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

Workers of the World Unite!

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 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.

$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

I'm all for a living minimum wage. Best of luck to the fast food workers striking at the fat clogged heart of America.

 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

 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!

 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.

 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

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!

 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.

 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!

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.

 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?

 pities2004 wrote:
Fast food is not a career and should not be paid like one.

This.

 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!

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...

 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?

 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

 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.

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.

 daedalus wrote:
On the other hand, 15/hour

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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"

oh ok.

Oh I forgot Workers of the World Unite!

 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

@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.

In Toronto fast food workers earn $10.25-11.00 per hour.

$15 is pretty laughable though.

 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?

 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.

I wonder how many "strikers" will get fired. Pretty sure you dont get much strike protection when your non union

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

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.

Why is that spamming. I am just showing support like you are.

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.

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.

 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

 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

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.

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

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

since your not from america frogg you might not understand that the solution to all of our problems is to screw the middle class

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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?

 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

 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

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

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?

 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

15$ an hour for flipping burgers? Just fire them all on the spot and bring on the next batch!

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.

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.

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
I say abolish the minimum wage, and then let's sort it out.

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...

 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....

 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.

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.

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?

 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.

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.

 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.

 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..."

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...

I thought BK already did that when you went through the dirve through. I am now surprised.

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.

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.

Id be more worried about the blowback in your burger if they don't get it?

 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...

 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.

 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.

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?

 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?

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

Think of all the confiscated terlit sangria!

 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

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

 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

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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...

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

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.

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.

 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

 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)

 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.

You guys realize that a lot of trades still require post-secondary education.

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.

 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:

 cincydooley wrote:
Honesty, studying sweden as a model for the United States is pointless.

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.

 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"

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

You could just stop going to fast food ;-). It's Better for you in the long run anyways

 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.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
For an air force pilot (that is you, right?)

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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?

 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.

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.

 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 ).

 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.

 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.

 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!

 sebster wrote:
The median age of fast food workers in the US is 28.

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.

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.

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.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Minimum wage jobs are not supposed to be a career.

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.

 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......

Livable wage shouldnt include 4 kids, cable, cell phones, or tons of other assorted gak that people figure in.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

No, no, the poor are weak and should be punished for it. It's Uncle Sam's, and by extension, God's will. Duh.

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.

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.

 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.

 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?

 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

 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

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.

Fact: Soviet Russia was not a socialist democracy.

Not relevant.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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?

http://www.fidelity.com/inside-fidelity/individual-investing/fidelity-2012-millionaire-outlook

That was millionaires. Billionaires, 70% are self made.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49167533

 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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not relevant.

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.

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.

 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.

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

 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:

 cincydooley wrote:
Further, a single part time job is not intended to support a family.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

HAs anyone blames the tacos or the burgers yet? It's their fault workers wages are so low.

 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?

 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.

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?

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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/

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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)

 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?

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!

 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.

 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....

 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.

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.

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.

 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.