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

[Conservative65]

Your argument is based on an unsupported supposition. "They are most likely to be". Now, here's a concrete reality. If they do NOT gain valuable skills, they WILL continue to remain at MW and represent no greater value to the company that hired them.

With wages stagnant they are most likely to be. That isn't a real good incentive to get more skills and then be underemployed.

You said when jobs are offered, wages go up. You said jobs were being offered when you agreed unemployment was going down.

The incentive to not get skills is that morons like you are willing to hand someone a higher wage when the only skills they have is one step above what a monkey could be trained to do.

With stagnant wages there are obviously not better paying skilled jobs going unfilled. If there were wages wouldn't be stagnant.

YOU said that if jobs were offered, wages go up. YOU also said that unemployment was down, a sign that jobs were being offered. Now, YOU say it's only good, skilled jobs.

Yes skilled jobs as I just showed with my last point Learn how to read moron.

You didn't make a distinction in your statement that meant more job offerings = higher wages. It was a general, blanket statement.

 

[Conservative65]

Wages are stagnant, what they do won't make much of a difference for most.

You just gave them an excuse to not try and continue to demand something just be handed to them. If they made half as much effort to do better as they did demanding something be given to them, you would be surprised just how much better things would be.

Although you didn't use the exact words, I suspect you consider me one of the lucky ones. To that I say: "I'm a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more of it I seem to have." - Coleman Cox

With stagnant wages they are most likely to be underemployed if they get skills. You seem to be living in a different economy.

Your argument is based on an unsupported supposition. "They are most likely to be". Now, here's a concrete reality. If they do NOT gain valuable skills, they WILL continue to remain at MW and represent no greater value to the company that hired them.

He does that a lot. He said yesterday that CEO's set their own salary. I asked for proof and he said they "essentially" do.

I linked how actually. I'm surprised you didn't already know they do.

That's because they don't.

 

[Brain357]

To a point but not to the point of someone that is. If there are 100 jobs among how many ever companies that require skills only 50 have, those 50 will make more in wages for having obtained those skills. To a point, anyone going and getting the qualifications will make more.

CNC jobs aren't the only jobs in the world. I bet you think what you believe is the same across the board. That's not the case.

So with stagnant wages the companies aren't out there looking for jobs. If they were wages would be going up. That is my point. They are not gong up so the jobs aren't out there.

Companies don't look for jobs. Potential employees do. Companies offer jobs.

That doesn't change the point at all. Companies aren't offering jobs or wages would be increasing. See doesn't change it at all.

So the above is 571. And as you can see you took it completely out of context. I was discussing CNC jobs. Companies aren't offering CNC jobs or wages would be increasing. No wonder you wouldn't quote it. So dishonest.

You didn't mention CNC jobs until after that. Such a liar.

By the way, Cnc jobs aren't the only job around. You want to base your entire argument around ONE profession. So fucking stupid.

Follow the discussion moron. We were clearly discussing cnc jobs. Don't be a liar and stupid. The stupid you can't help, the liar you can.

 

[Brain357]

Wages don't go up if people aren't qualified to do a job to the level the employer wants qualifications. A person may get hired but if they don't offer to the level the one hiring wants, they may still get hired but at a lower wage.

The best way to improve your wages is to offer something worth paying. In your mind, especially with the OP, wages should go up for no reason other than those wanting more demanding more.

So you don't know anything about supply and demand obviously. Go learn some economics.

I know that if someone isn't qualified to do a job, while they may get hired, they won't get as much in salary/wages as someone that is more qualified. You live on what a book says. I live in the real world where things work quite differently.

And you also seem to think lots of qualified applicants raises wages. What is the incentive for an employer to increase wages when they have many qualified applicants?

The incentive is to get the best ones.

They already have lots of qualified applicants. You raise wages when you have trouble finding qualified applicants. Since wages are now stagnant there are few looking to hire skilled workers.

Here is another comment where I was obviously discussing skilled workers.

 

[Conservative65]

So you don't know anything about supply and demand obviously. Go learn some economics.

I know that if someone isn't qualified to do a job, while they may get hired, they won't get as much in salary/wages as someone that is more qualified. You live on what a book says. I live in the real world where things work quite differently.

