To those saying flipping burgers or dunking fries deserves 15.00 per hour...

[Ray From Cleveland]

Even McDonald's acknowledges that their business was intended for children.
Holding businesses that are created with the employment of kids & college students responsible for the poor choices people make in life is wrong. If you're in your mid to late 20's or higher & working for minimum wage you have no one to blame but yourself. You're poor choices should not result in a 10.00 Big Mac or 4 dollar fry.

Okay, here's the thing.

Besides the immorality of a big rich corporation building it's business model on exploiting the labor of children.

The fact is, those jobs that you were supposed to get when you "Grew Up" are going away. Factory jobs are overseas or replaced by Automation. Office jobs, largely replaced by automation.

Also, the other lie is that it would cause an increase in the cost of fast food.

Raising fast-food hourly wages to $15 would raise prices by 4%, study finds

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1.54 million people working in food preparation and serving related occupations make at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Raising their hourly wages to $15 -- a 107% increase -- would cause prices to rise an estimated 4.3%. That means your $3.99 Big Mac would wind up costing $4.16, and an average fast-food meal costing $7.00 would go up in price to $7.31.

Conservatives keep repeating the mantra......You don't have to stay in a minimum wage job, find something better

Eventually, most minimum wage workers do find something better. But that does not excuse exploiting them while they work for you or exploiting the next person you get to fill the job

Okay, let me ask: if they are satisfied with their wage, then what's the drive to do better in life?

My first full time job was at a car wash, and yes minimum wage. They couldn't give me 40 hours a week so a friend of mine got me a job at the factory he worked at, and yes, for minimum wage. Unsatisfied with that, another friend of mine got me a job where he worked (for minimum wage) and that's what started my career in driving.

If some Democrats back then came out with an $7.00 an hour minimum wage (It was around $3.50 an hour or something like that) I may have spent years at that dead-end car wash job.

What kept me looking for my place in the workforce is being unsatisfied with the money I was making. The things I learned along the way (like using an electric pallet jack, tow motor, ceiling crane) helped me be a more worthy applicant for the ultimate choice I made for work.

Of course back then social programs didn't pay squat, and people back then had too much pride to use them. People trying harder is what made people better; tough love.

The problems we have today are social programs, parents letting their kids live with them forever, and no motivation to self-improvment--not minimum wage.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lets look at it realistically

A $15 minimum wage will make up for the ten years since minimum wage was last raised and the next ten years until they are raised again

It would also eliminate a lot of jobs either by a reduction in workforce or replacing workers with automation.

What you fail to understand is that when you get a wage increase, it costs your employer more than the cash alone. Insurances go up, their matching contributions to your SS and Medicare contributions go up, it costs them more money for when you're getting paid while not working like vacations and holidays.

You can't sit back and say a dollar an hour raise for an employee will only cost the employer only 40 bucks. It costs much more than that.

 

[JoeB131]

No. We keep saying to get a skill set, work hard and take advantage of their training programs to move into management. If you think you can walk into any job, just do the minimum, show no desire to help the company succeed, then you will never be more than a hamburger flipper. And worth nothing more.

Real world. You can bust your ass, and they will still abuse you, lie to you, and otherwise take advantage of you, no matter how hard you work. Fuck, if you work hard, you're more likely to be seen as a threat than an advantage.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, if you don't pay your executive those wages, your competitor will. You can find a floor sweeper or shelf stocker anywhere.

Actually, given that these executives get t heir 8 figure salaries, even if the company is going under, that doesn't impress me.

So let's look at the Fox watching the McDonald's Henhouse.

McDonald's CEO gets 368% pay raise

The fast food chain’s chief executive, Steve Easterbrook, brought home a whopping $7.91 million last year — a 368% raise over his 2014 salary of $1.69 million —while low-wage McDonald’s workers are striking around the country for a livable income.

Wow? Really? so McDonald's must be doing pretty awesome if that's the case.

Errr... No.

The Continuing Decline of McDonald’s : The Corbett Report

Long-time Corbett Reporteers might recall my 2015 video, “Celebrate! McDonald’s is Dying!” where I detailed the many, many woes the fast “food” giant was dealing with at the time, including:

• The first quarterly loss in the firm’s 38 years as a publicly traded company ($343.8 million).
• Its first full-year loss ($186 million) in Japan in 11 years.
• A 58 cent per share drop on the back of a global comparable sales drop of 3.3%.

