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

[Papageorgio]

View attachment 164037

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.

Poverty is a complex issue. To blame it all on laziness is absolutely ridiculous and sends the message that corporations can pay employees wages that are way behind on the rising cost of living for the sake of massive profit that only benefits a small group of executives per company.

No one said anything about being lazy, except you. He spoke of what McDonald's intended employees are. Other than management, the majority of McDonald workers are under 21, which is what Ray Kroc envisioned when he built the franchise.

The goal of McDonald's was to buy the best real estate in the area develop it, have entrepreneurs run it using high school kids. That was always the goal of the McDonald's franchise. Also those that work at McDonald's are not lazy, it is not an easy job, however 95% of the population are qualified to work at McDonald's, it is not a skilled labor position.

I implied poor life choices. If he extrapolated laziesness out of that, well that's on him.
You simply can not say that someone in their 30's flipping burgers for a living didn't make some drastic poor choices when they were younger.

I agree, I worked at McDonald's until I was 19 and then took a pay cut to work at a bank. Plenty of people make very poor choices that make them unemployable or have low self esteem, learned to settle in finding work or have a fear of moving on to something different.

My philosophy is to train people well enough so the can leave, treat them well enough that they want to stay. Of course as already discussed McDonald's uses a different philosophy that has worked well for them.

 

[Papageorgio]

View attachment 164037

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.

Poverty is a complex issue. To blame it all on laziness is absolutely ridiculous and sends the message that corporations can pay employees wages that are way behind on the rising cost of living for the sake of massive profit that only benefits a small group of executives per company.

No one said anything about being lazy, except you. He spoke of what McDonald's intended employees are. Other than management, the majority of McDonald workers are under 21, which is what Ray Kroc envisioned when he built the franchise.

The goal of McDonald's was to buy the best real estate in the area develop it, have entrepreneurs run it using high school kids. That was always the goal of the McDonald's franchise. Also those that work at McDonald's are not lazy, it is not an easy job, however 95% of the population are qualified to work at McDonald's, it is not a skilled labor position.

I implied poor life choices. If he extrapolated laziesness out of that, well that's on him.
You simply can not say that someone in their 30's flipping burgers for a living didn't make some drastic poor choices when they were younger.

Nobody claims people will work for minimum wage their entire life

But it still does not excuse exploiting low skilled labor

Those over 21 making minimum wage in this economy need to quit and look for better pay. There are thousands of CDL jobs out there begging for drivers. Sometimes you are exploited because you allow yourself to be exploited. Not everyone but most of those in that position have a ton of talent, a ton of knowledge and a fear. The fear holds many people from moving forward.

 

[JoeB131]

I agree, I worked at McDonald's until I was 19 and then took a pay cut to work at a bank. Plenty of people make very poor choices that make them unemployable or have low self esteem, learned to settle in finding work or have a fear of moving on to something different.

My philosophy is to train people well enough so the can leave, treat them well enough that they want to stay. Of course as already discussed McDonald's uses a different philosophy that has worked well for them.

McDonald's tells its employees how to apply for food stamps.

Audio: McDonald's Tells Its Employees to Sign Up for Food Stamps

Look, buddy, it's not just the unskilled labor the One Percent fucks over... it's the rest of us, too, given the chance.

We have airline pilots selling their blood plasma and adjunct professors on Food stamps. And it's not like the Airlines or Universities are hurting for money.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

DEMOCRATS... Democrats and leftist do not want to admit that the "Historic Recovery" that took place between 2009-2015, almost 100% benefited the super wealthy. The numbers are there and they are irrefutable.The "Obama recovery" created the largest wealth concentration in U.S. history. PERIOD.
There was no recovery for the lower-middle class. None. There are no jobs left for the unskilled that pay a living wage. They are gone.

 

[danielpalos]

I am on the left.

You need to stop appealing to ignorance of private laws. Do some research.

Leftist never have to explain anything. They just throw shit out and demand that they're right.

I am not the one appealing to ignorance of the law.

Actually you do, since you're calling on privacy laws as authorization to the federal government to take cash from my pocket and deposit it to yours. That shows you're clueless and that ignorance is on your side.