And you also seem to think lots of qualified applicants raises wages. What is the incentive for an employer to increase wages when they have many qualified applicants?

The incentive is to get the best ones.

They already have lots of qualified applicants. You raise wages when you have trouble finding qualified applicants. Since wages are now stagnant there are few looking to hire skilled workers.

Here is another comment where I was obviously discussing skilled workers.

Yet you make a blanket statement about wages going up when jobs are being offered then back off when called on it.

By the way, ONE example doesn't prove your point nor have you even shown it works with the example you gave. You make a blanket statement.

 

[Conservative65]

So with stagnant wages the companies aren't out there looking for jobs. If they were wages would be going up. That is my point. They are not gong up so the jobs aren't out there.

Companies don't look for jobs. Potential employees do. Companies offer jobs.

That doesn't change the point at all. Companies aren't offering jobs or wages would be increasing. See doesn't change it at all.

So the above is 571. And as you can see you took it completely out of context. I was discussing CNC jobs. Companies aren't offering CNC jobs or wages would be increasing. No wonder you wouldn't quote it. So dishonest.

You didn't mention CNC jobs until after that. Such a liar.

By the way, Cnc jobs aren't the only job around. You want to base your entire argument around ONE profession. So fucking stupid.

Follow the discussion moron. We were clearly discussing cnc jobs. Don't be a liar and stupid. The stupid you can't help, the liar you can.

I don't believe you can be helped with lying. It's genetic.

 

[Brain357]

You just gave them an excuse to not try and continue to demand something just be handed to them. If they made half as much effort to do better as they did demanding something be given to them, you would be surprised just how much better things would be.

Although you didn't use the exact words, I suspect you consider me one of the lucky ones. To that I say: "I'm a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more of it I seem to have." - Coleman Cox

With stagnant wages they are most likely to be underemployed if they get skills. You seem to be living in a different economy.

Your argument is based on an unsupported supposition. "They are most likely to be". Now, here's a concrete reality. If they do NOT gain valuable skills, they WILL continue to remain at MW and represent no greater value to the company that hired them.

He does that a lot. He said yesterday that CEO's set their own salary. I asked for proof and he said they "essentially" do.

I linked how actually. I'm surprised you didn't already know they do.

That's because they don't.

Here is another link:
Who decides how much a CEO makes?

There not a lot of evidence that CEOs with pay packages larded with goodies do a better job than those with more modest paychecks. One study found that companies that allow personal use of corporate aircraft, for example, tend to underperform the stock market by about 4 percent a year, over the 10 years covered by the study. (Considering that the total return of the S&P 500 index averaged about 10 percent a year over the past eight decades, that's not small change.)

So how do these packages get approved? Corporate boards usually include a subset of the board called the compensation committee. The problem is that many corporate directors (so-called “inside” directors) report to the CEO. So their judgment is not exactly impartial. (“Hey, boss: remember that raise I asked you for? One reason I need it is because I’m staying late working on your generous pay package for next year.”)

When it comes to “outside” directors (people who work for other companies), some CEO pack their boards with friends and cronies. So the board’s final decision is not always, well – above board. The Sarbannes-Oxley law took some steps to set rules on this, requiring certain new reporting procedures and holding directors personally liable if shareholders squawk.

 

[Conservative65]

So you don't know anything about supply and demand obviously. Go learn some economics.

I know that if someone isn't qualified to do a job, while they may get hired, they won't get as much in salary/wages as someone that is more qualified. You live on what a book says. I live in the real world where things work quite differently.

And you also seem to think lots of qualified applicants raises wages. What is the incentive for an employer to increase wages when they have many qualified applicants?

The incentive is to get the best ones.

They already have lots of qualified applicants. You raise wages when you have trouble finding qualified applicants. Since wages are now stagnant there are few looking to hire skilled workers.

Here is another comment where I was obviously discussing skilled workers.

Here's something you keep proving. You're one of those that makes what you call stagnant wages. Otherwise, you would be whining about something you could fix if you applied yourself.

 

[Brain357]

I know that if someone isn't qualified to do a job, while they may get hired, they won't get as much in salary/wages as someone that is more qualified. You live on what a book says. I live in the real world where things work quite differently.

