Fast-food workers strike, seeking $15 wage, political muscle

[Mac1958]

Just out of curiosity, if you took a poll of 1,000 McDonald's employees and asked "who pays your salary?", I wonder how many would get it right.

My bet, Ronald McDonald wins by a narrow margin over the Hamburgler and the customer receives less than 5 votes.

Even the ones who are vaguely in touch with reality probably don't fully realize that their employer is actually the owner of their individual franchise, not McDonald's Corporation. I've worked for franchise operations in the past, and I can tell you my co-workers rarely had any idea just how independent and "small-business" their stores truly were.

Good point Cecilie, most people do seem to assume that all the McDonalds outlets are corporate owned and thus use McDonalds margins to reinforce their argument for higher wages when in fact the majority are franchisees (upwards of 80%) and operate as small/medium businesses with narrow margins and significant existential risks.

True. And not many people realize that, while the corporation offers a great deal of support to the franchise owners, operating capital is not a part of it.

Whatever McDonald's Corp's profit margin is or isn't, the individual franchises operate on slim profit margins, as do most restaurants. If they're forced to increase labor costs - which are already the largest single cost in their budget - by twice as much per hour, it will wipe out that profit margin, at the very least, and thus wipe out any reason for the franchise owner to invest his own time and money in operating the business.

Jeez, you're not supposed to offer sensible, rational input & observation here, you're supposed to scream simplistic bumper sticker slogans that have virtually no value.


.

 

[Slyhunter]

So you're saying that you have no problem with Americans being on welfare?

We don't owe them that either.

You do realize that if a person can't feed themselves or pay their rent with the wages they have the employer won't be able have employees to work in their business?

If the government didn't subsidize wages then people won't accept such low wages. The law of supply and demand will force that employer to raise wages to get people to work for them.

I've seen it happen. I used to work for a large home improvement company that opened new stores in a west coast state in the mid 90s. They offered minimum wage to the new employees. No one applied for a job when they were told the low wages. The only way they could get people to apply and work there was to offer wages higher than the minimum wage.

People aren't going to waste their time working at a job if they aren't going to be able to support themselves. Employers aren't going to have employees if they don't offer wages that will be enough for people to live on.

So you can either waste tax dollars on subsidizing wages so that filthy rich corporations can become even more filthy rich or wages need to be increased.

It's impossible to have a healthy economy with such low wages nor can America remain a superpower and leading democracy in the world if we have to keep wasting tax dollars so filthy rich people can get even more rich and if we keep millions of Americans in poverty.

If you take away a person's ability to eat, have a roof over their heads and ability to support themselves many resort to crime and eventually people will rise up and revolt. It happened in Egypt and other middle eastern nations in the last 8 years.

Some people group up in barracks and work for those sub living wages. They make enough to pay for a cot and a meal. Those are the people holding down wages, the ones willing to live like that.

Some countries have beat us to it. Hong Kong, Japan, China, coffin or cage homes. In Cambodia taxi (bikes) drivers sleep on their bikes. Trash collectors sleep in the street. Do we want America to follow that route next?

Uber drivers living in their cars at the nearest truck stop because they don't charge enough for fares to afford to pay rent.

 

[paulitician]

Oh, if only the poor folks would just shut up and die already. Pretty much the greedy white Republican dude take on this. They truly wish for a return of the 'good ol days' of slavery in America. They're not good people.

 

[Brain357]

And come on greedy white Republican dudes. It's not like $15 an hr is even that much money in today's America. It's actually peanuts. And these workers aren't demanding it of Government. They're demanding it of their Employer.

So it's really none of your business, unless you're connected with McDonalds in some way. Otherwise, it's between the employee and employer. So quit bitchin and let them sort it out.

Why do you want to appear to support Ron Paul? He isn't a communist, you know.

No he is not a communist. But he does not support crony capitalism and corporate welfare. Why do all these "conservatives"?

 

[paulitician]

And come on greedy white Republican dudes. It's not like $15 an hr is even that much money in today's America. It's actually peanuts. And these workers aren't demanding it of Government. They're demanding it of their Employer.

So it's really none of your business, unless you're connected with McDonalds in some way. Otherwise, it's between the employee and employer. So quit bitchin and let them sort it out.

Why do you want to appear to support Ron Paul? He isn't a communist, you know.

No he is a communist. But he does support crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

I'm neither a Communist or Libertarian. I can't be labelled. I just call things the way i see em.

 

[paulitician]

So you're saying that you have no problem with Americans being on welfare?

We don't owe them that either.

You do realize that if a person can't feed themselves or pay their rent with the wages they have the employer won't be able have employees to work in their business?

If the government didn't subsidize wages then people won't accept such low wages. The law of supply and demand will force that employer to raise wages to get people to work for them.

