Fast Food walkout - Nationwide

[diesbudt]

I would like to point out that in New Zealand the minimum wage is $13.75 an hour. A Big Mac here costs around $5.

If you were to compare New Zealand wages and prices, the minimum wage in New Zealand is equivalent to about $8.15/hr in America.

But hey, bigger numbers are better right? Not the meaning behind said numbers.

 

[Chiropteran]

Yeah, you can't "raise a family" off $9/hr nor buy a house, but my question is: why are you trying to do those things off that salary anyway?

Why is the purpose of a job that, even if you work it 40 hours a week every week, your income is still low enough to qualify for receive government assistance?


Every job in the world exists to make the employer money. I'm okay with that, but employers shouldn't be making money at the expense of my tax dollars.

 

[nehalem256]

Why is the purpose of a job that, even if you work it 40 hours a week every week, your income is still low enough to qualify for receive government assistance?

Every job in the world exists to make the employer money. I'm okay with that, but employers shouldn't be making money at the expense of my tax dollars.

Lets think about this a minute.

A single 20 year old male needs significantly less income than say a 25 year old single mom with 2 kids right?

Should employers pay these 2 people different wages simply because one "needs" more?

 

[Chiropteran]

Lets think about this a minute.

A single 20 year old male needs significantly less income than say a 25 year old single mom with 2 kids right?

Should employers pay these 2 people different wages simply because one "needs" more?

What does that have to do with my comment?

A single 20 year old can't live off 40 hours a week at minimum wage, not without government assistance, in most of the country.

Basically, I don't think the government should be subsidizing corporations by making their low paying jobs livable with assistance.

 

[nehalem256]

What does that have to do with my comment?

A single 20 year old can't live off 40 hours a week at minimum wage, not without government assistance, in most of the country.

Basically, I don't think the government should be subsidizing corporations by making their low paying jobs livable with assistance.

Sure they can. In fact I recall going over the math in a previous thread.

I have little doubt that I could support myself working at Walmart/Target full-time. And in fact there would probably be little reduction in lifestyle. Arguably it would be an increase as I could then walk to work instead of having to waste my time driving :thumbsup:

 

[ultimatebob]

Fire them all. Every single one. I don't know why any fast food place needs workers at all. Just hit a button on a screen, have a machine cook the burger, end of story.

At this point, buying and maintaining the burger making machine costs more than having a kid do it manually for $7.50 a hour.

Something tells me that the economics change if these kids get the $15 an hour they are looking for... they just priced themselves out of a job.

 

[ultimatebob]

Now, I can understand being pissed if say, IBM (or name the career-oriented type company) paid McDonalds wages for most employees. But whining that McDonalds pays McDonalds wages is just an exercise in stupidity, straight up.

Hint: for most people, that's *NEVER* going to be a decent career job. Never was, never will be.

I'll bet that IBM pays their overseas workers in places like Bangladesh around $7.50 an hour... can I bitch about that?

 

[JockoJohnson]

What does that have to do with my comment?

A single 20 year old can't live off 40 hours a week at minimum wage, not without government assistance, in most of the country.

Basically, I don't think the government should be subsidizing corporations by making their low paying jobs livable with assistance.

A single 20 year old is probably still living with his parents. If he isn't living with his parents, then he probably has a better job to support himself. These minimum wage jobs aren't meant to be careers but rather stepping stones. I loved my time working at McDonald's...when I was in high school and first year of college. It was fun and taught me alot and I had some spending money while living with my parents.

And if that is someone's career, why should we have to subsidize someone's poor life choices that put them in a situation where a minimum wage job is their career?

 

[nehalem256]

You're leaving greed out of the equation.

The march of technology has driven the classes apart, not unified them.

And that would be because the people at the top need more knowledge/education/intelligence while those at the bottom need less.

Think about how much more a doctor needs to know now compared to 100 years ago and how the cashier at McDonald needs to know less (they don't even need to know basic arithmetic anymore).

 

[drebo]

Why is the purpose of a job that, even if you work it 40 hours a week every week, your income is still low enough to qualify for receive government assistance?


Every job in the world exists to make the employer money. I'm okay with that, but employers shouldn't be making money at the expense of my tax dollars.

Nothing is stopping you from getting a better job.

If your job cannot support a house and 5 kids, then you shouldn't be having 5 kids and you should be renting.

Personal responsibility, people.

 

[Chiropteran]

Sure they can. In fact I recall going over the math in a previous thread.

I have little doubt that I could support myself working at Walmart/Target full-time. And in fact there would probably be little reduction in lifestyle. Arguably it would be an increase as I could then walk to work instead of having to waste my time driving :thumbsup:

Is this based on having a rent-free home with relatives or friends? Because you aren't really supporting yourself in that case.

Also, at least around here, if you live close enough to walk to work, you pay a premium for it. You can get an apartment for $900/month, but you will be so far out you will need a car. You can live closer and take the metro or bus, but it'll cost you $1200/month + bus/metro fare. Or you can live in the middle of it all, walk to work, and pay $1700/month for a one bedroom.

