McDonald?s worker arrested after telling company president she can?t afford shoes - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Colmike9 · 10-12-2013, 12:32 PM

If every position of every job raises wage to 20+/hr, what do you think will happen to prices of everything?
Then those workers already making between the minimum now and the minimum that every fast food worker is trying to get it to will now be making minimum wage and into poverty because those jobs won't increase salaries proportionally. Shit happened to me before. "Oh, minimum wage raised so now you're making the minimum and no raises this year because of it"..

If you want to make more, get a better job. No one's forcing anyone to flip burgers..

50 Shoes

Rochard · 10-12-2013, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colmike7

If you want to make more, get a better job. No one's forcing anyone to flip burgers..

Bingo.

I flipped burgers for a living. I made sure I was the best damn burger flipper in the joint. And eventually I got promoted to shift manager. And eventually store manager.

Colmike9 · 10-12-2013, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Bingo.

I flipped burgers for a living. I made sure I was the best damn burger flipper in the joint. And eventually I got promoted to shift manager. And eventually store manager.

Yep. McDonalds was my first job ever, and I was always broke.. And that was in high school...
So I went to college.

kane · 10-12-2013, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzebox

I don't know how it is everywhere, but being from Vancouver, all the grocery stores are union and pay very well. That's considered a great job to land for unskilled people.

As far as I know most grocery store jobs here are union as well. When I was in high school some of my friends worked at a grocery store. They had to join the union, but only made about 75cents per hour over the minimum wage.

If they work their way up and become a checker things change. Many of them made around $15 per hour or more depending on seniority.

kane · 10-12-2013, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jack-exploitedbabysitters

Seriously can mcdonalds afford to pay people more? At the end of the day people want fast and cheap food, you can't pay workers 20 bucks a hour and have a 99cents menu.

Can they? Sure. As a company McDonald's made a net of $5.5 billion in profit on 2012. So, in theory, they could pay out less to shareholders and give their lowest paid workers a raise and not have to raise prices.

That said, the raise would be in the area of $1-$2 per hour. If you start paying them $20 per hour they will have to raise he prices. I have read that many workers in the McDonald's throughout Europe make close to $20 per hour, but the food is much more expensive.

Rochard · 10-12-2013, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Can they? Sure. As a company McDonald's made a net of $5.5 billion in profit on 2012. So, in theory, they could pay out less to shareholders and give their lowest paid workers a raise and not have to raise prices.

That said, the raise would be in the area of $1-$2 per hour. If you start paying them $20 per hour they will have to raise he prices. I have read that many workers in the McDonald's throughout Europe make close to $20 per hour, but the food is much more expensive.

Maybe not.

If they paid their shareholders less, they would fail to meet expected sales goals, shareholders would get less, and the entire company would be worth a lot less. Top management would be making less money, and would leave the company to go over to Wendy's, who is in the number two slot. Without proper management the company does horrible, income continues to drop, debt rises, and the company is plunged into bankruptcy.

All those people who got raises are now unemployed.

I'm sorry, but there is a bottom tier for a reason - It encourages people to move out of that job. If you are are so unmotivated that after ten years you cannot move upwards from minimum wage, well, you don't deserve a $2 raise.

Colmike9 · 10-12-2013, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I'm sorry, but there is a bottom tier for a reason - It encourages people to move out of that job. If you are are so unmotivated that after ten years you cannot move upwards from minimum wage, well, you don't deserve a $2 raise.

People think that the USA is some kind of socialist country and everything has to be fair...

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 10-12-2013, 03:00 PM

Quote:

The One Minute Case for a Basic Income

The one minute fairness case for a basic income guarantee:
Property is a social construct legally enforced by the government. If all people are considered equal, then absent any other considerations, each person should have an equal amount of property. So material equality should be the default.

The one minute market utilitarian case for a basic income:
The free market is the greatest generator of wealth ever devised. Money is the most effective means of socially producing utility, as it allows each individual to obtain whatever needs and wants they subjectively require.

However, one dollar in the hands of a poorer person produces greater utility than a dollar in the hands of a richer person, because the richer person can fulfill more of their more important needs and wants with the rest of their money than the poorer person can. So the transfer of money from a richer person to a poorer person increases overall utility.