I've seen it happen. I used to work for a large home improvement company that opened new stores in a west coast state in the mid 90s. They offered minimum wage to the new employees. No one applied for a job when they were told the low wages. The only way they could get people to apply and work there was to offer wages higher than the minimum wage.

People aren't going to waste their time working at a job if they aren't going to be able to support themselves. Employers aren't going to have employees if they don't offer wages that will be enough for people to live on.

So you can either waste tax dollars on subsidizing wages so that filthy rich corporations can become even more filthy rich or wages need to be increased.

It's impossible to have a healthy economy with such low wages nor can America remain a superpower and leading democracy in the world if we have to keep wasting tax dollars so filthy rich people can get even more rich and if we keep millions of Americans in poverty.

If you take away a person's ability to eat, have a roof over their heads and ability to support themselves many resort to crime and eventually people will rise up and revolt. It happened in Egypt and other middle eastern nations in the last 8 years.

Some people group up in barracks and work for those sub living wages. They make enough to pay for a cot and a meal. Those are the people holding down wages, the ones willing to live like that.

Some countries have beat us to it. Hong Kong, Japan, China, coffin or cage homes. In Cambodia taxi (bikes) drivers sleep on their bikes. Trash collectors sleep in the street. Do we want America to follow that route next?

Uber drivers living in their cars at the nearest truck stop because they don't charge enough for fares to afford to pay rent.

Most of us Americans don't wanna see that. But greedy white Republican dude does. It is what it is.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So you're saying that you have no problem with Americans being on welfare?

We don't owe them that either.

You do realize that if a person can't feed themselves or pay their rent with the wages they have the employer won't be able have employees to work in their business?

Cut off welfare, and employees willing to accept that wage will be employed.

If the government didn't subsidize wages then people won't accept such low wages.

Cut off welfare, and they will accept them. It's the same with the nonsense that "illegals do jobs Americans won't do". Cut off the welfare, send the illegals home, and watch how fast those jobs are filled by Americans.

People aren't going to waste their time working at a job if they aren't going to be able to support themselves.Employers aren't going to have employees if they don't offer wages that will be enough for people to live on.

As has occurred throughout all of human history, people will work at that for which they are skilled at the going rate should the government not interfere by subsidizing them with other people's money. Employers owe the worker only what the work is worth to the employer. They certainly do not owe the worker his desired lifestyle.

So you can either waste tax dollars on subsidizing wages so that filthy rich corporations can become even more filthy rich or wages need to be increased.

Or do neither.

It's impossible to have a healthy economy with such low wages nor can America remain a superpower and leading democracy in the world if we have to keep wasting tax dollars so filthy rich people can get even more rich and if we keep millions of Americans in poverty.

Better to stop wasting tax dollars on the indolent and unproductive.

If you take away a person's ability to eat, have a roof over their heads and ability to support themselves many resort to crime and eventually people will rise up and revolt.

They are not "entitled" to those abilities in any case. They must develop other abilities to provide food and a roof without taking money from those who have developed their skills and are successfully surviving.

If necessary, you deal with any crime. I realize of course that Democrats expressly oppose dealing with crime in any effective way.

 

[Brain357]

And come on greedy white Republican dudes. It's not like $15 an hr is even that much money in today's America. It's actually peanuts. And these workers aren't demanding it of Government. They're demanding it of their Employer.

So it's really none of your business, unless you're connected with McDonalds in some way. Otherwise, it's between the employee and employer. So quit bitchin and let them sort it out.

Why do you want to appear to support Ron Paul? He isn't a communist, you know.

No he is a communist. But he does support crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

I'm neither a Communist or Libertarian. I can't be labelled. I just call things the way i see em.

I think many of these "conservatives" are far more communist than they think. The question shouldn't be whether we should have lots of poor, but how to strengthen the middle class. It should be obvious lots poor is bad. As this poor class grows and the middle class shrinks our economy slows. We can all see that. Too much inequality slows an economy, many studies support that fact. These "conservatives" here seem to think the wealthy paying little and making more people dependent on government is conservative. I've always been one to believe more people dependent on government is communist. The way to a strong economy again is less people dependent on government.

 

[paulitician]

And come on greedy white Republican dudes. It's not like $15 an hr is even that much money in today's America. It's actually peanuts. And these workers aren't demanding it of Government. They're demanding it of their Employer.

So it's really none of your business, unless you're connected with McDonalds in some way. Otherwise, it's between the employee and employer. So quit bitchin and let them sort it out.

Why do you want to appear to support Ron Paul? He isn't a communist, you know.

No he is a communist. But he does support crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

I'm neither a Communist or Libertarian. I can't be labelled. I just call things the way i see em.

