Fast-food strikes set for cities nationwide

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
[/quote]Max....I like the way you think! Good post.


Thanks! I have to tell you though that most people probably don't agree. I'm probably considered by many to be a member of that "vast right-wing conspiracy."
 
QUOTE....The other side of it is if someone is making money (absolutely nothing wrong with that in and of itself) by shifting its employees' costs off onto society, so that the taxpayer has to cover them.

this^

overkill, my apologies, will pay closer attention too my "to too and twos"
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JANDSZIRKLE
QUOTE....The other side of it is if someone is making money (absolutely nothing wrong with that in and of itself) by shifting its employees' costs off onto society, so that the taxpayer has to cover them.

this^

overkill, my apologies, will pay closer attention too my "to too and twos"



You just did it again
wink.gif
LMAO!!!
 
Thanks to inflation you are correct. But when was that and what was the prevailing wage for an unskilled worker at that time? What was the percentage increase that a $5 wage represented?

You weren't really serious with this post, were you?

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Business leaders all over the country said that the $5 day would bring ruin back then.

They were wrong.
 
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Business leaders all over the country said that the $5 day would bring ruin back then. They were wrong.


Hardly. Most were in favor of it. Even the tight-fisted Henry Ford thought it was a good idea:

"When we put our $5 minimum wage for an eight-hour day into effect in 1913, we had to watch many of our men to see what use they made of their spare time & money. We found a few men taking on extra jobs--some worked the dayshift with us & the night shift in another factory. Some of the men squandered their extra pay. Others banked the surplus money & went on living just as they had lived before. But in a few years all adjusted themselves & our supervision was less needed."

He of course, realized that the increase in pay would gradually factor into an increase in prices and parity would arrive again.

If we increase wages and increase prices what have we gained?
 
Originally Posted By: Maximus1966

He of course, realized that the increase in pay would gradually factor into an increase in prices and parity would arrive again.

If we increase wages and increase prices what have we gained?

More money gives people options, people don't have to spend their money on fast food or stupid stuff at walmart. They could save up some so their kid can have some help going to college, or buy more beer, but its now an option atleast.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
So? Why is that a "problem"? And your comment about "NO" advancement opportunities is flat out wrong. You are going on about something where you do not know what you are talking about.

Explain to me again why a business making money for the owners is a "problem" because I missed that whole part.

Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
The problem is that these franchises are there to make money. There is NO opportunity to advance in these franchises, it doesn't matter how good of a worker you are. You are a machine to them. If you don't like the wage, there is another person in line waiting to take your place. All they need is someone who can do the job, and with the large number of people needing jobs, they can always find someone who will do it for cheap.

My buddy scored a 98% on his last training test for manager related duties. When he asked for a small raise they pretty much laughed at him, yet gave him more duties since they now know he is capable of doing them.


I think you need to step out of fantasy land and into reality. There is nothing wrong with businesses making money, after all, that is how they stay alive. In most cases there is very little if ANY opportunities for advancement in minimum wage jobs. Think about it, when you see a manager of McD's or other franchise, they are usually the oldest person there, or one who has been there the longest, not necessarily the one who is the best worker.

Case in point, the manager of the store my buddy in the wheelchair works at has been there for 10 years. She is about 40 years old, and while completely incompetent at many times she "gets the job done" in the management's eyes. She has made it as far up the chain as she can go without an education, or training in marketing. There are a few people there who are better qualified to do the job by a long shot, but why pay two people to do the same job? That is my point about businesses making money. They need labor, and they don't care who does it, and hiring people for as cheap as possible gains them more profit.

For example:

If you worked at McDonald's for a year and did an excellent job, you'd want a raise. The job you are doing could easily be done by someone else. Why would the company pay you more money to do the same job as someone they could hire for minimum wage? You get frustrated, eventually find another job, and quit. This is the viscous franchise cycle. I swear the store my buddy works at has different employees every month, except for him of course.

The businesses need to make money, obviously, but franchises often do it at the expense of workers wages. If you own a franchise like a Dunkin Donuts for example, within a year and a half the business will pay for itself, at least in this area, so there is no question they are raking in money. It was funny how when I worked there we were always understaffed, and the management refused to hire more people, or put the correct amount of people on a shift. Nobody got a raise even if you did training for other higher level tasks, but the owner had a new Benz every 3 months.
crazy.gif


I'm fortunate that I work in a University that is based on the State budget. I've worked at my current job for 5 years, and since I'm a hard worker that does training so I can do more, I get raises. You just can't say the same for many franchises.
 