The one minute Keynesian case for a basic income:
Keynesian economics works when implemented correctly. But properly implementing Keynesian economics is politically very difficult. It requires politicians who are willing to spend a lot of money on stimulus when the government appears broke, and then turn around and become deficit hawks when the government is rolling in cash and everyone wants a piece of the pie.

A basic income funded primarily from an income tax would become a massive institutionalized entitlement expected by the population whose cost would automatically increase and decrease in direct opposition to the economy.

The one minute human rights case for a basic income:
Poverty is not a natural tragedy like cancer or earthquakes. Poverty is a human caused tragedy like slavery or government oppression. Slavery is caused by societal recognition of humans as property.

Government oppression is caused by governments punishing people for their beliefs or characteristics, and without due process of law. Poverty is caused by property laws that deny some people access to necessities.

These types of tragedies can be ended by recognizing that humans have the right not to be subjected to tortuous conditions imposed by other humans. Humans have a right not to live in slavery. Humans have a right to be free of government oppression. And humans have a right not to live in poverty.

A basic income is not a strategy for dealing with poverty; it it the elimination of poverty. The campaign for a basic income is a campaign for the abolition of poverty. It is the abolitionist movement of the 21st century.

The one minute Georgist case for a basic income:
Property is a product of creation, not of mere use. ?I made this.? confers property rights, ?Tag! It?s mine!? does not.

Things that exist as a product of your labor must be yours, and for anyone else to appropriate them is to make you their slave.

Land and natural resources, however, are not the products of people, but of nature (or to the religious, God). They are gifts to all of humanity. Individual property in land and natural resources may be practical or useful, but it is still theft. Utility might justify this theft, but compensation is still required.

As the appropriation was done without consent, the compensation must be in the form that offers the greatest choice of use to the victims. That form is cash. The most efficient arrangement for payment is for the takers to pay the full rental or use value to a single entity which can then divide the proceeds equally among the population. Taxes are the tribute I pay to you for displacing you from land, the basic income is your dividend.

The one minute trans-humanist case for a basic income:
Two hundred thousand years ago humans lived in hunter-gather societies. About 10 thousand years ago, humans began to live in agricultural societies, and then about 300 years ago, humans began to live in industrial societies. Since 30 to 50 years ago, we have lived in a service society.

Theoretically, the last economic stage of society is a leisure society, where most people either work in the artistic or scientific fields, or do not work at all. So far, each phase has lasted only a small fraction of the time of the previous phase. If that pattern holds, service societies should last less than two generations, a time period nearing its end.

Right now, worker productivity is advancing faster than the need for workers, and robots are inhabiting labs in research hospitals and at DARPA. It is time to prepare for a society in which we simply do not need everyone to work. A basic income will be needed to provide a living for people, and to provide customers for business.

The one minute conservative case for a basic income:
The welfare state may not be the society we would have created, but it has been here for 4 generations, people have come to expect and rely on it, and it would be extremely disruptive to society to get rid of it. But while we may not be able to get rid of the welfare state, we can reform it.

The current welfare state necessitates an immense and expensive bureaucracy, it is prohibitively complicated for some of its intended beneficiaries to navigate, it puts bureaucrats in charge of the lives of the poor, it creates perverse incentives for people to avoid work and to remain poor, and it arbitrarily allows some people to fall through the cracks.

A basic income would correct all of these problems. A basic income is simple to administer, treats all people equally, retains all rewards for hard work, savings, and entrepreneurship, and trusts the poor to make their own decisions about what to do with their money, taking these decisions out of the hands of paternalistic elitist politicians.

The one minute feminist case for a basic income:
Patriarchy has put the world?s wealth overwhelmingly in the hands of men, prevented women from being professionals and entreprenuers, forced poor women into dead-end second-class labor jobs, and forced women to become unpaid domestic servants and caretakers of the young, elderly, and disabled of their families.

Women have been forced to be financially dependent on fathers or husbands who are often abusive. A basic income would change all of this.

A basic income would be a massive transfer of wealth from men to women. Women would be free of financial dependence on any man, and the young, elderly, and disabled would all be fully supported. Women could afford to leave abusive husbands, those who chose to be caretakers would be fully compensated, and no woman would be forced into a dead-end job, and would instead be able to pursue her own financial goals as she saw fit.

The one minute libertarian case for a basic income:
While it may have been theoretically possible to acquire property in a just manner soon after humans evolved, none was. Most inhabited land on earth can trace its title back to someone who acquired the land by force. All land titles on Earth are soaked in blood. And not just land titles.

