In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On May 22 2015 09:46 Aveng3r wrote: I haven't understood any of your responses
McDonald's employees are generally those without a huge amount of alternatives. Your argument is that people who work at McDonald's and can't support a family should just choose to work somewhere that pays better. "Well why don't the people without choices just exercise more choices" is literally the same as "why don't the poor buy more money" in terms of massively failing to understand the problem.
Mcdonald's is not the perfect example, because a lot of mcdonald's are owner operators (due to franchise business model), a lot of them are "small businesses".
On May 22 2015 10:52 heliusx wrote: Don't worry guys the taxpayer will pick up the slack...
yeah, this is actually the bigger problem, mcdonald, walmart, etc are essentially loading their lack of pay on the gov't, because their workers will often have to apply for gov't assistance, which puts a huge strain on the gov't, all without creating a larger tax pool because they don't pay their employee's jack shit.
On May 22 2015 10:53 wei2coolman wrote: Mcdonald's is not the perfect example, because a lot of mcdonald's are owner operators (due to franchise business model), a lot of them are "small businesses".
On May 22 2015 10:52 heliusx wrote: Don't worry guys the taxpayer will pick up the slack...
yeah, this is actually the bigger problem, mcdonald, walmart, etc are essentially loading their lack of pay on the gov't, because their workers will often have to apply for gov't assistance, which puts a huge strain on the gov't, all without creating a larger tax pool because they don't pay their employee's jack shit.
Yeah... sort of but not really. They have remarkably little autonomy when it comes to business decisions beyond employment. They have been screaming to high heaven to corporate about the Dollar menu to which corporate says "tough, there's another McD's a few blocks down and they are fine and so are their franchise fees."
On May 22 2015 10:20 zlefin wrote: Whether federal minimum wage is enough to support yourself (certainly not anyone other than yourself) with a 40-hour workweek would depend on the location, due to cost of living variation. In many major cities it would not be enough.
It takes 2-3 40hr weeks on federal minimum wage in most places (let alone a major city) just to pay rent and basic utilities on an apartment.
2 40hr Weeks @ $7.25 is $580 before they take anything out. If you're under 20 they can actually pay you $4.25 an hour for your first 90 days ($340 for 80 hrs of work).
On May 22 2015 08:51 Aveng3r wrote: Seems to be some kind of rally petitioning McDonald's to pay their workers more
Pretty stupid. If you want a wage that you can support a family on then dont work at fucking mcdonalds.
The point is that, because of economic and/or personal circumstances, many people are forced to attempt to support a family while working at McDonalds, and therein lies the problem. Job availability and standard hiring practices among many of the "borderline" living wage jobs are not so good for many of those looking to support a family without a college education, usually with poor family planning and financial sense menacing in the background as well. That's how these folks end up at McDonalds and Dollar General, trying to patch together sub 10 dollar hourly wages in order to meet basic living costs.
now what you just said makes sense. but what I don't get is why everyone else in here now wants to place the burden on mcdonalds to compensate for its workforces poor decisions. Like mcdonalds is a corporation that relies on cheap labor to drive their whole business model, why should they be forced to increase the wages they pay because of its workforces poor life decisions?
I feel for the guy that works at mcdonalds trying to support a family, but it's his fault if he lk had a kid or whatever without the wherewithal to support it.
Everyone can also stand to be a little less condescending in here, thanks.
lol you opened with people wanting a living wage is stupid, little late to get indignant about people being condescending.
You make it sound like McDonalds doesn't manipulate those people to make them think there is a future at McDonalds too.
Grow With Us McDonald’s gives you the tools you need to succeed, whether it’s the chance to own your own restaurant or tackle the corporate ladder. To be the best company we can, we have to offer the best opportunities, and we’d like to believe that some of the best ones around are right here.
I think I missed the part where they said if you keep working here people will call you stupid if you want a living wage.
alright. I think we both know that people wanting a livable wage isn't stupid. But expecting that working a cash register or flipping burgers will pay you enough to support a family is. It's a job for high school students.
