See we told you.. Mcdonalds is ordering 7K touch screen to replace cashiers

[The T]

Hey Mac, how is it that companies seem to be able to figure out what a "living wage" is when they hire executives?

But they can't figure it out for an hourly employee. They sure seem to know what they are not paying a "living wage". Isn't that why they have the HR department telling employees how to apply for government assistance? They know that don't pay enough for their employees to live on.

Don't they know what housing costs are in their market? Food, utilities, medical care. schooling etc.

How is it that these companies know that a manager in NYC has to make more than a manager in Bowling Green, Ohio.

Is corporate management so stupid today they can't figure this out for a hourly worker?

Do you know that the cost of living differs all over the country?

Your desire for an answer to your question is a little simplified isn't it.

Beside Mac, with you being a financial planner, seems like YOU should be able to answer this question.

Easiest question I'll get all day.

I'll keep this as simple as I can for you.

First, corporations don't base their executive pay on a "living wage". What a strange thought.

Second, the law of Supply & Demand (let me help here: Law Of Supply And Demand Definition | Investopedia) applies to employees just as it applies to products and services. A company is going to pay what it feels it must to attract and retain the people it wants to attract and retain.

To your point, this will include everything from experience to geography.

If they feel they have to pay $9.00 an hour to attract and retain the french fry people they want to attract and retain, they will do so and include that figure in their fixed costs (here, let me help: Fixed Cost Definition | Investopedia).

If they feel they have to pay $5 million a year to attract and retain some executive, that is what they will pay.

In both cases, they don't want to pay more than they have to -- the reason for this is as I described above, the purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value.

I that all makes sense. Feel free to ask for clarification.

.

You are trying to tell me that when a major corporation is hiring a middle level manager, that the salary they offer is not based, to a degree, on the cost of living for the area the manager would have to live and work in.

Like you said Mac, they don't want to pay more than they have to. Why pay big bucks in a low cost of living area?



Hiring a CEO would be different. When the major corp hires a CEO and plans to pay them 5 million a year, the corporation is smart enough to know that ANYONE could afford to live on 5 million a year. Cost of living be damned.

But come on Mac, what is a living wage where you live? What wage allows a person to afford a home, pay for their living expenses and maybe even put a little savings away.

Or is the American Dream just for the more affluent these days?

Whom is forcing them to take the job in the first place?

 

[Mac1958]

Hey Mac, how is it that companies seem to be able to figure out what a "living wage" is when they hire executives?

But they can't figure it out for an hourly employee. They sure seem to know what they are not paying a "living wage". Isn't that why they have the HR department telling employees how to apply for government assistance? They know that don't pay enough for their employees to live on.

Don't they know what housing costs are in their market? Food, utilities, medical care. schooling etc.

How is it that these companies know that a manager in NYC has to make more than a manager in Bowling Green, Ohio.

Is corporate management so stupid today they can't figure this out for a hourly worker?

Do you know that the cost of living differs all over the country?

Your desire for an answer to your question is a little simplified isn't it.

Beside Mac, with you being a financial planner, seems like YOU should be able to answer this question.

Easiest question I'll get all day.

I'll keep this as simple as I can for you.

First, corporations don't base their executive pay on a "living wage". What a strange thought.

Second, the law of Supply & Demand (let me help here: Law Of Supply And Demand Definition | Investopedia) applies to employees just as it applies to products and services. A company is going to pay what it feels it must to attract and retain the people it wants to attract and retain.

To your point, this will include everything from experience to geography.

If they feel they have to pay $9.00 an hour to attract and retain the french fry people they want to attract and retain, they will do so and include that figure in their fixed costs (here, let me help: Fixed Cost Definition | Investopedia).

If they feel they have to pay $5 million a year to attract and retain some executive, that is what they will pay.

In both cases, they don't want to pay more than they have to -- the reason for this is as I described above, the purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value.

I that all makes sense. Feel free to ask for clarification.

.