Thanks to past government spending, targeted tax breaks, intellectual property, corporate charters, slavery, and meddling regulations, no property or wealth can be said to have been justly acquired.

If we assume that those who have the least are greatest net victims, a basic income would provide the best possible rectification with the least government control, producing the least unjust system of property distribution possible in the real world.

The one minute liberal case for a basic income:
A basic income would correct or ameliorate many inequities and inefficiencies inherent in market capitalism. The wages of unskilled and semi-skilled workers would rise as those who enjoy and are good at such work will no longer have to compete against those who are forced to seek such work out of financial necessity.

The wages of highly skilled workers will fall as more people are able to take the time necessary to gain the skills to compete for those jobs, lowering the cost of legal, financial, and health care services.

A guaranteed income will soften the blow to workers displaced by advancing technology and the creative destruction of the market. Job seekers will be able to take the time necessary to find work that is the best fit for them, increasing efficiency in the distribution of labor. And entrepreneurship will flourish as those wanting to start their own businesses will have an income to survive on during the long lean times that typically come when building a new enterprise.

The one minute independetarian case for a basic income:
Property rights are not natural, they are a social convention. But they give each individual freedom, as the essence of property is the right to exclude others, to have a place where no one else has dominion over you.

The first rule should be that each individual has inalienable ownership over her own body and mind. But carving up all of nature outside of bodies leaves some people unnaturally without the means to obtain the necessities of life. Therefore each person must also have an inalienable property right to these necessities.

Society owes you a living, because society is preventing you from foraging the land to obtain the necessities of life on your own. Society could rectify this problem by letting individuals forage for necessities wherever they wish, or by giving them the land they need to survive on their own, or by providing these necessities directly. But in modern societies, the most efficient way to provide for these necessities is with direct cash payments, a basic income.

ADG

Penny24Seven · 10-12-2013, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Holy shit! Rochard and I agree on something! I'm logging out.

.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I was thinking the same damn thing

kane · 10-12-2013, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Maybe not.

If they paid their shareholders less, they would fail to meet expected sales goals, shareholders would get less, and the entire company would be worth a lot less. Top management would be making less money, and would leave the company to go over to Wendy's, who is in the number two slot. Without proper management the company does horrible, income continues to drop, debt rises, and the company is plunged into bankruptcy.

All those people who got raises are now unemployed.

I'm sorry, but there is a bottom tier for a reason - It encourages people to move out of that job. If you are are so unmotivated that after ten years you cannot move upwards from minimum wage, well, you don't deserve a $2 raise.

I'm not saying they deserve it. I am simply saying the McDonald's could, technically, afford to give them a raise, but if they were going to do so without raising prices the raise would not be very big. People think that McDonald's can afford to give everyone $5-6 dollars per hour in raises and have it no cause the price of food to raise and that simply is not the case.

DTK · 10-12-2013, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom_PM

No, you can not see where this is going. You can apply all kinds of reasoning so it fits with your preconceived notions though. Well done.

Who gives a shit? Maybe her "raise" should be advise to quit and find a job where there is a potential to advance. "maybe" a million things. She can bitch if she wants to and so can anyone else.

Indeed. He wrote her whole life story.

I love these callous "just go find another job" type statements. Yeah, because living-wage blue collar jobs are growing on fucking trees these days.

In 2000, the average age of a McDonald's worker was 22. Now it's 30. Why? Because people are desperate and taking whatever they can get! Oh, but they should just STFU and be grateful for their below-subsistence job.

Rochard · 10-12-2013, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I'm not saying they deserve it. I am simply saying the McDonald's could, technically, afford to give them a raise, but if they were going to do so without raising prices the raise would not be very big. People think that McDonald's can afford to give everyone $5-6 dollars per hour in raises and have it no cause the price of food to raise and that simply is not the case.

I am sure that they can.

But you want to give everyone who makes minimum wage at McDonald's a $6 raise? That would nearly double their wage. Do you really think that an entry level position is worth $14 an hour?

I mean, you are talking about an entry level job here. You don't even need to have graduated high school to be a freaking fry cook. Why should anyone be paid more than minimum wage for an entry level job?

DTK · 10-12-2013, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTK

Indeed. He wrote her whole life story.