Which brings me to kwark. I contend that there are alternItives. I work with 4 Mexican guys that barely speak English and we all do just fine, because we work on a golf course doing manual labor. Now I realize this is just one example and different places offer different opportunites/challenges as far as earning decent money, but I just don't ever buy that there is NO way for people to do better than working at mcdonalds. Hell, being a cashier at giant pays 9.50
I also contend that a lot of people "stuck" in minimum wage jobs are there because of poor financial responsibility, as farvacola said. So many times at giant I would see people using food stamps or wic checks to buy expensive food that clearly would not have been in a reasonable budget.
So all this considered, in a lot of cases, no, I don't have any sympathy for people who work at mcdonalds and are struggling. I say that their poor life choices and financial management are their fault and it's unfair to punish the corporation by forcing them to pay more.
On May 22 2015 10:53 wei2coolman wrote: Mcdonald's is not the perfect example, because a lot of mcdonald's are owner operators (due to franchise business model), a lot of them are "small businesses".
On May 22 2015 10:52 heliusx wrote: Don't worry guys the taxpayer will pick up the slack...
yeah, this is actually the bigger problem, mcdonald, walmart, etc are essentially loading their lack of pay on the gov't, because their workers will often have to apply for gov't assistance, which puts a huge strain on the gov't, all without creating a larger tax pool because they don't pay their employee's jack shit.
Yeah... sort of but not really. They have remarkably little autonomy when it comes to business decisions beyond employment. They have been screaming to high heaven to corporate about the Dollar menu to which corporate says "tough, there's another McD's a few blocks down and they are fine and so are their franchise fees."
It's not about autonomy, it's about money. The main Mcd's only gets a portion of that, so it's not like the main company is in charge of hiring of burgerflippers and cashiers. Nor does McD's pay from these franchised store go towards any of that. So most of it should be on the owner operators, not McD's. With the obvious exception of the restaurants that are actually owned by McD's.
On May 22 2015 10:20 zlefin wrote: Whether federal minimum wage is enough to support yourself (certainly not anyone other than yourself) with a 40-hour workweek would depend on the location, due to cost of living variation. In many major cities it would not be enough.
It takes 2-3 40hr weeks on federal minimum wage in most places (let alone a major city) just to pay rent and basic utilities on an apartment.
2 40hr Weeks @ $7.25 is $580 before they take anything out. If you're under 20 they can actually pay you $4.25 an hour for your first 90 days ($340 for 80 hrs of work).
On May 22 2015 10:22 Aveng3r wrote:
On May 22 2015 10:05 farvacola wrote:
On May 22 2015 08:51 Aveng3r wrote: Seems to be some kind of rally petitioning McDonald's to pay their workers more
Pretty stupid. If you want a wage that you can support a family on then dont work at fucking mcdonalds.
The point is that, because of economic and/or personal circumstances, many people are forced to attempt to support a family while working at McDonalds, and therein lies the problem. Job availability and standard hiring practices among many of the "borderline" living wage jobs are not so good for many of those looking to support a family without a college education, usually with poor family planning and financial sense menacing in the background as well. That's how these folks end up at McDonalds and Dollar General, trying to patch together sub 10 dollar hourly wages in order to meet basic living costs.
now what you just said makes sense. but what I don't get is why everyone else in here now wants to place the burden on mcdonalds to compensate for its workforces poor decisions. Like mcdonalds is a corporation that relies on cheap labor to drive their whole business model, why should they be forced to increase the wages they pay because of its workforces poor life decisions?
I feel for the guy that works at mcdonalds trying to support a family, but it's his fault if he lk had a kid or whatever without the wherewithal to support it.
Everyone can also stand to be a little less condescending in here, thanks.
lol you opened with people wanting a living wage is stupid, little late to get indignant about people being condescending.
You make it sound like McDonalds doesn't manipulate those people to make them think there is a future at McDonalds too.
Grow With Us McDonald’s gives you the tools you need to succeed, whether it’s the chance to own your own restaurant or tackle the corporate ladder. To be the best company we can, we have to offer the best opportunities, and we’d like to believe that some of the best ones around are right here.
I think I missed the part where they said if you keep working here people will call you stupid if you want a living wage.
alright. I think we both know that people wanting a livable wage isn't stupid. But expecting that working a cash register or flipping burgers will pay you enough to support a family is. It's a job for high school students.