That is what private law does.

Nope, it doesn't. How about you post the definition of what the private law is, instead of being wart on the butt of life.

Yes it does. You are appealing to ignorance of the law.

Typical of the right wing.

 

[danielpalos]

Tax the rich into Heaven.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

DEMOCRATS... Democrats and leftist do not want to admit that the "Historic Recovery" that took place between 2009-2015, almost 100% benefited the super wealthy. The numbers are there and they are irrefutable.The "Obama recovery" created the largest wealth concentration in U.S. history. PERIOD.
There was no recovery for the lower-middle class. None. There are no jobs left for the unskilled that pay a living wage. They are gone.

So, What do we do about it?

I got an idea!
Lets cut their taxes!

 

[Humorme]

Asked and answered. If people cannot make a realistic wage, they will qualify for welfare, housing subsidies, AFDC, etc. Taxpayers will either pay higher taxes or 15 cents more a meal for a Big Mac.

You speak from an assumption that taxpayers have a responsibility to provide a certain lifestyle to others. That attitude is increasingly being questioned, and circumstances may well change.

I don't have presumptions about anything. Either those who are only able to work certain jobs are paid for their services OR we will cover them.

If your way was THE way, how come it hasn't been done with a stacked Congress (Senate and House) along with the prez. Maybe, deep down, they don't buy the whole talking point?

Perhaps there are still too many Democrats in the Republican Party.

Charity is not nor has ever legally been the venue of the federal government. It is a usurped power.

Paying someone for their work is not charity. And we do provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.

Being forced to pay someone more than their work is worth is not charity either, but theft.

And yes, we do provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. We are also forced to take care of those who are fully capable of working and providing for themselves.

Do you realize how many people from the right that support you make the exact polar opposite argument when it's their job on the line?

Here is a perfect example:

I sometimes have gigs around my house. It might consist of building a deck or fixing a water heater. It's my home and let me make your argument for you:

I'm the employer. I decide what the job is worth. I'm not asking the government for their help nor imposing on them in any way, shape, fashion or form. So I advertise on Craigslist and if the guy I hire screws up the job or takes me for a ride, the ONLY swinging Richard that will be hurt is yours truly. But, the moment I do, there are fifty guys who made the same argument you do jumping on my ass like a bad diaper.

They worry that they guy I hired is here illegally; he don't have a license; he isn't insured; on and on it goes. IF the government can be utilized to their advantage to protect their jobs and their inflated salaries that are not in line with what a job is worth, your boys are all for it.

Now, go a bit further into reality:

My wife has a son with mild autism. The only way the government will put him on disability is if he takes drugs for the rest of his life. If he agrees to sit at home, on his ass, and become a Zombie, taking government approved feel good drugs, he can get a check.

Of course, the taxpayers will be on the hook not only for his disability checks, but the prescription drugs, the doctor to prescribe them, the government lackeys it takes to monitor the process and the flunkies that will require him to show up each year to re-evalute his condition. And that don't include all those government workers it takes to get the checks into his hands. Oh, and FWIW, when he shows up at these doctor offices, Uncle Scam pays his travel and food expenses. He don't have any money.

But we're talking about a guy with the ethical standards that inspire him to want to work at something. He may only be able to do mundane jobs, but he's willing to give up his nights, week-ends, and holidays. And you think that's not worth a livable paycheck??? Really?

When it comes to plumbers, carpenters, landscapers, and others whose jobs can be learned in mere months by uneducated to minimally intelligent third worlders, the same people buying the rich guy's arguments about cutting people off welfare are right there with those same welfare people, hoping the government will use some law, rule, statute or policy that will have government protecting their jobs from those willing to do the work cheaper.

The free market either works or it don't.

 

[Ame®icano]

Leftist never have to explain anything. They just throw shit out and demand that they're right.

I am not the one appealing to ignorance of the law.

Actually you do, since you're calling on privacy laws as authorization to the federal government to take cash from my pocket and deposit it to yours. That shows you're clueless and that ignorance is on your side.