I love these callous "just go find another job" type statements. Yeah, because living-wage blue collar jobs are growing on fucking trees these days.

In 2000, the average age of a McDonald's worker was 22. Now it's 30. Why? Because people are desperate and taking whatever they can get! Oh, but they should just STFU and be grateful for their below-subsistence job.

When I said "He" above, I should have said Rochard. What an an amazing power of ASSusmption he has.

kane · 10-12-2013, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I am sure that they can.

But you want to give everyone who makes minimum wage at McDonald's a $6 raise? That would nearly double their wage. Do you really think that an entry level position is worth $14 an hour?

I mean, you are talking about an entry level job here. You don't even need to have graduated high school to be a freaking fry cook. Why should anyone be paid more than minimum wage for an entry level job?

I don't want to give them any raise. My point is that many of these people who feel McDonald's makes enough money that they can afford to give people raises feel like that raise would be big, but in reality they could only afford a small raise without having to raise the price of their products.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 10-13-2013, 01:02 AM

Quote:

The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Final Words of Advice

Few people have heard of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s last book. It was called Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? (New York: Harper & Row, 1967). Even fewer people realize that Dr. King was an advocate of a guaranteed income. He weighed the issue carefully before drawing conclusions and making the following statement.

Toward the end of Where Do We Go From Here, in a chapter titled "Where We Are Going," King states his support for the guaranteed income policy, that right-wingers and left-wingers had both been studying. See what he says to us.

In the treatment of poverty nationally, one fact stands out: there are twice as many white poor as Negro poor in the United States. Therefore I will not dwell on the experiences of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but will discuss the poverty that affects white and Negro alike.

Up to recently we have proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils: lack of education restricting job opportunities; poor housing which stultified home life and suppressed initiative; fragile family relationships which distorted personality development.

The logic of this approach suggested that each of these causes be attacked one by one. Hence a housing program to transform living conditions, improved educational facilities to furnish tools for better job opportunities, and family counseling to create better personal adjustments were designed. In combination these measures were intended to remove the causes of poverty.

While none of these remedies in itself is unsound, all have a fatal disadvantage. The programs have never proceeded on a coordinated basis or at a similar rate of development. Housing measures have fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies. They have been piecemeal and pygmy.

Educational reforms have been even more sluggish and entangled in bureaucratic stalling and economy-dominated decisions. Family assistance stagnated in neglect and then suddenly was discovered to be the central issue on the basis of hasty and superficial studies.

At no time has a total, coordinated and fully adequate program been conceived. As a consequence, fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.

In addition to the absence of coordination and sufficiency, the programs of the past all have another common failing -- they are indirect. Each seeks to solve poverty by first solving something else.

I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective -- the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.

Earlier in this century this proposal would have been greeted with ridicule and denunciation as destructive of initiative and responsibility. At that time economic status was considered the measure of the individual's abilities and talents. In the simplistic thinking of that day the absence of worldly goods indicated a want of industrious habits and moral fiber.

We have come a long way in our understanding of human motivation and of the blind operation of our economic system. Now we realize that dislocations in the market operation of our economy and the prevalence of discrimination thrust people into idleness and bind them in constant or frequent unemployment against their will. The poor are less often dismissed from our conscience today by being branded as inferior and incompetent. We also know that no matter how dynamically the economy develops and expands it does not eliminate all poverty.

We have come to the point where we must make the nonproducer a consumer or we will find ourselves drowning in a sea of consumer goods. We have so energetically mastered production that we now must give attention to distribution. Though there have been increases in purchasing power, they have lagged behind increases in production.

Those at the lowest economic level, the poor white and Negro, the aged and chronically ill, are traditionally unorganized and therefore have little ability to force the necessary growth in their income. They stagnate or become even poorer in relation to the larger society.

The problem indicates that our emphasis must be two-fold. We must create full employment or we must create incomes. People must be made consumers by one method or the other. Once they are placed in this position, we need to be concerned that the potential of the individual is not wasted. New forms of work that enhance the social good will have to be devised for those for whom traditional jobs are not available.

In 1879 Henry George anticipated this state of affairs when he wrote, in Progress and Poverty:

"The fact is that the work which improves the condition of mankind, the work which extends knowledge and increases power and enriches literature, and elevates thought, is not done to secure a living. It is not the work of slaves, driven to their task either by the lash of a master or by animal necessities. It is the work of men who perform it for their own sake, and not that they may get more to eat or drink, or wear, or display. In a state of society where want is abolished, work of this sort could be enormously increased."

