretty effective means of discouraging teen pregnancy, and largely no different to that Teen Moms show. Automatically Appended Next Post: -Shrike- wrote:I'm sorry Dogma, but a library card is free. Reading is entertainment. Therefore, some entertainment is free, and a TV/Internet does not need to come into living costs.
Seriously, you live in one of the richest countries on earth, and are engaging in a debate about whether working people should be paid enough to be able to afford a tv. Incredible.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I do believe in gas in Europe. They pay by the Liter while we pay for by the gallon. So a gallon to us is $4 but to them a liter is $4
5470
Post by: sebster
Baxx wrote:20$ is a very low in my country Norway. I would expect most people working at restaurants earn at least that or more likely 22$ or more. I have the past 2 years without much education earned about 27$ per hour and would be disappointed with anything less.
Are you talking in krone or euro or converting to USD? Because in krone that's a very low number.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Jihadin wrote:I do believe in gas in Europe. They pay by the Liter while we pay for by the gallon. So a gallon to us is $4 but to them a liter is $4
yep, which also explains why its so fething expensive to get fuel over there.... The one thing they did right, IMO, at least in Germany where I was, diesel was cheaper at the pump than the regular stuff (its too bad i didnt have my diesel jetta until i was back in the states)
5470
Post by: sebster
Ensis Ferrae wrote:I'm not saying Norwegian money has less value than the USD, or GBP, it's just that comparing what a person makes in one country compared to another isn't really the best argument to make.
There's a thing called purchasing power parity which does it, actually. Basically they take a basket of goods that more or less represents what the average consumer buys, and sees how much it costs in each country.
23
Post by: djones520
sebster wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote:I'm not saying Norwegian money has less value than the USD, or GBP, it's just that comparing what a person makes in one country compared to another isn't really the best argument to make.
There's a thing called purchasing power parity which does it, actually. Basically they take a basket of goods that more or less represents what the average consumer buys, and sees how much it costs in each country.
Yeah, and Norway is about 44% higher then the US I believe. And Norway (well all of those countries) doesn't have a national minimum wage.
5470
Post by: sebster
djones520 wrote:Yeah, and Norway is about 44% higher then the US I believe. And Norway (well all of those countries) doesn't have a national minimum wage.
Yeah, the cost of goods in krone is about 8 or 9 times what it is in USD, which as about a 50% increase over the direct exchange rate. Basically, if you were earning $10 in the US then you'd need to earn about 90krn to have the same living standard.
Well, more or less, as then there'd be healthcare and stuff like that which would be covered in Norway, but not in the US, but the rate above is close enough for government work.
And yeah, there's no minimum wage in Norway, as powerful unions negotiate for each industry. I'm not sure you guys would be willing to let that happen in the US
23
Post by: djones520
Unions had their hay day, and their on their way out. From what I just read, it seems like that in Europe as well. Even some of the more unionized countries are seeing drastic drops.
|
|