You are trying to tell me that when a major corporation is hiring a middle level manager, that the salary they offer is not based, to a degree, on the cost of living for the area the manager would have to live and work in.

Like you said Mac, they don't want to pay more than they have to. Why pay big bucks in a low cost of living area?



Hiring a CEO would be different. When the major corp hires a CEO and plans to pay them 5 million a year, the corporation is smart enough to know that ANYONE could afford to live on 5 million a year. Cost of living be damned.

But come on Mac, what is a living wage where you live? What wage allows a person to afford a home, pay for their living expenses and maybe even put a little savings away.

Or is the American Dream just for the more affluent these days?

Huh?

Clearly you didn't read what I said, holy crap: "To your point, this will include everything from experience to geography."

What's wrong with you?

And then you ask me "what is a living wage where you live?" I have absolutely no idea what you people mean by a "living wage", and you refuse to tell me. WHAT IS THE NUMBER? A "living wage" depends on your individual situation, don't you know that?

What the fuck?

Zeke, it's clear to me that it's impossible to have a mature, civil conversation with you. You refuse to answer my questions, you constantly play games, it's just not worth it. If you can't communicate like an adult, let's just not communicate.

.

 

[zeke]

Easiest question I'll get all day.

I'll keep this as simple as I can for you.

First, corporations don't base their executive pay on a "living wage". What a strange thought.

Second, the law of Supply & Demand (let me help here: Law Of Supply And Demand Definition | Investopedia) applies to employees just as it applies to products and services. A company is going to pay what it feels it must to attract and retain the people it wants to attract and retain.

To your point, this will include everything from experience to geography.

If they feel they have to pay $9.00 an hour to attract and retain the french fry people they want to attract and retain, they will do so and include that figure in their fixed costs (here, let me help: Fixed Cost Definition | Investopedia).

If they feel they have to pay $5 million a year to attract and retain some executive, that is what they will pay.

In both cases, they don't want to pay more than they have to -- the reason for this is as I described above, the purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value.

I that all makes sense. Feel free to ask for clarification.

.

You are trying to tell me that when a major corporation is hiring a middle level manager, that the salary they offer is not based, to a degree, on the cost of living for the area the manager would have to live and work in.

Like you said Mac, they don't want to pay more than they have to. Why pay big bucks in a low cost of living area?



Hiring a CEO would be different. When the major corp hires a CEO and plans to pay them 5 million a year, the corporation is smart enough to know that ANYONE could afford to live on 5 million a year. Cost of living be damned.

But come on Mac, what is a living wage where you live? What wage allows a person to afford a home, pay for their living expenses and maybe even put a little savings away.

Or is the American Dream just for the more affluent these days?

Whom is forcing them to take the job in the first place?

Wtf are you talking about? A desire to work and make a living is what causes people to take a job.

Or do you prefer them being on government assistance?

Or do you really prefer that the wages are so low that a worker qualifies for government assistance. Then they can have both.

Do you work for your government assistance? Doing what?

 

[Katzndogz]

If we secured the border and started mass deportations, the minimum wages paid might rise naturally on its own.

How do suppose that would be the result?

Fewer workers willing to work for what employers are offering. Employers would be hiring Americans again. Labor is a commodity like any other commodity. The less of it there is, the more valuable it becomes.

 

[The T]

You are trying to tell me that when a major corporation is hiring a middle level manager, that the salary they offer is not based, to a degree, on the cost of living for the area the manager would have to live and work in.

Like you said Mac, they don't want to pay more than they have to. Why pay big bucks in a low cost of living area?



Hiring a CEO would be different. When the major corp hires a CEO and plans to pay them 5 million a year, the corporation is smart enough to know that ANYONE could afford to live on 5 million a year. Cost of living be damned.

But come on Mac, what is a living wage where you live? What wage allows a person to afford a home, pay for their living expenses and maybe even put a little savings away.

Or is the American Dream just for the more affluent these days?