Since then, McCancer’s has been undergoing a sweeping “restructuring” that has seen many layers of lipstick slapped on their factory-farmed pig. This restructuring includes not only cosmetic changes (“All-day breakfasts and new value menus for everyone!”) but behind-the-scenes efforts to trim $500 million from the company’s operating expenses, including buyouts and layoffs at company headquarters and the re-franchising of 4,000 corporate “restaurants.”


Not to worry, though. Those McDonald's employees can always collect government benefits that Ray(cist) from Cleveland will whine about them getting.

So why do you believe CEO pay will always bring success?

CEO's get paid by past performances. They have made business ties along the way, political ties, and the experience they gained along the way makes them a rarity in their line of work.

If you pay an actress 10 million dollars to make a movie, it doesn't mean that movie will guarantee a box office hit. If you pay a baseball pitcher 4 million a year to play a kids game, it doesn't guarantee you will make it to the playoffs yet alone the world series. If you pay a rock or country band 10 million for a new recording, it doesn't guarantee it will make record sales.

Contract people get paid by past performances, that's it. No guarantees, only the hope that their success continues with your company.

 

[JoeB131]

Okay, let me ask: if they are satisfied with their wage, then what's the drive to do better in life?

Nobody ever said on their deathbed, "I wish I had spent more time at the office".

If some Democrats back then came out with an $7.00 an hour minimum wage (It was around $3.50 an hour or something like that) I may have spent years at that dead-end car wash job.

Again, for those playing along at home, Ray's boss cancelled his health insurance because he's as valuable as a sea monkey.

Of course back then social programs didn't pay squat, and people back then had too much pride to use them. People trying harder is what made people better; tough love.

And when was that miraculous time? Because I grew up in the 1970's and frankly, we had people who lived on welfare then.

The thing is, when I was growing up, you could do kind of okay on Minimum wage. It wasn't a "living wage", but it was an okay wage. I could pay for college working minimum wage jobs and get to the better jobs.

 

[JoeB131]

So why do you believe CEO pay will always bring success?

CEO's get paid by past performances. They have made business ties along the way, political ties, and the experience they gained along the way makes them a rarity in their line of work.

Well, that's kind of fucked up. They should be paid based on their current performance. In the case of the McDonald's guy, they TRIPLED his salary while he was there even as the company continued it's well deserved decline for making shitty food.

If you pay an actress 10 million dollars to make a movie, it doesn't mean that movie will guarantee a box office hit. If you pay a baseball pitcher 4 million a year to play a kids game, it doesn't guarantee you will make it to the playoffs yet alone the world series. If you pay a rock or country band 10 million for a new recording, it doesn't guarantee it will make record sales.

NO, but you see, those ARE personal brands. The talent is the reason for the interest. You don't go to see a movie with Tom Cruise because of the writer or the director or the Best Boy, you see it to see Tom Cruise. More to the point, though, all those other people belong to unions, and even if they aren't the drawing talent, they are being fairly compensated. They aren't making minimum wage and then having to apply for welfare.

Now, the thing is, you probably didn't know who the CEO of McDonald's was until I told you. The guy in the FUCKING CLOWN SUIT probably does more to attract customers.

 

[JoeB131]

Besides the fact that less than 3% of our workforce makes minimum wage, of that 3% very few fall into the category of survival. Kids, seniors looking to kill time, and stay at home moms when kids are in school take those jobs for extra money.

Then why are you guys all going nuts about it if so few people are affected?

Of course, it's not just the people making minimum, it's the people making a nickel or a dollar more than minimum who are struggling.

 

[JoeB131]

So minimum wage should be increased to help cover the inflated costs of liberal colleges?

Ever hear of a school loan?

Well, true, are you claiming that "conservative" colleges are reasonably priced? Sorry, man those Prager U brainwashing videos don't done be an education, Cleetus.

Sorry, kids shouldn't have to put themselves into a lifetime of debt to achieve the minimum education our society has decided they need to enter the work force.

 

[Timmy]

Even McDonald's acknowledges that their business was intended for children.
Holding businesses that are created with the employment of kids & college students responsible for the poor choices people make in life is wrong. If you're in your mid to late 20's or higher & working for minimum wage you have no one to blame but yourself. You're poor choices should not result in a 10.00 Big Mac or 4 dollar fry.

Okay, here's the thing.

Besides the immorality of a big rich corporation building it's business model on exploiting the labor of children.

The fact is, those jobs that you were supposed to get when you "Grew Up" are going away. Factory jobs are overseas or replaced by Automation. Office jobs, largely replaced by automation.