We are likely to find that the problems of housing and education, instead of preceding the elimination of poverty, will themselves be affected if poverty is first abolished. The poor transformed into purchasers will do a great deal on their own to alter housing decay. Negroes, who have a double disability, will have a greater effect on discrimination when they have the additional weapon of cash to use in their struggle.

Beyond these advantages, a host of positive psychological changes inevitably will result from widespread economic security. The dignity of the individual will flourish when the decisions concerning his life are in his own hands, when he has the assurance that his income is stable and certain, and when he knows that he has the means to seek self-improvement. Personal conflicts between husband, wife and children will diminish when the unjust measurement of human worth on a scale of dollars is eliminated.

Two conditions are indispensable if we are to ensure that the guaranteed income operates as a consistently progressive measure. First, it must be pegged to the median income of society, not the lowest levels of income. To guarantee an income at the floor would simply perpetuate welfare standards and freeze into the society poverty conditions.

Second, the guaranteed income must be dynamic; it must automatically increase as the total social income grows. Were it permitted to remain static under growth conditions, the recipients would suffer a relative decline. If periodic reviews disclose that the whole national income has risen, then the guaranteed income would have to be adjusted upward by the same percentage. Without these safeguards a creeping retrogression would occur, nullifying the gains of security and stability.

This proposal is not a "civil rights" program, in the sense that that term is currently used. The program would benefit all the poor, including the two-thirds of them who are white. I hope that both Negro and white will act in coalition to effect this change, because their combined strength will be necessary to overcome the fierce opposition we must realistically anticipate.

Our nation's adjustment to a new mode of thinking will be facilitated if we realize that for nearly forty years two groups in our society have already been enjoying a guaranteed income. Indeed, it is a symptom of our confused social values that these two groups turn out to be the richest and the poorest. The wealthy who own securities have always had an assured income; and their polar opposite, the relief client, has been guaranteed an income, however miniscule, through welfare benefits.

John Kenneth Galbraith has estimated that $20 billion a year would effect a guaranteed income, which he describes as "not much more than we will spend the next fiscal year to rescue freedom and democracy and religious liberty as these are defined by 'experts' in Vietnam."

The contemporary tendency in our society is to base our distribution on scarcity, which has vanished, and to compress our abundance into the overfed mouths of the middle and upper classes until they gag with superfluity. If democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to adjust this inequity. It is not only moral, but it is also intelligent. We are wasting and degrading human life by clinging to archaic thinking.

The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty.

ADG

Rochard · 10-13-2013, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTK

Indeed. He wrote her whole life story.

I love these callous "just go find another job" type statements. Yeah, because living-wage blue collar jobs are growing on fucking trees these days.

If you don't get a raise in ten years and you don't go out and look for another job, something is wrong with you. Don't tell me there aren't better paying jobs out there; Lots of companies have entry level jobs that start off higher than minimum wage.

This woman was so unmotivated that she never got a promotion in ten years.

I'm sorry, I just don't feel sorry for people like this. I've worked with people like this; They do the bare minimum to get through the day and then go home and sit on the couch and watch TV and bitch about how crappy their lives are. When I was twenty-two I was working four jobs - daily - and eventually put myself through college at night.

Don't tell me single moms can't do it; I went to college through night school where half the student population was single moms.

It's fucking Sunday morning and I started work at 7:30am. I'm not bitching.

Colmike9 · 10-13-2013, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

It's fucking Sunday morning and I started work at 7:30am. I'm not bitching.

At 7:30 this morning, I was climbing over a barb wire fence because my brother sucks at throwing a football..

Creatine · 10-13-2013, 02:09 PM

She's just over reacting.
As long as the bottom of the shoe is still in tact then she doesn't need more shoes.

Unless if she was bare foot,

SilentKnight · 10-13-2013, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Every place I have worked there have always been a number of people who have been there for years, don't make much money, complain about being broke but do nothing about it. I just don't understand it.

What's to understand?

Not everyone is cut out to be management material. Some fly under the radar and simply don't get noticed. Others make bad choices and lack a sense of responsibility or good work ethic. Some don't have the education, credentials or background experience to be considered for promotion. We all know about the chronic malcontent employees with negative attitudes.

