Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.