And you also seem to think lots of qualified applicants raises wages. What is the incentive for an employer to increase wages when they have many qualified applicants?

The incentive is to get the best ones.

They already have lots of qualified applicants. You raise wages when you have trouble finding qualified applicants. Since wages are now stagnant there are few looking to hire skilled workers.

Here is another comment where I was obviously discussing skilled workers.

Yet you make a blanket statement about wages going up when jobs are being offered then back off when called on it.

By the way, ONE example doesn't prove your point nor have you even shown it works with the example you gave. You make a blanket statement.

No you mean you took a comment out of context and ran with it like a moron does. Even though I corrected you many times. When lying is your only defense you have nothing.

 

[Conservative65]

With stagnant wages they are most likely to be underemployed if they get skills. You seem to be living in a different economy.

Your argument is based on an unsupported supposition. "They are most likely to be". Now, here's a concrete reality. If they do NOT gain valuable skills, they WILL continue to remain at MW and represent no greater value to the company that hired them.

He does that a lot. He said yesterday that CEO's set their own salary. I asked for proof and he said they "essentially" do.

I linked how actually. I'm surprised you didn't already know they do.

That's because they don't.

Here is another link:
Who decides how much a CEO makes?

There not a lot of evidence that CEOs with pay packages larded with goodies do a better job than those with more modest paychecks. One study found that companies that allow personal use of corporate aircraft, for example, tend to underperform the stock market by about 4 percent a year, over the 10 years covered by the study. (Considering that the total return of the S&P 500 index averaged about 10 percent a year over the past eight decades, that's not small change.)

So how do these packages get approved? Corporate boards usually include a subset of the board called the compensation committee. The problem is that many corporate directors (so-called “inside” directors) report to the CEO. So their judgment is not exactly impartial. (“Hey, boss: remember that raise I asked you for? One reason I need it is because I’m staying late working on your generous pay package for next year.”)

When it comes to “outside” directors (people who work for other companies), some CEO pack their boards with friends and cronies. So the board’s final decision is not always, well – above board. The Sarbannes-Oxley law took some steps to set rules on this, requiring certain new reporting procedures and holding directors personally liable if shareholders squawk.

That's called an OPINION piece.

Sounds like you're jealous to me of something you'll never become.

 

[Brain357]

I know that if someone isn't qualified to do a job, while they may get hired, they won't get as much in salary/wages as someone that is more qualified. You live on what a book says. I live in the real world where things work quite differently.

And you also seem to think lots of qualified applicants raises wages. What is the incentive for an employer to increase wages when they have many qualified applicants?

The incentive is to get the best ones.

They already have lots of qualified applicants. You raise wages when you have trouble finding qualified applicants. Since wages are now stagnant there are few looking to hire skilled workers.

Here is another comment where I was obviously discussing skilled workers.

Here's something you keep proving. You're one of those that makes what you call stagnant wages. Otherwise, you would be whining about something you could fix if you applied yourself.

And now you talk completely out of your ass further proving you are a moron.

 

[Conservative65]

And you also seem to think lots of qualified applicants raises wages. What is the incentive for an employer to increase wages when they have many qualified applicants?

The incentive is to get the best ones.

They already have lots of qualified applicants. You raise wages when you have trouble finding qualified applicants. Since wages are now stagnant there are few looking to hire skilled workers.

Here is another comment where I was obviously discussing skilled workers.

Yet you make a blanket statement about wages going up when jobs are being offered then back off when called on it.

By the way, ONE example doesn't prove your point nor have you even shown it works with the example you gave. You make a blanket statement.

No you mean you took a comment out of context and ran with it like a moron does. Even though I corrected you many times. When lying is your only defense you have nothing.

I took your comment for what it SAID. You're running from it now. When you run like a pussy from your own comment, I can't help you. I'm not real sure you can help you unless you man up to what you said.

 

[Brain357]

Your argument is based on an unsupported supposition. "They are most likely to be". Now, here's a concrete reality. If they do NOT gain valuable skills, they WILL continue to remain at MW and represent no greater value to the company that hired them.