Also, the other lie is that it would cause an increase in the cost of fast food.

Raising fast-food hourly wages to $15 would raise prices by 4%, study finds

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1.54 million people working in food preparation and serving related occupations make at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Raising their hourly wages to $15 -- a 107% increase -- would cause prices to rise an estimated 4.3%. That means your $3.99 Big Mac would wind up costing $4.16, and an average fast-food meal costing $7.00 would go up in price to $7.31.

Conservatives keep repeating the mantra......You don't have to stay in a minimum wage job, find something better

Eventually, most minimum wage workers do find something better. But that does not excuse exploiting them while they work for you or exploiting the next person you get to fill the job

You wanna play around with words that's fine, but at least be honest:

Employees are letting companies "exploit" them, it's just that simple. Don't want to be "exploited" for less than your labor is worth? Find a job that pays what you think you're worth.

Low skilled workers don't have a choice of whether to be exploited or not
Most will eventually find a higher paying job

Look at a 17 year old worker. He will work for minimum wages while he goes to college to qualify for one of those better paying jobs. Because minimum wage employment pays so poorly, that young worker will be forced to take out loans to pay for that dream of an education
When he graduates, instead of looking to buy a home or getting married, he will be saddled with education debt that those minimum wage jobs used to pay for

These folks are low skilled and they are only worth X because that's what the job pays - if you're looking across the entire city for a "low skill" job and they all pay min wage - then you're only worth that min wage because there's a bunch of low skill workers; their labor isn't worth much.

On the flip side, if you're in Alaska NO ONE pays min wage because we don't have enough peeps to do the work we need done. We have too many open jobs, which means our labor is worth more money.

Supply and demand.

These folks might have to move to a location that /needs/ workers, rather than complaining about low pay when there are a lot of workers. It's still a personal choice, they choose to stay near family/friends whatever, and as a consequence are stuck with their labor being worth low pay. Hell my cousin just did this; he'd come up here to work in construction because it paid way better.

Supply and Demand ? So when the CEO makes $10 million , it’s because no one would do the job for $2 million ?

 

[rightwinger]

Yes there are personal choices
There are also class choices which our society makes. Are we willing to stand up for low skilled workers and provide them with a wage which allows basic survival, or do we want to use our low skilled workers as a source of cheap labor because they are the least able to defend themselves?

Our society chooses the latter

Class "choices"? No one is using them for cheap labor man, they're being paid based on supply and demand, that's what I was saying. IF there's not enough no-skill or low-skill workers, their labor is worth more. IF there's a bunch of no-skill or low-skilled workers, their labor is worth /less/ because a business can hire the next dude(tte) You cannot mandate the value of no to low skill workers because it's not based on anything except supply and demand in the local sphere. (Again, see my point about Eagle River low pay.) It is not the businesses job to provide a living wage, they are /offering/ a position at X pay, take it or don't, but they are not obligated to pay what you think they "should" - the only "think they should be paid" comes from the other businesses who are competing for the worker's labor.


What you want is price fixing, something that's been despised when businesses do it for ages...

Yes.....choices

We are allowing low skilled labor to be exploited so they can provide a low cost labor pool
We established a minimum wage for just this reason. To stand up for those workers who are least able to stand up for themselves in a tight labor market. We have now ignored them for close to ten years while we agonize over the profit margins of employers over the standard of living of low skilled labor

It's not exploitation when that's what it's worth. Workers, at every skill and education level, are /selling/ their labor. If their skill and education are "common place" then their labor isn't worth as much - low demand. If they sell their labor for cheap, then that is /their choice/. This is not exploitation.

Yes, when you take advantage of workers who have no options....it is exploitation
When billion dollar corporations lobby Congress to hold down minimum wage...it is exploitation

So who is it that has no options and why?

Low skilled labor
They would love to move up the ladder to truck driver

 

[initforme]

Kids have to live with their parents if their first job pays something like20 bucks per hour. Hard to affordhouysibg, a cheap vehicle, food, and health insurance. If the kid is working full time at a descent job, staying on parents health insurance is a common sense move. 3 of my kids attended college, worked for low wages, and were making six figures a few times over....staying on my health insurance until 26 was the BEST thing. Going without is utter ignorance and abject stupidity. I say extend it to 28. Makes sense and helps the nation. If you see young working folk living with parents in their mid 20s you should cheer for it. Idiots you are

 

[rightwinger]

Okay, here's the thing.