Which brings me to kwark. I contend that there are alternItives. I work with 4 Mexican guys that barely speak English and we all do just fine, because we work on a golf course doing manual labor. Now I realize this is just one example and different places offer different opportunites/challenges as far as earning decent money, but I just don't ever buy that there is NO way for people to do better than working at mcdonalds. Hell, being a cashier at giant pays 9.50
I also contend that a lot of people "stuck" in minimum wage jobs are there because of poor financial responsibility, as farvacola said. So many times at giant I would see people using food stamps or wic checks to buy expensive food that clearly would not have been in a reasonable budget.
So all this considered, in a lot of cases, no, I don't have any sympathy for people who work at mcdonalds and are struggling. I say that their poor life choices and financial management are their fault and it's unfair to punish the corporation by forcing them to pay more.
while i agree it's a "job for high schoolers". majority of Americans are just that. high school graduates. lol. Also, there's a lot more of these jobs than there are "high schoolers".
it's like the bullshit republican lines about how "mexicans are takin' our jobs"
On May 22 2015 10:53 wei2coolman wrote: Mcdonald's is not the perfect example, because a lot of mcdonald's are owner operators (due to franchise business model), a lot of them are "small businesses".
On May 22 2015 10:52 heliusx wrote: Don't worry guys the taxpayer will pick up the slack...
yeah, this is actually the bigger problem, mcdonald, walmart, etc are essentially loading their lack of pay on the gov't, because their workers will often have to apply for gov't assistance, which puts a huge strain on the gov't, all without creating a larger tax pool because they don't pay their employee's jack shit.
The sentiment that it "must" put a strain on the government is the problem. The government has chosen to take on that responsibility, blaming another entity for that choice is stupid. Moreover, this sentiment actually illustrates one of the biggest problems with the welfare state: it gives the government an excuse to expand its reach into nearly every sphere of life.
On May 22 2015 10:53 wei2coolman wrote: Mcdonald's is not the perfect example, because a lot of mcdonald's are owner operators (due to franchise business model), a lot of them are "small businesses".
On May 22 2015 10:52 heliusx wrote: Don't worry guys the taxpayer will pick up the slack...
yeah, this is actually the bigger problem, mcdonald, walmart, etc are essentially loading their lack of pay on the gov't, because their workers will often have to apply for gov't assistance, which puts a huge strain on the gov't, all without creating a larger tax pool because they don't pay their employee's jack shit.
The sentiment that it "must" put a strain on the government is the problem. The government has chosen to take on that responsibility, blaming another entity for that choice is stupid. Moreover, this sentiment actually illustrates one of the biggest problems with the welfare state: it gives the government an excuse to expand its reach into nearly every sphere of life.
You make it sound as if removing social safety net for the needy will make companies less douchey about their pay...
On May 22 2015 10:53 wei2coolman wrote: Mcdonald's is not the perfect example, because a lot of mcdonald's are owner operators (due to franchise business model), a lot of them are "small businesses".
On May 22 2015 10:52 heliusx wrote: Don't worry guys the taxpayer will pick up the slack...
yeah, this is actually the bigger problem, mcdonald, walmart, etc are essentially loading their lack of pay on the gov't, because their workers will often have to apply for gov't assistance, which puts a huge strain on the gov't, all without creating a larger tax pool because they don't pay their employee's jack shit.
The sentiment that it "must" put a strain on the government is the problem. The government has chosen to take on that responsibility, blaming another entity for that choice is stupid. Moreover, this sentiment actually illustrates one of the biggest problems with the welfare state: it gives the government an excuse to expand its reach into nearly every sphere of life.
You make it sound as if removing social safety net for the needy will make companies less douchey about their pay...
No. What I said is that you are using the social safety net as an excuse to impose your values elsewhere in the economy.
On May 22 2015 10:53 wei2coolman wrote: Mcdonald's is not the perfect example, because a lot of mcdonald's are owner operators (due to franchise business model), a lot of them are "small businesses".
On May 22 2015 10:52 heliusx wrote: Don't worry guys the taxpayer will pick up the slack...
yeah, this is actually the bigger problem, mcdonald, walmart, etc are essentially loading their lack of pay on the gov't, because their workers will often have to apply for gov't assistance, which puts a huge strain on the gov't, all without creating a larger tax pool because they don't pay their employee's jack shit.