Whoa, wait a second. Tell me the story of which products and services won't cost more. Which products and services will stay the same price?

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Maximus1966

He of course, realized that the increase in pay would gradually factor into an increase in prices and parity would arrive again.

If we increase wages and increase prices what have we gained?

More money gives people options, people don't have to spend their money on fast food or stupid stuff at walmart. They could save up some so their kid can have some help going to college, or buy more beer, but its now an option at least.
 
Originally Posted By: Maximus1966
Unfortunately, we are paying people to have more children here. Sadly, most of them are not going to become productive citizens. They most certainly will vote to perpetuate the system that produced them.


Which is why giving money to the parents are not the fix, but keeping them in school (ie provide 3 meals there if they pass the grade) is.

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
But here we have an excess population, and have already donated all the jobs to Asia. So what exactly should these people do??? Sit idle or do something and ensure that their livelihood, not the government, is supporting the basics that are essentially mandatory in this country?

That's my issue. And it is never full addressed soup to nuts by the business fundamentalist armchair economist type.


Currency devaluation lower everything in value including wages, to make the country more competitive again. This is the reason we have increase in manufacturing again after USD devalued.

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Canada as well as most of Europe, would have population decline if immigration was cut off. But our current economic model of constant growth, can't seem to handle population decline for some reason.
Thinning the herd strategies seem like a bad idea unless you can afford your own security detail and APV in a well armed america...
The Nordic countries seem to thrive with even more safety nets for its underachieving citizens, so it not like its an immpossible issue to solve.




Nordic is using their natural resources to fed the safety net for the moment. It will eventually dry up and need to go production based growth and sustain their population that way.

Slow population decline over a long period of time should be fine if productivity gain is used to offset aging population. It will be painful but lives will go on.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
...

Our new society disgusts me. People do not think they need to work. 39 states now pay more than minimum wage in welfare programs, it's no wonder, eh? We have a whole generation who has NEVER seen Mom or Dad get up and go to work!

Or, in many cases, they're still siphoning off of Mom and Dad's hard work because Mom and Dad have handed them everything and don't have the heart to demand their kids pay their way, earn a living, get their own place, or if their kids are fortunate enough to go to college make sure they don't become an art or philosophy major because it makes them feel good (and then wonder why they can't find a job).
 
Yeah I was reading what you posted until the end there. But for you (a worker at a university on a state budget) telling me (a business owner in the real world) to "step out of fantasy land and into reality" is not going to help your case at all.

And the comment about the vicious franchise cycle. OK, don't work there. Plain and simple. Go somewhere else. Really, I want you to.

Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
I think you need to step out of fantasy land and into reality. There is nothing wrong with businesses making money, after all, that is how they stay alive. In most cases there is very little if ANY opportunities for advancement in minimum wage jobs. Think about it, when you see a manager of McD's or other franchise, they are usually the oldest person there, or one who has been there the longest, not necessarily the one who is the best worker.

Case in point, the manager of the store my buddy in the wheelchair works at has been there for 10 years. She is about 40 years old, and while completely incompetent at many times she "gets the job done" in the management's eyes. She has made it as far up the chain as she can go without an education, or training in marketing. There are a few people there who are better qualified to do the job by a long shot, but why pay two people to do the same job? That is my point about businesses making money. They need labor, and they don't care who does it, and hiring people for as cheap as possible gains them more profit.

For example:

If you worked at McDonald's for a year and did an excellent job, you'd want a raise. The job you are doing could easily be done by someone else. Why would the company pay you more money to do the same job as someone they could hire for minimum wage? You get frustrated, eventually find another job, and quit. This is the viscous franchise cycle. I swear the store my buddy works at has different employees every month, except for him of course.