Besides the immorality of a big rich corporation building it's business model on exploiting the labor of children.

The fact is, those jobs that you were supposed to get when you "Grew Up" are going away. Factory jobs are overseas or replaced by Automation. Office jobs, largely replaced by automation.

Also, the other lie is that it would cause an increase in the cost of fast food.

Raising fast-food hourly wages to $15 would raise prices by 4%, study finds

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1.54 million people working in food preparation and serving related occupations make at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Raising their hourly wages to $15 -- a 107% increase -- would cause prices to rise an estimated 4.3%. That means your $3.99 Big Mac would wind up costing $4.16, and an average fast-food meal costing $7.00 would go up in price to $7.31.

Conservatives keep repeating the mantra......You don't have to stay in a minimum wage job, find something better

Eventually, most minimum wage workers do find something better. But that does not excuse exploiting them while they work for you or exploiting the next person you get to fill the job

You wanna play around with words that's fine, but at least be honest:

Employees are letting companies "exploit" them, it's just that simple. Don't want to be "exploited" for less than your labor is worth? Find a job that pays what you think you're worth.

Low skilled workers don't have a choice of whether to be exploited or not
Most will eventually find a higher paying job

Look at a 17 year old worker. He will work for minimum wages while he goes to college to qualify for one of those better paying jobs. Because minimum wage employment pays so poorly, that young worker will be forced to take out loans to pay for that dream of an education
When he graduates, instead of looking to buy a home or getting married, he will be saddled with education debt that those minimum wage jobs used to pay for

These folks are low skilled and they are only worth X because that's what the job pays - if you're looking across the entire city for a "low skill" job and they all pay min wage - then you're only worth that min wage because there's a bunch of low skill workers; their labor isn't worth much.

On the flip side, if you're in Alaska NO ONE pays min wage because we don't have enough peeps to do the work we need done. We have too many open jobs, which means our labor is worth more money.

Supply and demand.

These folks might have to move to a location that /needs/ workers, rather than complaining about low pay when there are a lot of workers. It's still a personal choice, they choose to stay near family/friends whatever, and as a consequence are stuck with their labor being worth low pay. Hell my cousin just did this; he'd come up here to work in construction because it paid way better.

Supply and Demand ? So when the CEO makes $10 million , it’s because no one would do the job for $2 million ?

The amazing part is that CEOs in Europe and Asia only make 2-4 million
But American CEOs are so much more valuable

 

[Thinker101]

Class "choices"? No one is using them for cheap labor man, they're being paid based on supply and demand, that's what I was saying. IF there's not enough no-skill or low-skill workers, their labor is worth more. IF there's a bunch of no-skill or low-skilled workers, their labor is worth /less/ because a business can hire the next dude(tte) You cannot mandate the value of no to low skill workers because it's not based on anything except supply and demand in the local sphere. (Again, see my point about Eagle River low pay.) It is not the businesses job to provide a living wage, they are /offering/ a position at X pay, take it or don't, but they are not obligated to pay what you think they "should" - the only "think they should be paid" comes from the other businesses who are competing for the worker's labor.


What you want is price fixing, something that's been despised when businesses do it for ages...

Yes.....choices

We are allowing low skilled labor to be exploited so they can provide a low cost labor pool
We established a minimum wage for just this reason. To stand up for those workers who are least able to stand up for themselves in a tight labor market. We have now ignored them for close to ten years while we agonize over the profit margins of employers over the standard of living of low skilled labor

It's not exploitation when that's what it's worth. Workers, at every skill and education level, are /selling/ their labor. If their skill and education are "common place" then their labor isn't worth as much - low demand. If they sell their labor for cheap, then that is /their choice/. This is not exploitation.

Yes, when you take advantage of workers who have no options....it is exploitation
When billion dollar corporations lobby Congress to hold down minimum wage...it is exploitation

So who is it that has no options and why?

Low skilled labor
They would love to move up the ladder to truck driver

Soon as they learn how to flip a burger.

 

[rightwinger]

Lets look at it realistically

A $15 minimum wage will make up for the ten years since minimum wage was last raised and the next ten years until they are raised again

It would also eliminate a lot of jobs either by a reduction in workforce or replacing workers with automation.

What you fail to understand is that when you get a wage increase, it costs your employer more than the cash alone. Insurances go up, their matching contributions to your SS and Medicare contributions go up, it costs them more money for when you're getting paid while not working like vacations and holidays.