Yeah... sort of but not really. They have remarkably little autonomy when it comes to business decisions beyond employment. They have been screaming to high heaven to corporate about the Dollar menu to which corporate says "tough, there's another McD's a few blocks down and they are fine and so are their franchise fees."
It's not about autonomy, it's about money. The main Mcd's only gets a portion of that, so it's not like the main company is in charge of hiring of burgerflippers and cashiers. Nor does McD's pay from these franchised store go towards any of that. So most of it should be on the owner operators, not McD's. With the obvious exception of the restaurants that are actually owned by McD's.
I'm familiar.
It's a pretty similar setup to what John Oliver covered on chickens.
@9:08 for a familiar refrain.
The corporations just push the regulations off themselves and onto 'small businesses' The pay increase should come at least in majority from reducing the franchise fees. As opposed to just having corporate tell the Franchisee that they just need to pay corporate the same profit and their employees more.
What kind of place are you imagining getting for under $600 including utilities? You may be able to find some in the middle of the country, but good luck finding work in the same place.
Even at that were talking 50% of their monthly income just on rent, that isn't sustainable.
sry GH, I misread what you'd said initially. Now that you've spoken more it cleared up my reading error. 50% on rent is very hard, might be sustainable, barely, it'd depend on particulars of other necessities. It's too bad local communities are often quite resistant to letting affordable housing be built.
On May 22 2015 12:30 zlefin wrote: sry GH, I misread what you'd said initially. Now that you've spoken more it cleared up my reading error. 50% on rent is very hard, might be sustainable, barely, it'd depend on particulars of other necessities. It's too bad local communities are often quite resistant to letting affordable housing be built.
It's not sustainable, that's why people are in the streets demanding a higher wage. It's also why they are starting to get it. If it was sustainable, they wouldn't get shit. If wages weren't starting to go up in at least certain cities or places like Walmart weren't boosting wages without being legally mandated, shit is/was going to hit the fan soon.
It is sustainable in SOME places, barely. I already said it wasn't in many cities; and all my statements were qualified on pointing to the places where it is.
On May 22 2015 13:07 zlefin wrote: It is sustainable in SOME places, barely. I already said it wasn't in many cities; and all my statements were qualified on pointing to the places where it is.
I guess I don't get the point. Not even sure what sustainable is meaning to you in this context really.
And this is a perfect situation where this weird american dislike for unions becomes a problem, because this sounds like the classical type of problem a union could solve.
A large group of people (fast food workers) get exploited because on their own, they don't have any bargaining power. And they seem to be very aware of that situation. If all (or most) of these people would unionize, they could suddenly have a real negotiation with their corporations, because they can actually pressure them with (the threat of) a strike. A single worker just gets fired, but if most of your workers are on strike, the corporation has a problem and needs to deal with them.
Unions in America, even when they exist, are rather different from how unions work in Germany; at least from what I've read. From what I've seen in America, a fair number of people support unions. A lot of it depends on which unions, and what they're asking for.
On May 22 2015 14:40 Simberto wrote: And this is a perfect situation where this weird american dislike for unions becomes a problem, because this sounds like the classical type of problem a union could solve.
A large group of people (fast food workers) get exploited because on their own, they don't have any bargaining power. And they seem to be very aware of that situation. If all (or most) of these people would unionize, they could suddenly have a real negotiation with their corporations, because they can actually pressure them with (the threat of) a strike. A single worker just gets fired, but if most of your workers are on strike, the corporation has a problem and needs to deal with them.
I don't know how your unions work, but the general aversion to them is justified here. In America, unions are not subject to antitrust so what has consistently happened is once they begin to unionize one company in a sector one or two unions(the UAW is a great example) often reach a critical mass, and end up crippling the entire industry, preventing startup competitors (both union competition and companies that compete with unionized shops) from flourishing,
High profile unionization efforts often result in bullying tactics and deception (see VW in Tennessee)/ Smaller unions have often been bastions of local corruption as well. Most recently, unions have gone into the public sector and have caused massive financial problems for many a state/municipality. Plus they are very politically active, and many states have forced unionization leading to often 40%+ of workers resenting the union they belong to.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wxUx6k6.jpg)