That is what private law does.

Nope, it doesn't. How about you post the definition of what the private law is, instead of being wart on the butt of life.

Yes it does. You are appealing to ignorance of the law.

Typical of the right wing.

Why don't you post the definition of "private law"?

Maybe because it's not what you think it is?

Typical leftist oxygen thief.

 

[Humorme]

Asked and answered. If people cannot make a realistic wage, they will qualify for welfare, housing subsidies, AFDC, etc. Taxpayers will either pay higher taxes or 15 cents more a meal for a Big Mac.

You speak from an assumption that taxpayers have a responsibility to provide a certain lifestyle to others. That attitude is increasingly being questioned, and circumstances may well change.

I don't have presumptions about anything. Either those who are only able to work certain jobs are paid for their services OR we will cover them.

If your way was THE way, how come it hasn't been done with a stacked Congress (Senate and House) along with the prez. Maybe, deep down, they don't buy the whole talking point?

Perhaps there are still too many Democrats in the Republican Party.

Charity is not nor has ever legally been the venue of the federal government. It is a usurped power.

Paying someone for their work is not charity. And we do provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.

Being forced to pay someone more than their work is worth is not charity either, but theft.

And yes, we do provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. We are also forced to take care of those who are fully capable of working and providing for themselves.

And I repeat from my previous post:


I sometimes have gigs around my house. It might consist of building a deck or fixing a water heater. It's my home and let me make your argument for you:

I'm the employer. I decide what the job is worth. I'm not asking the government for their help nor imposing on them in any way, shape, fashion or form. So I advertise on Craigslist and if the guy I hire screws up the job or takes me for a ride, the ONLY swinging Richard that will be hurt is yours truly. But, the moment I do, there are fifty guys who made the same argument you do jumping on my ass like a bad diaper.

They worry that they guy I hired is here illegally; he don't have a license; he isn't insured; on and on it goes. IF the government can be utilized to their advantage to protect their jobs and their inflated salaries that are not in line with what a job is worth, your boys are all for it.

 

[Humorme]

View attachment 164037

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.

Poverty is a complex issue. To blame it all on laziness is absolutely ridiculous and sends the message that corporations can pay employees wages that are way behind on the rising cost of living for the sake of massive profit that only benefits a small group of executives per company.

No one said anything about being lazy, except you. He spoke of what McDonald's intended employees are. Other than management, the majority of McDonald workers are under 21, which is what Ray Kroc envisioned when he built the franchise.

The goal of McDonald's was to buy the best real estate in the area develop it, have entrepreneurs run it using high school kids. That was always the goal of the McDonald's franchise. Also those that work at McDonald's are not lazy, it is not an easy job, however 95% of the population are qualified to work at McDonald's, it is not a skilled labor position.

I implied poor life choices. If he extrapolated laziesness out of that, well that's on him.
You simply can not say that someone in their 30's flipping burgers for a living didn't make some drastic poor choices when they were younger.

Nobody claims people will work for minimum wage their entire life

But it still does not excuse exploiting low skilled labor

Those over 21 making minimum wage in this economy need to quit and look for better pay. There are thousands of CDL jobs out there begging for drivers. Sometimes you are exploited because you allow yourself to be exploited. Not everyone but most of those in that position have a ton of talent, a ton of knowledge and a fear. The fear holds many people from moving forward.

Did you know that America leads the world with the number of people in prison?

Those people will never qualify for a CDL. Then you have the emotionally / IQ challenged people that cannot qualify for a lot of the good jobs. There are single moms that need flexible schedules so as to be able to take care of their kids and provide for them. Not everyone will fit your predetermined categories.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

You speak from an assumption that taxpayers have a responsibility to provide a certain lifestyle to others. That attitude is increasingly being questioned, and circumstances may well change.

I don't have presumptions about anything. Either those who are only able to work certain jobs are paid for their services OR we will cover them.

If your way was THE way, how come it hasn't been done with a stacked Congress (Senate and House) along with the prez. Maybe, deep down, they don't buy the whole talking point?

Perhaps there are still too many Democrats in the Republican Party.