Whom is forcing them to take the job in the first place?

Wtf are you talking about? A desire to work and make a living is what causes people to take a job.

Or do you prefer them being on government assistance?

Or do you really prefer that the wages are so low that a worker qualifies for government assistance. Then they can have both.

Do you work for your government assistance? Doing what?

Son? I don't have or NEED gubmint assistance. I worked my way up the ladder like every other responsible person does. But you keep evading the question and erecting strawmen all over this thread only to erect more when the torch gets put to all the others.

Good job.

 

[Mac1958]

.

What troubles me is that we're having to explain absolutely fundamental economic principles to adults.

There are people in China who would understand this in a second.

I'm serious -- How does this happen? Are our schools even worse than I thought?

.

 

[The T]

Why is it Zeke that YOU call for government intervention on behalf of irresponsible people only to bring down those of us that ARE responsible for our own lives?

WE are living the consequences of meddling government and YOU are here calling for more of it. WHY? Why are you an enemy to liberty? Responsibility?

 

[007]

I'd say dickdonald's has a full blown conundrum on it's hands, because they're a full blown leftist entity that supports the left and it's agenda, but it's the leftists that are attempting to bankrupt them with ridiculously high wages for idiots.

What will dickdonald's ever do? Start supporting republicans? Hmmm...

 

[The T]

.

What troubles me is that we're having to explain absolutely fundamental economic principles to adults.

There are people in China who would understand this in a second.

I'm serious -- How does this happen? Are our schools even worse than I thought?

.

If you mean Public Education/Indocrination centers we call schools? Short answer is YES.

 

[The T]

I'd say dickdonald's has a full blown conundrum on it's hands, because they're a full blown leftist entity that supports the left and it's agenda, but it's the leftists that are attempting to bankrupt them with moronic wages for idiots.

What will dickdonald's ever do? Start supporting republicans? Hmmm...

Unions are behind this crap...and bolstered by Statists in government.

 

[rightwinger]

.

Four things I'd like to know.

1. How many people in this country are actually making the minimum wage?
2. How many of these people are actually trying to raise a family on a minimum wage?
3. Why have they put themselves in that position?
4. How, PRECISELY, do you create a "living wage" when the living expenses of employees will vary from "just needing some cash" to "I need to support a family on this"?

I'm not really against a minimum wage. I'm not really against some mechanism that would increase it annually. I'd just like to take a reasonable, educated, sober look at the actual situation and move away from the naive, simplistic emotionalism by which the "living wage" proponents are so consumed.

Can anyone answer my questions in a reasonable, civil manner, especially the last one?

.

My problem with a living wage is that companies that don't pay one rely on the taxpayers to make up the difference

Why do we have to support your workers?

I wonder if you're planning on answering any of my questions, especially the fourth one.

.

OK

Let's define a living wage first. A living wage means you pay enough so that the taxpayer doesn't have to support your employees food, housing or healthcare. In effect, that welfare is going to support those employers.....they get a low cost workforce and the taxpayer makes up the difference

How does any employer pay his employees? Some are supporting families off the salary, some just use the money to party every weekend. It's not relevant is it?

 

[depotoo]

.

Four things I'd like to know.

1. How many people in this country are actually making the minimum wage?
2. How many of these people are actually trying to raise a family on a minimum wage?
3. Why have they put themselves in that position?
4. How, PRECISELY, do you create a "living wage" when the living expenses of employees will vary from "just needing some cash" to "I need to support a family on this"?

I'm not really against a minimum wage. I'm not really against some mechanism that would increase it annually. I'd just like to take a reasonable, educated, sober look at the actual situation and move away from the naive, simplistic emotionalism by which the "living wage" proponents are so consumed.

Can anyone answer my questions in a reasonable, civil manner, especially the last one?

.

My problem with a living wage is that companies that don't pay one rely on the taxpayers to make up the difference

Why do we have to support your workers?