The businesses need to make money, obviously, but franchises often do it at the expense of workers wages. If you own a franchise like a Dunkin Donuts for example, within a year and a half the business will pay for itself, at least in this area, so there is no question they are raking in money. It was funny how when I worked there we were always understaffed, and the management refused to hire more people, or put the correct amount of people on a shift. Nobody got a raise even if you did training for other higher level tasks, but the owner had a new Benz every 3 months.
crazy.gif


I'm fortunate that I work in a University that is based on the State budget. I've worked at my current job for 5 years, and since I'm a hard worker that does training so I can do more, I get raises. You just can't say the same for many franchises.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2

THere are two sides to this whole thing - value for the wages and offset of costs to society....The other side of it is if someone is making money (absolutely nothing wrong with that in and of itself) by shifting its employees' costs off onto society, so that the taxpayer has to cover them. For that to be the case is treacherous, and the business owner isnt making money, they are stealing money from the taxpayers at large... not from stealing by putting their employees on medicaid and welfare....


Your whole concept is fallacious. If a private business is functioning within the law, they don't have the ability to "shift costs onto society" or to steal by "putting their employees on Medicaid and welfare." Those would be functions of your government, and you can legitimately take those gripes to your elected representatives.
 
Originally Posted By: Maximus1966


Unfortunately, we are paying people to have more children here. Sadly, most of them are not going to become productive citizens. They most certainly will vote to perpetuate the system that produced them.


This is far and away one of my biggest gripes with the system. I see it playing out all over my city and it drives me nuts knowing that my tax dollars are going to fund these baby factory (so they can get more welfare) families that reside in community housing like parasites with no intention of ever truly actively seeking employment. Their kids grow up seeing that they can live for free and sell drugs/make grow-ops to get even more cash. Then I have to pay more tax to increase policing to deal with their deadbeat garbage kids who turned into gang-banging drug dealing trash because their parents were garbage that shouldn't have been allowed to reproduce in the first place. It is truly a vicious cycle of entitlement handout-ism mixed with idle hands and loose ends, chalk full of drug culture and crime.
 
I don't know what he made, but if unemployment pays 60% of what one used to make it helps set the floor.

I'm happy your friend didn't have to settle for a minimum wage job; it leaves it open for "someone else's turn" and he can stay looking for work in his industry.

This helps beat a race to the bottom... sets a floor... much like minimum wages do.

Originally Posted By: jeepman3071


Ding ding ding! This +1

The problem is not minimum wage, the problem is everything else is not affordable if you work that job. I give people credit who are working a minimum wage job, especially when it doesn't make sense financially.

Think about it for a second...

My friend is currently on unemployment. He has the "entitled" attitude which is a story for a different thread, but here is the issue...

When looking for jobs, most of the available jobs are minimum wage. Right now, he makes more per week sitting home collecting his unemployment check. Let me say that again so you understand it. He makes MORE money sitting home doing NOTHING, than he would if he actually worked all day at a minimum wage job. Now you see why people find it easier to just collect assistance.
 
Originally Posted By: gofast182

So what happens to McDonald's Dollar Menu after this? You think there's enough margin in $1.00 cheeseburgers to support paying everyone so much for no added value to the company? Not a chance. So, Dumb and Dumber, shut the [censored] up and flip your burgers or go out and take an economics class, I don't want to have to pay more for your ignorance.


I'd start with macroeconomics to see where that money goes...

If entry level wages double then there's a lot more money floating around in the economy on "what poor people buy" and the costs will go up where there's labor involved. So the price of a trinket at walmart will go up to reflect the longshoremen, truck driver, and cashier on US soil but not the raw materials or chinese guy putting it together.

That dollar cheeseburger could easily cost $2 but the market will be there, break even.

But rents won't double. They'll go up "some" as roommates split up and try for their own places. Section 8 types will complain that now they can't find affordable housing on their stipend. But then we're collecting taxes on $16/hr and that's a higher bracket so it's more than 2x as much money.

I mention this not as sparring material but as the rule of unintended consequences. Disparities in wealth of the magnitude we see today rarely end well; we can shave off the top or bring up the bottom. I can understand not seeing past one's ledger book but if the money there is is sprinkled around more evenly I see mostly good things happening.

Also, it seems like about the peak of the economic cycle when FINALLY people get the stones to demand better wages. Seems like the cost of oil and everything else goes up but not wages... stagflation.
 
Where does the "living wage" stop?