All too often I see employees who feel longevity/seniority equals entitlement. I think of it as a union mentality.

tony286 · 10-13-2013, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colmike7

If every position of every job raises wage to 20+/hr, what do you think will happen to prices of everything?
Then those workers already making between the minimum now and the minimum that every fast food worker is trying to get it to will now be making minimum wage and into poverty because those jobs won't increase salaries proportionally. Shit happened to me before. "Oh, minimum wage raised so now you're making the minimum and no raises this year because of it"..

If you want to make more, get a better job. No one's forcing anyone to flip burgers..

50 Shoes

Actually not true Truman almost doubled min wage in 1949 from .40 cents an hour to .75 cents an hour and prices didn't soar and the world didn't end. Fast food jobs give .10 cents an hour raises that's why after 10 yrs she is making 8 and change an hr. That's someone who would of made a decent living in a factory now that's gone. Everyone isnt college material, some people are happy just giving a full days work for a day pay. There was a time in this country there was no shame in that. This is going to become a bigger and bigger problem.
We better figure it out because the revolution wont be a bunch homeowners bitching about property taxes. It will be adults hungry and tired from busting their asses for pennies and going nowhere.

clickhappy · 10-13-2013, 08:51 PM

sad to see

Rochard · 10-13-2013, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

What's to understand?

Not everyone is cut out to be management material. Some fly under the radar and simply don't get noticed. Others make bad choices and lack a sense of responsibility or good work ethic. Some don't have the education, credentials or background experience to be considered for promotion. We all know about the chronic malcontent employees with negative attitudes.

All too often I see employees who feel longevity/seniority equals entitlement. I think of it as a union mentality.

This is true - not everyone is management material. But if you make minimum wage for ten years in the same job... There is another word for it.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 10-13-2013, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

This is true - not everyone is management material. But if you make minimum wage for ten years in the same job... There is another word for it.

I'm guessing that you had a word other than "Exploitation" or "loyalty" in mind.

ADG

MrMaxwell · 10-14-2013, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jigg

Switzerland is looking into this, doling out 2500 CHF a month to almost everyone

I don't see where we'd find ~$5.8 trillion a year from if you assume 170mil 18+ people that would get $2800/month

I don't agree with handing money out, but, we could get it from the government repaying (with interest) all they have stolen and raped from social security funds. Trillions, with a T.

MrMaxwell · 10-14-2013, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiamonMike

Minimum wage = "I would pay you less, but thats against the law"

Yes,,
I really have to wonder about people who are all accepting minimum wage
Would they show up for $5? For $3? For a kick in the balls?

I'll live under a bridge first, personally, and before I would take any government handouts- too.

MrMaxwell · 10-14-2013, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

$15/hour for McD's employees deserve it? What a joke. Stop talking shit. Do you even eat there?

Anyone who works anywhere deserves at least $10-$15 an hour. You can't wipe your ass with less, even in nowhere hellhole towns. The thing is, people do not WORK anymore. In about eight hours, one idiot does about an hour worth of work.

Personally, I think more money would motivate people to work more. If mickey d's doubled their pay rate I bet they could run their stores with 1/3 as many employees. People would give a fuck about their jobs, then.

Think about some moron desperate enough to work for the $7, right, he hates his job and is paid like a slave.. is he a productive employee??

I have only had employees once, but, I went through enough $6 an hour morons to know this is true. I got some other motherfuckers, paid them a few dollars more an hour, and gave them a bonus at the end of the day when they had worked hard.

We made a lot more money with the motherfuckers we were paying pretty much twice as much because they gave a fuck

My father when he was building shit and cleaning up murder and other crime scenes in philly, he went in and hired all of the black guys who were being fucked over by their unions and all of that shit.. paid them real well... they would, to this day, do absolutely anything for him.

Appreciation in business can be shown in one way. Financially. A pat on the back or a slap on the dick ain't enough. Thank you? Means nothing. Thank you, here's some extra money or here's a decent paycheck for a job well done? Means everything

MrMaxwell · 10-14-2013, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colmike7

If every position of every job raises wage to 20+/hr, what do you think will happen to prices of everything?
Then those workers already making between the minimum now and the minimum that every fast food worker is trying to get it to will now be making minimum wage and into poverty because those jobs won't increase salaries proportionally. Shit happened to me before. "Oh, minimum wage raised so now you're making the minimum and no raises this year because of it"..