Would you rather tax payers support them fully or partially? To think they don't help with the economy is really absurd thinking. They actually take a burden off the tax payer by providing a job that otherwise would not be there.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I will wait for the liberals to pass a "special" tax on automation machines.

 

[Meathead]

A livable wage cannot be defined as a single earner making enough money to support him/herself and unlimited dependents.

 

[The T]

.

Four things i'd like to know.

1. how many people in this country are actually making the minimum wage?
2. how many of these people are actually trying to raise a family on a minimum wage?
3. why have they put themselves in that position?
4. how, precisely, do you create a "living wage" when the living expenses of employees will vary from "just needing some cash" to "i need to support a family on this"?

i'm not really against a minimum wage. I'm not really against some mechanism that would increase it annually. I'd just like to take a reasonable, educated, sober look at the actual situation and move away from the naive, simplistic emotionalism by which the "living wage" proponents are so consumed.

Can anyone answer my questions in a reasonable, civil manner, especially the last one?

.

*bump*

 

[Mac1958]

OK

Let's define a living wage first. A living wage means you pay enough so that the taxpayer doesn't have to support your employees food, housing or healthcare. In effect, that welfare is going to support those employers.....they get a low cost workforce and the taxpayer makes up the difference

How does any employer pay his employees? Some are supporting families off the salary, some just use the money to party every weekend. It's not relevant is it?

Yep. The problem is the nature of the work and the value the employee brings to the employer.

There are going to be far fewer McDonald's employees supporting a family on their wages than Apple, for example. The obvious reason is skill set. I asked before, and I can never get a straight answer, how many people are really trying to support a family at McDonald's?

You folks are simply refusing to honestly address three critical questions:

Why is it the responsibility of a corporation - whose only objective is to maximize shareholder value -- to base pay on some arbitrary "living wage" that varies wildly from employee to employee?

Why do you not acknowledge and promote the fact that people are capable of improving their own lives via workplace advancement, new employment, and/or improving their own skill set to make themselves more attractive on the employment market?

Isn't it the fundamental responsibility of an able-bodied adult to make a higher income than their monthly costs so that they can avoid needing public assistance, a drain on our tax money? How could that possibly be someone else's problem?

.

 

[rightwinger]

.

Four things I'd like to know.

1. How many people in this country are actually making the minimum wage?
2. How many of these people are actually trying to raise a family on a minimum wage?
3. Why have they put themselves in that position?
4. How, PRECISELY, do you create a "living wage" when the living expenses of employees will vary from "just needing some cash" to "I need to support a family on this"?

I'm not really against a minimum wage. I'm not really against some mechanism that would increase it annually. I'd just like to take a reasonable, educated, sober look at the actual situation and move away from the naive, simplistic emotionalism by which the "living wage" proponents are so consumed.

Can anyone answer my questions in a reasonable, civil manner, especially the last one?

.

My problem with a living wage is that companies that don't pay one rely on the taxpayers to make up the difference

Why do we have to support your workers?

Would you rather tax payers support them fully or partially? To think they don't help with the economy is really absurd thinking. They actually take a burden off the tax payer by providing a job that otherwise would not be there.

Let's look at it this way. The taxpayer is subsidizing their profit margin by allowing them to pay an artificially low wage. A wage where their own workers could not afford to live in their community

 

[jon_berzerk]

OK

Let's define a living wage first. A living wage means you pay enough so that the taxpayer doesn't have to support your employees food, housing or healthcare. In effect, that welfare is going to support those employers.....they get a low cost workforce and the taxpayer makes up the difference

How does any employer pay his employees? Some are supporting families off the salary, some just use the money to party every weekend. It's not relevant is it?

Yep. The problem is the nature of the work and the value the employee brings to the employer.

There are going to be far fewer McDonald's employees supporting a family on their wages than Apple, for example. The obvious reason is skill set. I asked before, and I can never get a straight answer, how many people are really trying to support a family at McDonald's?