Costs will continue to rise every year, will the wage increase every year? It will have to be adjusted to keep within "living wage" standards.

Does anyone actually think that a jump like this would not cause a huge price increase to everything? Those that cant afford these increases will close.

Each time the minimum wage is increased, it raises the prices on everything else, this is the "cause and effect" situation.

The wages go up, costs are passed on to consumers and prices go up on everything else, happens every time.

We have read comments here about how some should give up some of their income to give to others.

I would like to ask those that feel this way if they THEMSELVES have done this? Have they refused a pay increase and asked that it be given to "X" in the company so they can have better pay?

Have they asked their employer to lower their pay so that "X" can make more?

If they have not and until they do, they have NO right to ask someone else to do so.
 
Originally Posted By: Maximus1966
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Business leaders all over the country said that the $5 day would bring ruin back then. They were wrong.


Hardly. Most were in favor of it. Even the tight-fisted Henry Ford thought it was a good idea:

"When we put our $5 minimum wage for an eight-hour day into effect in 1913, we had to watch many of our men to see what use they made of their spare time & money. We found a few men taking on extra jobs--some worked the dayshift with us & the night shift in another factory. Some of the men squandered their extra pay. Others banked the surplus money & went on living just as they had lived before. But in a few years all adjusted themselves & our supervision was less needed."

He of course, realized that the increase in pay would gradually factor into an increase in prices and parity would arrive again.

If we increase wages and increase prices what have we gained?


If you're quoting Henry Ford take note that Michigan made some absoutely gorgeous train stations and other infrastructure with what I can only assume was a surplus fueled by optimism.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Yeah I was reading what you posted until the end there. But for you (a worker at a university on a state budget) telling me (a business owner in the real world) to "step out of fantasy land and into reality" is not going to help your case at all.

And the comment about the vicious franchise cycle. OK, don't work there. Plain and simple. Go somewhere else. Really, I want you to.



Thankfully, I haven't worked in food service since high school. I worked hard enough to be able to get into college for very little money and get a good education. The minimum wage job was good during high school, but as far as trying to live on it, that would never happen.

I do agree though that many people who are living off the government need to suck it up and actually work their [censored] off for once. I know too many kids who have everything given to them or are told "its okay if you can't do it". This attitude is what has ruined society. I was raised knowing I had to earn my keep and work hard. I worked mowing lawns since I was 10 in order to pay for my first vehicle, and worked 2 jobs during high school to save for college. At the time it sucked, especially since I went to a fairly wealthy high school where kids were given new cars when they got their license. I'm extremely glad now that I was brought up the way I was.

If I lost my job tomorrow, I'd be knocking on doors and applying to places until I got another one. Our society makes it way too easy for the lazy people who have no motivation.
 
Originally Posted By: motorguy222
Where does the "living wage" stop?

Costs will continue to rise every year, will the wage increase every year? It will have to be adjusted to keep within "living wage" standards.

Does anyone actually think that a jump like this would not cause a huge price increase to everything? Those that cant afford these increases will close.

Each time the minimum wage is increased, it raises the prices on everything else, this is the "cause and effect" situation.


Inflation happens, but when it coincides with the spread widening between what the CEO makes compared to a minimum wage earner, it slaps some harder than others.

There isn't an economy today on a gold standard, so money isn't a store of wealth. Take that up with the Rothchilds.

This thread continues along microeconomic lines of "my balance sheet..." without regards to a competitors balance sheet taking a similar twist, or about where new found (extorted?
smirk.gif
) disposable income will be spent.
 
Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
The problem is that these franchises are there to make money. There is NO opportunity to advance in these franchises, it doesn't matter how good of a worker you are. You are a machine to them. If you don't like the wage, there is another person in line waiting to take your place. All they need is someone who can do the job, and with the large number of people needing jobs, they can always find someone who will do it for cheap.


Yup. There's a good bounty for someone who can automate something and higher cheaper, presumably dumber employees to run them. This takes the craft out of doing something well and this frustrates college grads who aren't roundly networked or qualified who then see someone with a high school diploma get the job. The employer sees "prima donna" and wants someone "not above their raising" who won't take off for greener pastures.

So then we have a generation wondering why they should do the routine their parents did. Even an engineering degree is goofy when engineering jobs are flocking to India.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom