Fast food workers in walkout to demand double the pay...

[Glen Contrarian]

comparing Costco to fast food is a very unfair comparison first Costco only has one competitor there are dozens of fast food restaurants competing for that lunch dollar
McDonalds doesn't charge you a yearly fee to eat there

Doesn't matter - what DOES matter is the turnover rate, as was demonstrated in the study.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

My mother was married to a raving alcoholic, and when I was 9, she kicked him out. She had to take three jobs, and basically starve herself. When I was 16, I worked 30 hours a week at a drugstore while in high school to help with the bills. I don't know what it's like to be a "normal" teenager, because I was too busy working and being the one who did the chores at home (when I could have been having a nice childhood). There were strings of days where I never saw my mother at all, despite living in the same house.

So if you're bringing up the "knowing about being a single parent" bit, you're cordially invited to kiss my rosy-red ass, and make it sexy. Don't tell me about you and "your wife's" hardships. At least you had each other. My mother was alone with a kid. She had to hire a lawyer (with money she didn't have) to track the alcoholic down, just to squeeze $100/month in child support, and even that was hard to get out of him, because he was always trying to avoid it.

I think you need to stop soon, before you really make an ass out of yourself, because now you're getting personal as well as losing the argument.

And I suppose you think you've had it harder than anyone else? Guy, I had it easier than you - a LOT easier, and I've got no problem admitting that. But I deal with a lot of people who had it a lot HARDER than you (try living in a third-world country sometime), and if there's one thing I've learned, it's not to assume that others have had it harder or easier than you, and not to assume that if someone's working in a crappy job, that it's because they're not worth much more than that job pays.

 

[Mach]

"no one made them become single mothers"? Yeah, guys NEVER leave a girl once she becomes pregnant or has a baby, huh? Guys NEVER divorce a woman because they've found someone else, and women NEVER leave a man to get out of an abusive relationship.
Yep! It's always the WOMAN'S fault, I guess!

What are you on about? The thread is about workers attempting to negotiate higher wages by not showing up for work, assisted by unions and tax-advantaged clergy.

What is all this Woman's fault nonsense? How is it relevant to the OP? If you do NOT think having a child is the responsibility of the woman because of guys leaving single mothers, then reasonably one may conclude you also think it's equally the father's fault. OK, there are dead beat dad laws, child support, etc. And if in your area there are not, then you could you know, promote that, rather than absurdly try and tie this to fast food worker strikers...
Focus...

and not to assume that if someone's working in a crappy job, that it's because they're not worth much more than that job pays.

No one I know, and certainly no public policy or tax or contract I'm aware of, declares that a human is only "worth" what their job pays. A job pays a wage and possibly benefits. That's all. Trying to conflate that to "what a human is worth" is absurd and insulting.

 

[GottaGo]

"no one made them become single mothers"? Yeah, guys NEVER leave a girl once she becomes pregnant or has a baby, huh? Guys NEVER divorce a woman because they've found someone else, and women NEVER leave a man to get out of an abusive relationship.

Yep! It's always the WOMAN'S fault, I guess!

And those that follow through should be receiving child support. Males need to take responsibility for their actions also, married or not.

I never said it's always the woman's fault, I said they made choices...... and again, why should 'I' have to pay for those choices?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I find your posts to have no value... at all. Because they are so far removed from the reality of the large majority of cases out there. But it is understandable that most self labeled 'progressives' refuse the path of personal responsibility in themselves and others.

Yeah, it's really 'removed from reality' to think that there are actually women out there who wound up being single mothers after the guy left them.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

And those that follow through should be receiving child support. Males need to take responsibility for their actions also, married or not.

I never said it's always the woman's fault, I said they made choices...... and again, why should 'I' have to pay for those choices?

Problem is, there's a whole lot of men out there who don't pay their child support.

And YOU pay anyway. No matter what, you're going to pay anyway, whether through slightly higher prices at McDonald's...or through slightly higher taxes to pay for the social safety net...or - if there's no safety net - through higher taxes for more prisons, more police, lower property values, and decreased funding from those lower property values for things like schools.

You're going to pay anyway, no matter what. The only choice lay in HOW you're going to pay. Me, I prefer the first choice - I'd much rather pay an extra twenty-five cents per item at McDonald's in order for the workers to not have to depend on food stamps to feed their kids.

 

[Sisyphus]

Where's the beef? Fast-food workers in walkout to protest low wages | Fox News




$15 bucks an hour? It's ******* fast food you idiots! If you want a job to live on, one that is now a 'starter' job for any moron, then get out of flipping burgers and asking 'do you want fries with that'. Good lord.

As if it takes enough skill or work to warrant that kind of money. The entitlement mentality generation for sure. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Works in ND: McDonald’s Employee Wages: Can They Pay $15 An Hour? Short Answer Is Yes

 

[Glen Contrarian]

What are you on about? The thread is about workers attempting to negotiate higher wages by not showing up for work, assisted by unions and tax-advantaged clergy.

What is all this Woman's fault nonsense? How is it relevant to the OP? If you do NOT think having a child is the responsibility of the woman because of guys leaving single mothers, then reasonably one may conclude you also think it's equally the father's fault. OK, there are dead beat dad laws, child support, etc. And if in your area there are not, then you could you know, promote that, rather than absurdly try and tie this to fast food worker strikers...
Focus...


No one I know, and certainly no public policy or tax or contract I'm aware of, declares that a human is only "worth" what their job pays. A job pays a wage and possibly benefits. That's all. Trying to conflate that to "what a human is worth" is absurd and insulting.

In every forum I've ever been on in the past fifteen years, it's pretty rare for a thread of any significant size to not go off on tangents only partially related - or even wholly unrelated - to the original topic.

And when it comes to paying a living wage, I suggest you go read "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, who many have referred to as the "Father of Capitalism":

Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged. Smith, Adam Wealth of Nations, I .viii.36

 

[Mr X]

Regardless of whether it's an entry level job, it should pay enough for someone to survive on.
I say well done to these employees trying to negotiate a better wage; it shows initiative on their part.

 

[GottaGo]

Problem is, there's a whole lot of men out there who don't pay their child support.

And YOU pay anyway. No matter what, you're going to pay anyway, whether through slightly higher prices at McDonald's...or through slightly higher taxes to pay for the social safety net...or - if there's no safety net - through higher taxes for more prisons, more police, lower property values, and decreased funding from those lower property values for things like schools.

You're going to pay anyway, no matter what. The only choice lay in HOW you're going to pay. Me, I prefer the first choice - I'd much rather pay an extra twenty-five cents per item at McDonald's in order for the workers to not have to depend on food stamps to feed their kids.

We already pay for that social safety net.... and don't fool yourself to think that it's going to disappear just because there is an increase in minimum wage.

If Mickey D's increases what they pay in minimum, then so will many others... and the price increases all around in COGs will drive up the prices for other goods as well.... therefore $15 becomes the new minimum wage, and we're back to the same issue again.

Those that don't do anything to increase their own value in the employment marketplace will always remain on the bottom tier... and need that social safety net..... which everybody else pays for.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Doesn't matter - what DOES matter is the turnover rate, as was demonstrated in the study.

Who does the turnover rate matter to in this discussion?

 

[Gipper]

Flint, Mich.

I grew up just outside of Flint, Michigan. People at those fast food joints just better be damned thankful that they have any job. When I left the state for good, the unemployment rate in Genesee County was a sliver over 16%.

I say let them all leave. They'll be replaced before they heft the first picket sign.

 

[Sisyphus]

We already pay for that social safety net.... and don't fool yourself to think that it's going to disappear just because there is an increase in minimum wage.

If Mickey D's increases what they pay in minimum, then so will many others... and the price increases all around in COGs will drive up the prices for other goods as well.... therefore $15 becomes the new minimum wage, and we're back to the same issue again.

Those that don't do anything to increase their own value in the employment marketplace will always remain on the bottom tier... and need that social safety net..... which everybody else pays for.

You're overlooking demand-side, which makes COGS a smaller percentage of gross revenue as sales numbers are increased, since only direct labor cost increase and not materials cost, per se.

Plus, to suggest that a doubling of the minimum wage will create 100% inflation is both ludicrous and ignores that spikes in the inflation rate have never paralleled inflation, including when the FMW was raised by over 80%.

 

[GottaGo]

You're overlooking demand-side, which makes COGS a smaller percentage of gross revenue as sales numbers are increased, since only direct labor cost increase and not materials cost, per se.

And you're ignoring that fact that those who manufacture those COGs will also end up increasing the base wages, which will increase the overall COGs for virtually every industry. Indirect labor costs also increase, along with increases in wage related insurances (worker's comp) and company paid taxes. All which will have an affect on the final price paid by the consumer.

Plus, to suggest that a doubling of the minimum wage will create 100% inflation is both ludicrous and ignores that spikes in the inflation rate have never paralleled inflation, including when the FMW was raised by over 80%.

Exactly where did I indicate there would be 100% inflation? Please quote it.

 

[Sisyphus]

And you're ignoring that fact that those who manufacture those COGs will also end up increasing the base wages, which will increase the overall COGs for virtually every industry. Indirect labor costs also increase, along with increases in wage related insurances (worker's comp) and company paid taxes. All which will have an affect on the final price paid by the consumer.

Exactly where did I indicate there would be 100% inflation? Please quote it.

Only if they're also bottom-feeders, with a labor force that it primarily at or very near the Federal Minimum.

 

[Sisyphus]

And you're ignoring that fact that those who manufacture those COGs will also end up increasing the base wages, which will increase the overall COGs for virtually every industry. Indirect labor costs also increase, along with increases in wage related insurances (worker's comp) and company paid taxes. All which will have an affect on the final price paid by the consumer.

Exactly where did I indicate there would be 100% inflation? Please quote it.

In your post, albeit indirectly. The only way inflation would render a doubling in wages moot would be if it paralleled the wage increase: 100% inflation.

But it does not track that way, since people do not buy the same stuff with more money; they buy more stuff. (Unit and Dollar demand increase). And the ratio in favor of the demand side is stark. Under Bush 43 (well done Mr. President; I wish Obama followed you lead) we raise if over 40% in 24 months' time (3 year installment). And obviously, we had nowhere near a 40% inflationary increase during that time. In fact, under Bush 43, inflation averaged only 0.24% higher than under Clinton, when the FMW remained flat at $5.10 / hr. Here's the historical data on that:

 

[OscarB63]

there will always be some people who always have to work at these" starter" jobs

like there will always be sweepers ,cleaners etc.

what happened to " not everybody is equal in this world "?

some people who dont have needed qualifications to work in well paid jobs have to work in such fast food places to earn their lives during their lifetimes and so they have to be paid what they deserve

if you don't have any qualifications to do anything other than flip burgers..... minimum wage IS all you deserve.

 

[Lukas105]

If this does pass, You can expect the price of fast food to double. . .

They can try it. It's a free country. I don't think they're going to get anything since the jobs they're doing aren't worth twice what they're getting paid, but they can try. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, right?

 

[Mach]

In every forum I've ever been on in the past fifteen years

That most threads conflate issues, go off topic, and are riddled with logical fallacies does not refute what I wrote, nor does it provide reasoning for your claims.

And when it comes to paying a living wage, I suggest you go read

So your rebuttal is that I should read something you want me to about living wages? I thought this was a debate forum, silly me! Again, if deadbeat dads is your issue with fast food worker wages, then you're being absurd. One would reasonable conclude that you would be promoting responsible sex/having children, a parental structure that can support their children and grandchildren, as well as the very important laws that help ensure a father takes equal responsibility, at least financially, for their children.

 

[Sisyphus]

If this does pass, You can expect the price of fast food to double. . .

Why? Did you know the last series of increases totaled an over 40% rise in the FMW, and the cost increase of the Big Mac actually slowed, and went below the historical trend in Big Mac inflation?

Looky here:

 

[Arbo]

Yeah, it's really 'removed from reality' to think that there are actually women out there who wound up being single mothers after the guy left them.

If a father leaves, it does not remove the financial responsibility. But fathers leaving is probably a small portion of the issue. But thanks for continuing to REFUSE to put any responsibility on the mothers. Your posts are worthless, but very predictable.

 

[OscarB63]

Why? Did you know the last series of increases totaled an over 40% rise in the FMW, and the cost increase of the Big Mac actually slowed, and went below the historical trend in Big Mac inflation?

Looky here:

let's do some simple math.