Charity is not nor has ever legally been the venue of the federal government. It is a usurped power.

Paying someone for their work is not charity. And we do provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.

Being forced to pay someone more than their work is worth is not charity either, but theft.

And yes, we do provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. We are also forced to take care of those who are fully capable of working and providing for themselves.

Do you realize how many people from the right that support you make the exact polar opposite argument when it's their job on the line?

I don't care.

 

[Papageorgio]

You speak from an assumption that taxpayers have a responsibility to provide a certain lifestyle to others. That attitude is increasingly being questioned, and circumstances may well change.

I don't have presumptions about anything. Either those who are only able to work certain jobs are paid for their services OR we will cover them.

If your way was THE way, how come it hasn't been done with a stacked Congress (Senate and House) along with the prez. Maybe, deep down, they don't buy the whole talking point?

Perhaps there are still too many Democrats in the Republican Party.

Charity is not nor has ever legally been the venue of the federal government. It is a usurped power.

Paying someone for their work is not charity. And we do provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.

Being forced to pay someone more than their work is worth is not charity either, but theft.

And yes, we do provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. We are also forced to take care of those who are fully capable of working and providing for themselves.

Do you realize how many people from the right that support you make the exact polar opposite argument when it's their job on the line?

I believe Billy is a real liberal, not a leftist.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I don't have presumptions about anything. Either those who are only able to work certain jobs are paid for their services OR we will cover them.

If your way was THE way, how come it hasn't been done with a stacked Congress (Senate and House) along with the prez. Maybe, deep down, they don't buy the whole talking point?

Perhaps there are still too many Democrats in the Republican Party.

Charity is not nor has ever legally been the venue of the federal government. It is a usurped power.

Paying someone for their work is not charity. And we do provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.

Being forced to pay someone more than their work is worth is not charity either, but theft.

And yes, we do provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. We are also forced to take care of those who are fully capable of working and providing for themselves.

Do you realize how many people from the right that support you make the exact polar opposite argument when it's their job on the line?

I believe Billy is a real liberal, not a leftist.

Yup. And I look great in a powered wig too.

 

[Papageorgio]

Poverty is a complex issue. To blame it all on laziness is absolutely ridiculous and sends the message that corporations can pay employees wages that are way behind on the rising cost of living for the sake of massive profit that only benefits a small group of executives per company.

No one said anything about being lazy, except you. He spoke of what McDonald's intended employees are. Other than management, the majority of McDonald workers are under 21, which is what Ray Kroc envisioned when he built the franchise.

The goal of McDonald's was to buy the best real estate in the area develop it, have entrepreneurs run it using high school kids. That was always the goal of the McDonald's franchise. Also those that work at McDonald's are not lazy, it is not an easy job, however 95% of the population are qualified to work at McDonald's, it is not a skilled labor position.

I implied poor life choices. If he extrapolated laziesness out of that, well that's on him.
You simply can not say that someone in their 30's flipping burgers for a living didn't make some drastic poor choices when they were younger.

Nobody claims people will work for minimum wage their entire life

But it still does not excuse exploiting low skilled labor

Those over 21 making minimum wage in this economy need to quit and look for better pay. There are thousands of CDL jobs out there begging for drivers. Sometimes you are exploited because you allow yourself to be exploited. Not everyone but most of those in that position have a ton of talent, a ton of knowledge and a fear. The fear holds many people from moving forward.

Did you know that America leads the world with the number of people in prison?

Those people will never qualify for a CDL. Then you have the emotionally / IQ challenged people that cannot qualify for a lot of the good jobs. There are single moms that need flexible schedules so as to be able to take care of their kids and provide for them. Not everyone will fit your predetermined categories.

First off I said "Not everyone but most of those in that position..." So please tell me what my predetermined category is?

Also felons can get CDLs, I work in the transportation industry and we have hired a felon, one of the best drivers and nicest guys you will find, so I am not sure how you get that felons can't get CDLs.

My daughter is a single mother and works from home and is making good money, I realize that everyone is different however, I will stick with my original statement. Not everyone is a victim.