You folks are simply refusing to honestly address three critical questions:

Why is it the responsibility of a corporation - whose only objective is to maximize shareholder value -- to base pay on some arbitrary "living wage" that varies wildly from employee to employee?

Why do you not acknowledge and promote the fact that people are capable of improving their own lives via workplace advancement, new employment, and/or improving their own skill set to make themselves more attractive on the employment market?

Isn't it the fundamental responsibility of an able-bodied adult to make a higher income than their monthly costs so that they can avoid needing public assistance, a drain on our tax money? How could that possibly be someone else's problem?

.

about (5) percent of workers are low wage

then there is a subset of low wage earners with children

then there is a subset of low wage earners with children without other family member with income

it certainly is a low number most likely below 5 million

which of course when 5 million lose insurance in is insignificant according to the white house

and this not including the subset of minimum wage earners

 

[jon_berzerk]

OK

Let's define a living wage first. A living wage means you pay enough so that the taxpayer doesn't have to support your employees food, housing or healthcare. In effect, that welfare is going to support those employers.....they get a low cost workforce and the taxpayer makes up the difference

How does any employer pay his employees? Some are supporting families off the salary, some just use the money to party every weekend. It's not relevant is it?

Yep. The problem is the nature of the work and the value the employee brings to the employer.

There are going to be far fewer McDonald's employees supporting a family on their wages than Apple, for example. The obvious reason is skill set. I asked before, and I can never get a straight answer, how many people are really trying to support a family at McDonald's?

You folks are simply refusing to honestly address three critical questions:

Why is it the responsibility of a corporation - whose only objective is to maximize shareholder value -- to base pay on some arbitrary "living wage" that varies wildly from employee to employee?

Why do you not acknowledge and promote the fact that people are capable of improving their own lives via workplace advancement, new employment, and/or improving their own skill set to make themselves more attractive on the employment market?

Isn't it the fundamental responsibility of an able-bodied adult to make a higher income than their monthly costs so that they can avoid needing public assistance, a drain on our tax money? How could that possibly be someone else's problem?

.

about (5) percent of workers are low wage

then there is a subset of low wage earners with children

then there is a subset of low wage earners with children without other family member with income

it certainly is a low number most likely below 5 million

which of course when 5 million lose insurance in is insignificant according to the white house

and this not including the subset of minimum wage earners

in 2012 3.7 million Americans reported earning $7.25 or less per hour—just 2.9 percent of all workers in the United States

 

[rightwinger]

OK

Let's define a living wage first. A living wage means you pay enough so that the taxpayer doesn't have to support your employees food, housing or healthcare. In effect, that welfare is going to support those employers.....they get a low cost workforce and the taxpayer makes up the difference

How does any employer pay his employees? Some are supporting families off the salary, some just use the money to party every weekend. It's not relevant is it?

Yep. The problem is the nature of the work and the value the employee brings to the employer.

There are going to be far fewer McDonald's employees supporting a family on their wages than Apple, for example. The obvious reason is skill set. I asked before, and I can never get a straight answer, how many people are really trying to support a family at McDonald's?

You folks are simply refusing to honestly address three critical questions:

Why is it the responsibility of a corporation - whose only objective is to maximize shareholder value -- to base pay on some arbitrary "living wage" that varies wildly from employee to employee?

Why do you not acknowledge and promote the fact that people are capable of improving their own lives via workplace advancement, new employment, and/or improving their own skill set to make themselves more attractive on the employment market?

Isn't it the fundamental responsibility of an able-bodied adult to make a higher income than their monthly costs so that they can avoid needing public assistance, a drain on our tax money? How could that possibly be someone else's problem?

.

Conservatives always resort to this.....offering an individual solution to a problem with a population. Yes, an individual can improve his lot in life.....a population can't. Supply and demand apply.
All societies require a certain percentage of low level labor. They cannot all be executives. The question remains....what standard of living should this part of our population have and who should pay for it?

If you don't want employers to provide a basic standard of living, then the taxpayers must