1986:

the price of a big mac was $1.60
minimum wage was $3.35

2011:

the price of a big mac was $3.80
minimum wage was $7.25

minimum wage increased by a factor of 2.16
price of a big mac increased by a factor of 2.37

minimum wage doubled.....price of a big mac doubled :shrug:

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I will; agree that minimum wage in certain areas is OK. If you can get full time employment on minimum wage in certain rural areas you can get by. There is a problem with how companies do avoid hiring full time work in lower positions which makes it a bit more of a problem, but if you do live within your means and do not go out and get into huge debt or spend on bling you can live ok on minimum wage. The reality is that low end workers become even more of a necessity in high traffic areas like cities where the cost of living always goes up. So it is important that workers in cities and even in many suberbs get compensated higher as they do make more money for the company and provide the company with the ability to operate those locations which are much more desirable. I can see that an across the board rise in minumum wage would not be a solution.

I honestly think that right there is the biggest and most sickening problem low wage workers face. Way worse than the problem of their wages (which I do agree are too low even in general -- I just think $15 is a little insane, that's all).

A lot of people wind up taking on 2 or 3 jobs to try to make up for that, but they basically never sleep because their schedules are nuts, they don't get any health care because all of their jobs are keeping them just under the line for full-time benefits, and they often don't even get any PTO at all. It's just awful. They work like hell for chump change and can't even go to the doctor for the ailments it's causing them.

 

[Mach]

The price of the big mac, inflation, etc., is irrelevant. Private companies do not exist to minimize inflation, or maximize the liberal propaganda, or conservative goals, etc. Interfering with the markets for emotional (and fallacious) reasons like living wage, deserve, etc., is wrong and should be opposed. Either we have a high degree of economic freedom and only change legitimate externalities, or we reject that economic freedom is a virtue, is an inalienable right, etc., and we oppose being economically free and agree that centrally controlled, government parties know best how we should spend our own money.

It's also absurd that we already do provide enormous, staggering amounts of money in order to help all children get the education they need, presumably to succeed in our modern marketplace. If you have issues with people NOT graduating, or NOT being prepared despite our education system, you should IMO be discussing the 800lb gorilla in the room that is you know...public education. If that many people are only qualified to work at fast food joints, you blame the wealthy, and not the people who were charged with ensuring they take advantage of our amazing economic opportunities in this country? That's terrible management. To be expected?

If people simply don't want to work hard enough to learn new skills and get a better job, I also do not want to sink my money into rewarding them for making their own life choices with my own earnings. I don't agree with 99% of peoples life choices, but then, it's really none of my business. That is, until you force -me to subsidize their, according to you, poor life choices.

 

[Mach]

I honestly think that right there is the biggest and most sickening problem low wage workers face. Way worse than the problem of their wages (which I do agree are too low even in general -- I just think $15 is a little insane, that's all). A lot of people wind up taking on 2 or 3 jobs to try to make up for that, but they basically never sleep because their schedules are nuts, they don't get any health care because all of their jobs are keeping them just under the line for full-time benefits, and they often don't even get any PTO at all. It's just awful. They work like hell for chump change and can't even go to the doctor for the ailments it's causing them.

How did they get to 18 without having been prepared? Why not hold the parties that were responsible for that, to blame, and punish them? Why do we immediately seek to punish the businesses that have successfully AVOIDED such failures? I'm not saying some people are unprepared, the question is why, given our massive public expenditures on public education, is this tolerated?

If I hired someone to tutor my daughter for 18 years, and in 18 years she was only qualified/capable of getting a job flipping burgers, would you really freaking think it's the god damned BURGER JOINT"s fault!?! That's outrageous? I would blame the parents and the tutor with the vast majority of the responsibility. Appropriately so!

So riddle me this. What if a political party like oh the democrats, put blame, just as any parent should, on themselves and on the individuals partially responsible for their child's preparedness? Do you think they would risk their political career by blaming their constituents, or do you think they would blame everyone else and try to get everyone else to pay for it, validating their constituents behavior while putting the cherry on top with forcing others to pay for their mistake? That's how the liberal political machine works, it's got a long documented history of this, it's not conspiracy FOX news crap, it's in American History text books (I had that in 10th grade I believe).

The system of using politicians to manage public education therefore CANNOT function rationally. It CANNOT self-correct, because it would mean telling their own base that they are at fault and they have to pay. This is why government should get out of such business to that degree, not because government is bad, but because there are clear, obvious operational issues with how it's set up. No business would survive such gross mismanagement.