He does that a lot. He said yesterday that CEO's set their own salary. I asked for proof and he said they "essentially" do.

I linked how actually. I'm surprised you didn't already know they do.

That's because they don't.

Here is another link:
Who decides how much a CEO makes?

There not a lot of evidence that CEOs with pay packages larded with goodies do a better job than those with more modest paychecks. One study found that companies that allow personal use of corporate aircraft, for example, tend to underperform the stock market by about 4 percent a year, over the 10 years covered by the study. (Considering that the total return of the S&P 500 index averaged about 10 percent a year over the past eight decades, that's not small change.)

So how do these packages get approved? Corporate boards usually include a subset of the board called the compensation committee. The problem is that many corporate directors (so-called “inside” directors) report to the CEO. So their judgment is not exactly impartial. (“Hey, boss: remember that raise I asked you for? One reason I need it is because I’m staying late working on your generous pay package for next year.”)

When it comes to “outside” directors (people who work for other companies), some CEO pack their boards with friends and cronies. So the board’s final decision is not always, well – above board. The Sarbannes-Oxley law took some steps to set rules on this, requiring certain new reporting procedures and holding directors personally liable if shareholders squawk.

That's called an OPINION piece.

Sounds like you're jealous to me of something you'll never become.

Yet that is how the board works, the ceo owns the board. How many links you need before you get it? I realize you are slow.

 

[Conservative65]

And you also seem to think lots of qualified applicants raises wages. What is the incentive for an employer to increase wages when they have many qualified applicants?

The incentive is to get the best ones.

They already have lots of qualified applicants. You raise wages when you have trouble finding qualified applicants. Since wages are now stagnant there are few looking to hire skilled workers.

Here is another comment where I was obviously discussing skilled workers.

Here's something you keep proving. You're one of those that makes what you call stagnant wages. Otherwise, you would be whining about something you could fix if you applied yourself.

And now you talk completely out of your ass further proving you are a moron.

You're the one whining about stagnant wages. To use the argument put forth by your kind (i.e. - Liberal retards), when you complain to much about something, it's a sign you fit into it.

 

[Brain357]

The incentive is to get the best ones.

They already have lots of qualified applicants. You raise wages when you have trouble finding qualified applicants. Since wages are now stagnant there are few looking to hire skilled workers.

Here is another comment where I was obviously discussing skilled workers.

Yet you make a blanket statement about wages going up when jobs are being offered then back off when called on it.

By the way, ONE example doesn't prove your point nor have you even shown it works with the example you gave. You make a blanket statement.

No you mean you took a comment out of context and ran with it like a moron does. Even though I corrected you many times. When lying is your only defense you have nothing.

I took your comment for what it SAID. You're running from it now. When you run like a pussy from your own comment, I can't help you. I'm not real sure you can help you unless you man up to what you said.

Yes you choose to ignore what we were discussing. Seriously all you can do is take comments out of context? Sad.

 

[Conservative65]

He does that a lot. He said yesterday that CEO's set their own salary. I asked for proof and he said they "essentially" do.

I linked how actually. I'm surprised you didn't already know they do.

That's because they don't.

Here is another link:
Who decides how much a CEO makes?

There not a lot of evidence that CEOs with pay packages larded with goodies do a better job than those with more modest paychecks. One study found that companies that allow personal use of corporate aircraft, for example, tend to underperform the stock market by about 4 percent a year, over the 10 years covered by the study. (Considering that the total return of the S&P 500 index averaged about 10 percent a year over the past eight decades, that's not small change.)

So how do these packages get approved? Corporate boards usually include a subset of the board called the compensation committee. The problem is that many corporate directors (so-called “inside” directors) report to the CEO. So their judgment is not exactly impartial. (“Hey, boss: remember that raise I asked you for? One reason I need it is because I’m staying late working on your generous pay package for next year.”)

When it comes to “outside” directors (people who work for other companies), some CEO pack their boards with friends and cronies. So the board’s final decision is not always, well – above board. The Sarbannes-Oxley law took some steps to set rules on this, requiring certain new reporting procedures and holding directors personally liable if shareholders squawk.

That's called an OPINION piece.

Sounds like you're jealous to me of something you'll never become.