If you want to make more, get a better job. No one's forcing anyone to flip burgers..

50 Shoes

I really think it is important for poor people's lives to suck. Being poor is the worst most horrible thing that has ever happened to me. The only think worse is jail. And, I think that is a good thing. Without poverty, there is no motivation to succeed. And then, nothing happens.

kane · 10-14-2013, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMaxwell

Yes,,
I really have to wonder about people who are all accepting minimum wage
Would they show up for $5? For $3? For a kick in the balls?

I'll live under a bridge first, personally, and before I would take any government handouts- too.

You will be shocked what people will do to provide for their families. If the choice is taking a job at $3 per hour or having your kids go hungry or you end up with your family homeless, most people will take that job.

kane · 10-14-2013, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMaxwell

Anyone who works anywhere deserves at least $10-$15 an hour. You can't wipe your ass with less, even in nowhere hellhole towns. The thing is, people do not WORK anymore. In about eight hours, one idiot does about an hour worth of work.

Personally, I think more money would motivate people to work more. If mickey d's doubled their pay rate I bet they could run their stores with 1/3 as many employees. People would give a fuck about their jobs, then.

Think about some moron desperate enough to work for the $7, right, he hates his job and is paid like a slave.. is he a productive employee??

I have only had employees once, but, I went through enough $6 an hour morons to know this is true. I got some other motherfuckers, paid them a few dollars more an hour, and gave them a bonus at the end of the day when they had worked hard.

We made a lot more money with the motherfuckers we were paying pretty much twice as much because they gave a fuck

My father when he was building shit and cleaning up murder and other crime scenes in philly, he went in and hired all of the black guys who were being fucked over by their unions and all of that shit.. paid them real well... they would, to this day, do absolutely anything for him.

Appreciation in business can be shown in one way. Financially. A pat on the back or a slap on the dick ain't enough. Thank you? Means nothing. Thank you, here's some extra money or here's a decent paycheck for a job well done? Means everything

You do make a decent point here.

Say McDonland's started paying $15 per hour. In theory the pool of potential employees they would have to choose from would get much bigger and would including higher quality people and people who were willing to work their asses off. They could theoretically have smaller crews and be more productive. They likely wouldn't have the amount of turnover they have as well.

The question is would the savings of hiring a potentially smaller, better crew that had low turnover end up costing the company the same or less than if they continued doing it as they do.

eroticfem · 10-14-2013, 10:00 AM

In Norway the minimum salary at Mcdonald's an hour for a worker over 20 years old is 24.08 USD, or 144 Nkr. Shame they don't pay American's the same.

pornguy · 10-14-2013, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wehateporn

"They just told me, you know, well, you?re being under arrest because you just interrupted, you trespassed the property. You?re just going to go to jail,? "

ahhhh so now we get down to it. she was Not arrested for telling the guy she could not afford shoes. She was arrested for something else.

10-12-2013, 12:32 PM	#51
Colmike9 (>^_^)b Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 7,223	If every position of every job raises wage to 20+/hr, what do you think will happen to prices of everything? Then those workers already making between the minimum now and the minimum that every fast food worker is trying to get it to will now be making minimum wage and into poverty because those jobs won't increase salaries proportionally. Shit happened to me before. "Oh, minimum wage raised so now you're making the minimum and no raises this year because of it".. If you want to make more, get a better job. No one's forcing anyone to flip burgers.. 50 Shoes __________________ Join the BEST cam affiliate program on the internet! I've referred over $1.7mil in spending this past year, you should join in. I make a lot more money in the medical field in a lab now, fuck you guys. Don't ask me to come back, but do join Chaturbate in my sig, it still makes bank without me touching shit for years.. Last edited by Colmike9; 10-12-2013 at 12:34 PM..

10-14-2013, 10:00 AM	#80
eroticfem Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Europe Posts: 362	In Norway the minimum salary at Mcdonald's an hour for a worker over 20 years old is 24.08 USD, or 144 Nkr. Shame they don't pay American's the same. __________________

10-13-2013, 02:09 PM	#68
Creatine Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 1,060	She's just over reacting. As long as the bottom of the shoe is still in tact then she doesn't need more shoes. Unless if she was bare foot,

10-13-2013, 08:51 PM	#71
clickhappy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 4,027	sad to see