I think many of these "conservatives" are far more communist than they think. The question shouldn't be whether we should have lots of poor, but how to strengthen the middle class. It should be obvious lots poor is bad. As this poor class grows and the middle class shrinks our economy slows. We can all see that. Too much inequality slows an economy, many studies support that fact. These "conservatives" here seem to think the wealthy paying little and making more people dependent on government is conservative. I've always been one to believe more people dependent on government is communist. The way to a strong economy again is less people dependent on government.

It's greed. Many want our poor to just shut up and go die already. They don't wanna deal with it. So they worship evil Corporations like McDonalds and Walmart. They feel it makes them 'Good Capitalists' to do so. But really they're just worshipping greedy Corporatism.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just out of curiosity, if you took a poll of 1,000 McDonald's employees and asked "who pays your salary?", I wonder how many would get it right.

My bet, Ronald McDonald wins by a narrow margin over the Hamburgler and the customer receives less than 5 votes.

Even the ones who are vaguely in touch with reality probably don't fully realize that their employer is actually the owner of their individual franchise, not McDonald's Corporation. I've worked for franchise operations in the past, and I can tell you my co-workers rarely had any idea just how independent and "small-business" their stores truly were.

Good point Cecilie, most people do seem to assume that all the McDonalds outlets are corporate owned and thus use McDonalds margins to reinforce their argument for higher wages when in fact the majority are franchisees (upwards of 80%) and operate as small/medium businesses with narrow margins and significant existential risks.

True. And not many people realize that, while the corporation offers a great deal of support to the franchise owners, operating capital is not a part of it.

Whatever McDonald's Corp's profit margin is or isn't, the individual franchises operate on slim profit margins, as do most restaurants. If they're forced to increase labor costs - which are already the largest single cost in their budget - by twice as much per hour, it will wipe out that profit margin, at the very least, and thus wipe out any reason for the franchise owner to invest his own time and money in operating the business.

Jeez, you're not supposed to offer sensible, rational input & observation here, you're supposed to scream simplistic bumper sticker slogans that have virtually no value.


.

What can I say? I'm a rebel, and I'll never, ever be any good.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, if only the poor folks would just shut up and die already. Pretty much the greedy white Republican dude take on this. They truly wish for a return of the 'good ol days' of slavery in America. They're not good people.

I don't want the poor people to shut up and die. Just you.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I've always been one to believe more people dependent on government is communist.

So you're a Communist. Big surprise.

 

[Brain357]

I've always been one to believe more people dependent on government is communist.

So you're a Communist. Big surprise.

You don't make any sense.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I've always been one to believe more people dependent on government is communist.

So you're a Communist. Big surprise.

You don't make any sense.

That's because you're a Communist.

 

[Brain357]

I've always been one to believe more people dependent on government is communist.

So you're a Communist. Big surprise.

You don't make any sense.

That's because you're a Communist.

You are the one looking to increase government dependence comrade.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I've always been one to believe more people dependent on government is communist.

So you're a Communist. Big surprise.

You don't make any sense.

That's because you're a Communist.

You are the one looking to increase government dependence comrade.

Yes. That's what "cut off welfare", which I said twice, actually means in the real world.

 

[Brain357]

I've always been one to believe more people dependent on government is communist.

So you're a Communist. Big surprise.

You don't make any sense.

That's because you're a Communist.

You are the one looking to increase government dependence comrade.

Yes. That's what "cut off welfare", which I said twice, actually means in the real world.

Oh just cut off welfare. Good luck with that. It won't be done. And if it was the economy would hurt.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Then we wouldn't have to listen to their constant whining about having to pay their slaves.

paul is the dumbest liberal here by far. 100% illiterate too. He has no idea that a capitalist business must provide the best possible jobs and products just to survive. If anyone doubts it open a business with the worst jobs and products and see how long you survive.

See why we say Paul is the dumbest here??

He is not a liberal. I think Paul is a new type of spambot...he is a stupid-bot. He was created to post the stupidest possible things in every thread he pollutes.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So you're a Communist. Big surprise.

You don't make any sense.

That's because you're a Communist.

You are the one looking to increase government dependence comrade.

Yes. That's what "cut off welfare", which I said twice, actually means in the real world.

Oh just cut off welfare. Good luck with that. It won't be done.

Of course not, under the current regime. They are expanding it.

 

[Brain357]

You don't make any sense.

That's because you're a Communist.

You are the one looking to increase government dependence comrade.

Yes. That's what "cut off welfare", which I said twice, actually means in the real world.

Oh just cut off welfare. Good luck with that. It won't be done.

Of course not, under the current regime. They are expanding it.

Under any regime with this economic climate. You would need a strong economy like we had with Clinton where there were lots of great job opportunities. Otherwise it is political suicide and nobody will do it.