Yet that is how the board works, the ceo owns the board. How many links you need before you get it? I realize you are slow.

You can post all the OPINION/OP ED pieces you want. NONE of them are proof.

 

[Brain357]

The incentive is to get the best ones.

They already have lots of qualified applicants. You raise wages when you have trouble finding qualified applicants. Since wages are now stagnant there are few looking to hire skilled workers.

Here is another comment where I was obviously discussing skilled workers.

Here's something you keep proving. You're one of those that makes what you call stagnant wages. Otherwise, you would be whining about something you could fix if you applied yourself.

And now you talk completely out of your ass further proving you are a moron.

You're the one whining about stagnant wages. To use the argument put forth by your kind (i.e. - Liberal retards), when you complain to much about something, it's a sign you fit into it.

Yes stagnant wages are slowing our whole economy. That is a problem.

 

[Conservative65]

They already have lots of qualified applicants. You raise wages when you have trouble finding qualified applicants. Since wages are now stagnant there are few looking to hire skilled workers.

Here is another comment where I was obviously discussing skilled workers.

Yet you make a blanket statement about wages going up when jobs are being offered then back off when called on it.

By the way, ONE example doesn't prove your point nor have you even shown it works with the example you gave. You make a blanket statement.

No you mean you took a comment out of context and ran with it like a moron does. Even though I corrected you many times. When lying is your only defense you have nothing.

I took your comment for what it SAID. You're running from it now. When you run like a pussy from your own comment, I can't help you. I'm not real sure you can help you unless you man up to what you said.

Yes you choose to ignore what we were discussing. Seriously all you can do is take comments out of context? Sad.

I take the statements as you made them.

You know, if you put half as much effort into improving your skills as you do whining about stagnant wages, your wages wouldn't be stagnant.

 

[Brain357]

I linked how actually. I'm surprised you didn't already know they do.

That's because they don't.

Here is another link:
Who decides how much a CEO makes?

There not a lot of evidence that CEOs with pay packages larded with goodies do a better job than those with more modest paychecks. One study found that companies that allow personal use of corporate aircraft, for example, tend to underperform the stock market by about 4 percent a year, over the 10 years covered by the study. (Considering that the total return of the S&P 500 index averaged about 10 percent a year over the past eight decades, that's not small change.)

So how do these packages get approved? Corporate boards usually include a subset of the board called the compensation committee. The problem is that many corporate directors (so-called “inside” directors) report to the CEO. So their judgment is not exactly impartial. (“Hey, boss: remember that raise I asked you for? One reason I need it is because I’m staying late working on your generous pay package for next year.”)

When it comes to “outside” directors (people who work for other companies), some CEO pack their boards with friends and cronies. So the board’s final decision is not always, well – above board. The Sarbannes-Oxley law took some steps to set rules on this, requiring certain new reporting procedures and holding directors personally liable if shareholders squawk.

That's called an OPINION piece.

Sounds like you're jealous to me of something you'll never become.

Yet that is how the board works, the ceo owns the board. How many links you need before you get it? I realize you are slow.

You can post all the OPINION/OP ED pieces you want. NONE of them are proof.

Yes and the studies that ceos get paid more for poor performance you just gonna block those out too. Are you like 15 years old?

 

[Brain357]

Here is another comment where I was obviously discussing skilled workers.

Yet you make a blanket statement about wages going up when jobs are being offered then back off when called on it.

By the way, ONE example doesn't prove your point nor have you even shown it works with the example you gave. You make a blanket statement.

No you mean you took a comment out of context and ran with it like a moron does. Even though I corrected you many times. When lying is your only defense you have nothing.

I took your comment for what it SAID. You're running from it now. When you run like a pussy from your own comment, I can't help you. I'm not real sure you can help you unless you man up to what you said.

Yes you choose to ignore what we were discussing. Seriously all you can do is take comments out of context? Sad.

I take the statements as you made them.

You know, if you put half as much effort into improving your skills as you do whining about stagnant wages, your wages wouldn't be stagnant.

Don't worry kid, I'll make a lot more than you this year. But if my customers didn't have stagnant wages I'd do even better. See stagnant wages are bad for the economy. When you grow up and learn some economics you might figure that out.