 

[Papageorgio]

Perhaps there are still too many Democrats in the Republican Party.

Charity is not nor has ever legally been the venue of the federal government. It is a usurped power.

Paying someone for their work is not charity. And we do provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.

Being forced to pay someone more than their work is worth is not charity either, but theft.

And yes, we do provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. We are also forced to take care of those who are fully capable of working and providing for themselves.

Do you realize how many people from the right that support you make the exact polar opposite argument when it's their job on the line?

I believe Billy is a real liberal, not a leftist.

Yup. And I look great in a powered wig too.

I keep telling people there is a big difference between real liberals, which there are few of and leftists, which seem to many of. The same holds true of real conservatives and righties.

Real liberals and real conservatives respect each other and are grounded in principles, lefties and righties move with the wind and are all over the board depending on what the flavor of the month is.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not the one appealing to ignorance of the law.

Actually you do, since you're calling on privacy laws as authorization to the federal government to take cash from my pocket and deposit it to yours. That shows you're clueless and that ignorance is on your side.

That is what private law does.

Nope, it doesn't. How about you post the definition of what the private law is, instead of being wart on the butt of life.

Yes it does. You are appealing to ignorance of the law.

Typical of the right wing.

Why don't you post the definition of "private law"?

Maybe because it's not what you think it is?

Typical leftist oxygen thief.

What part of the concept of private law of the United States, do you disagree with?

 

[Papageorgio]

Nope, it doesn't. How about you post the definition of what the private law is, instead of being wart on the butt of life.

Yes it does. You are appealing to ignorance of the law.

Typical of the right wing.

Why don't you post the definition of "private law"?

Maybe because it's not what you think it is?

Typical leftist oxygen thief.

What part of the concept of private law of the United States, do you disagree with?

Please define "private law". Thank you.

Private law is enacted by Acts of Congress.

So you won't define what you believe what "private law" means. What you are doing is trolling which is a violation of this board's TOS. So I ask again, please define what "private law".

 

[beagle9]

Asked and answered. If people cannot make a realistic wage, they will qualify for welfare, housing subsidies, AFDC, etc. Taxpayers will either pay higher taxes or 15 cents more a meal for a Big Mac.

You speak from an assumption that taxpayers have a responsibility to provide a certain lifestyle to others. That attitude is increasingly being questioned, and circumstances may well change.

I don't have presumptions about anything. Either those who are only able to work certain jobs are paid for their services OR we will cover them.

If your way was THE way, how come it hasn't been done with a stacked Congress (Senate and House) along with the prez. Maybe, deep down, they don't buy the whole talking point?

Perhaps there are still too many Democrats in the Republican Party.

Charity is not nor has ever legally been the venue of the federal government. It is a usurped power.

Paying someone for their work is not charity. And we do provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.

Being forced to pay someone more than their work is worth is not charity either, but theft.

And yes, we do provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. We are also forced to take care of those who are fully capable of working and providing for themselves.

So you are against "profit sharing" where as when the company does well, then it lifts all boats in which were participant's in that process ? How can people sit there and not consider their company as a family, where as the structure is to be protected and looked after in the same ways that a family structures itself, and it also takes care of the family/company through the good times and the bad ?? Why all the golden parachutes today, and the extreme corrupt greed thinking that is tearing a nation apart bit by bit by bit ??

 

[Humorme]

I don't have presumptions about anything. Either those who are only able to work certain jobs are paid for their services OR we will cover them.

If your way was THE way, how come it hasn't been done with a stacked Congress (Senate and House) along with the prez. Maybe, deep down, they don't buy the whole talking point?

Perhaps there are still too many Democrats in the Republican Party.

Charity is not nor has ever legally been the venue of the federal government. It is a usurped power.

Paying someone for their work is not charity. And we do provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.

Being forced to pay someone more than their work is worth is not charity either, but theft.

And yes, we do provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. We are also forced to take care of those who are fully capable of working and providing for themselves.

Do you realize how many people from the right that support you make the exact polar opposite argument when it's their job on the line?

I don't care.

So why be in on the discussion?