You can't sit back and say a dollar an hour raise for an employee will only cost the employer only 40 bucks. It costs much more than that.

Winner, winner ..Chicken Dinner
We always hear that when minimum wage is discussed

Yet, the market always adjusts
Our market hasn't had to adjust for a wage increase in ten years

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lets look at it realistically

A $15 minimum wage will make up for the ten years since minimum wage was last raised and the next ten years until they are raised again

It would also eliminate a lot of jobs either by a reduction in workforce or replacing workers with automation.

What you fail to understand is that when you get a wage increase, it costs your employer more than the cash alone. Insurances go up, their matching contributions to your SS and Medicare contributions go up, it costs them more money for when you're getting paid while not working like vacations and holidays.

You can't sit back and say a dollar an hour raise for an employee will only cost the employer only 40 bucks. It costs much more than that.

Winner, winner ..Chicken Dinner
We always hear that when minimum wage is discussed

Yet, the market always adjusts
Our market hasn't had to adjust for a wage increase in ten years

And those are the key words: hasn't had to.

 

[Markle]

Kids have been shut out of these jobs by illegal aliens.

Nonsense. Most kids today are spoiled and think they're too good to work at McDonald's. My guess is that there is a lot of peer pressure from kids whose parents either don't allow them to work because they had to when they were kids or some other wild reason.

 

[depotoo]

The realist is the one that understands the economics of business. Pie in the sky, such as you advocate is not.

Lets look at it realistically

A $15 minimum wage will make up for the ten years since minimum wage was last raised and the next ten years until they are raised again

You expect cheap labor conservatives to look at things realistically?

 

[initforme]

If a kid is working full time for a measely wage Luke 20 bucks an hour how do you expect them to live on their own?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Class "choices"? No one is using them for cheap labor man, they're being paid based on supply and demand, that's what I was saying. IF there's not enough no-skill or low-skill workers, their labor is worth more. IF there's a bunch of no-skill or low-skilled workers, their labor is worth /less/ because a business can hire the next dude(tte) You cannot mandate the value of no to low skill workers because it's not based on anything except supply and demand in the local sphere. (Again, see my point about Eagle River low pay.) It is not the businesses job to provide a living wage, they are /offering/ a position at X pay, take it or don't, but they are not obligated to pay what you think they "should" - the only "think they should be paid" comes from the other businesses who are competing for the worker's labor.


What you want is price fixing, something that's been despised when businesses do it for ages...

Yes.....choices

We are allowing low skilled labor to be exploited so they can provide a low cost labor pool
We established a minimum wage for just this reason. To stand up for those workers who are least able to stand up for themselves in a tight labor market. We have now ignored them for close to ten years while we agonize over the profit margins of employers over the standard of living of low skilled labor

It's not exploitation when that's what it's worth. Workers, at every skill and education level, are /selling/ their labor. If their skill and education are "common place" then their labor isn't worth as much - low demand. If they sell their labor for cheap, then that is /their choice/. This is not exploitation.

Yes, when you take advantage of workers who have no options....it is exploitation
When billion dollar corporations lobby Congress to hold down minimum wage...it is exploitation

So who is it that has no options and why?

Low skilled labor
They would love to move up the ladder to truck driver

Do you hear me whining that I'm making minimum wage?

 

[Mac1958]

Okay, let me ask: if they are satisfied with their wage, then what's the drive to do better in life?

Okay, against my better judgement, I'm gonna jump in and toss this out there.

Yours is a perfectly valid and reasonable question. The fact remains, however, that in a capitalist system there are going to be people who have a natural, innate, organic capacity to create wealth far more effectively than others. This may include natural skill sets, it may include natural intelligence, it may include ambition or genetics or upbringing or drive or passion. Whatever.

So, that leads us to ask, is it smart to allow the division between those with that capacity and those without it to increase? Personally, I've thought long and hard about this, and I don't think it is. Two reasons: First, an advanced civilization has to make a choice: They can (1) allow the spoils of capitalism to remain largely with those with the capacity to drive the dynamics of capitalism, or (2) they can decide that those without that capacity deserve better than to wallow in a deeper and deeper social hole.

And one more thing, human nature. At some point, those at the bottom will have had enough, deservedly or not. Since one of our many societal weaknesses is that we tend to knee-jerk too far when we try to deal with a problem, is it also smart to risk what would happen when these people have had it?

Personally, bottom line, I think it's smarter overall to keep divisions at a reasonable level.
.