Just curious, what state/city is your example drawn from? I guess it must be significantly cheaper to live in than Northern Virginia.

 

[Chiropteran]

Nothing is stopping you from getting a better job.

If your job cannot support a house and 5 kids, then you shouldn't be having 5 kids and you should be renting.

Personal responsibility, people.

You are agreeing with me, in spirit. Maybe I phrased my post poorly.

>Nothing is stopping you from getting a better job.

Except government assistance, which makes it possible to live on min wage. Why get a better job if your $7.25/hr + government check is enough to pay for everything you need?


Take away that welfare assistance, and workers won't work for an unlivable wage, and the corporations will be forced to pay people more. That is my point.

Or are you pro-government assistance?

And if that is someone's career, why should we have to subsidize someone's poor life choices that put them in a situation where a minimum wage job is their career?

That is exactly my point. Anyone working a min wage job *is* getting government assistance. Or mooching off family who are, or something along those lines. There is no way to live off that money, so they are getting help elsewhere- most likely from your tax dollars. I am against this, not for it. If you think your taxes shouldn't subsidize min wage jobs, you agree with me! The problem is, they currently do.

 

[nehalem256]

Is this based on having a rent-free home with relatives or friends? Because you aren't really supporting yourself in that case.

Also, at least around here, if you live close enough to walk to work, you pay a premium for it. You can get an apartment for $900/month, but you will be so far out you will need a car. You can live closer and take the metro or bus, but it'll cost you $1200/month + bus/metro fare. Or you can live in the middle of it all, walk to work, and pay $1700/month for a one bedroom.

Just curious, what state/city is your example drawn from? I guess it must be significantly cheaper to live in than Northern Virginia.

Suburbs of Minneapolis

Apartment was $600/month within walking distance of both Target and Walmart.

 

[sm625]

By the way when I said "You drive up to the window and boom its just there" I mean the restaurant will tap into your location on GPS, and when you are precisely 1 minute from the restaurant, they will begin to fill your order. When you pull up to the window, they will already know who you are and what you ordered. Instant service. All fast food will be like this in 10-15 years.

Pizza delivery drones are approaching the point where they will be economical.

Some apartment complexes may implement a food and package delivery system. Think something like this:

Only every apartment has one. Such places can have a direct line to a restaurant. Then you can literally have your meals almost instantly transported directly to your home, along with your amazon.com purchases.

All of these are solutions to the problem of high wages, all enabled by high wages. If you think about all this you can understand why these people want high wages: they want to eliminate workers... because they want to eliminate people in general. And you have to eliminate the jobs in order to have the pretext to eliminate people.

 

[diesbudt]

By the way when I said "You drive up to the window and boom its just there" I mean the restaurant will tap into your location on GPS, and when you are precisely 1 minute from the restaurant, they will begin to fill your order. When you pull up to the window, they will already know who you are and what you ordered. Instant service. All fast food will be like this in 10-15 years.

Pizza delivery drones are approaching the point where they will be economical.

Some apartment complexes may implement a food and package delivery system. Think something like this:

Only every apartment has one. Such places can have a direct line to a restaurant. Then you can literally have your meals almost instantly transported directly to your home, along with your amazon.com purchases.

All of these are solutions to the problem of high wages, all enabled by high wages. If you think about all this you can understand why these people want high wages: they want to eliminate workers... because they want to eliminate people in general. And you have to eliminate the jobs in order to have the pretext to eliminate people.

Don't need pizza drones. Just the "Lets Pizza" Vending machines

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4_C1BmT-R8

Put this by a soda vending machine and a red box. And hell single people can have a great Friday night alone without ever talking to anyone.

 

[Incorruptible]

These fast food jobs aren't meant to support a family. Apparently some people haven't realized this.

 

[diesbudt]

These fast food jobs aren't meant to support a family. Apparently some people haven't realized this.

It isn't this as much as, minimum wage is for the "minimum worker".

If you have a job and you pay much more than minimum wage, your expectations on their work habits, service, and attitude is much higher than those that get hired in at minimum. Then a lot of the people who complain they cannot make ends meet, is no longer "good enough" for the higher paying job, as the expectations went higher. And thus they get fired and now have no job.

 

[Retro Rob]

Why is the purpose of a job that, even if you work it 40 hours a week every week, your income is still low enough to qualify for receive government assistance?


Every job in the world exists to make the employer money. I'm okay with that, but employers shouldn't be making money at the expense of my tax dollars.

If you still need Gov assistance (generic you) to suppliment your pay, then you should probably be looking for a better job, or keeping your life really simple.


As I stated earlier, this doesn't seem to be about pay as much as it is people wanting to buy stuff and live the American dream off a cashier job.

 

[Retro Rob]

Take away that welfare assistance, and workers won't work for an unlivable wage, and the corporations will be forced to pay people more. That is my point.

I don't think this is true. They will find someone who will work for the offered wage, and there are plenty people that would work or those wages or those jobs would not pay what they pay.

If anything, taking away gov assistance should make the worker strive for more.

 

[Fern]

It's amazing that businesses are able to function and exist in other nations where CEOs earn much less than American CEOs.

I think cash-wise the compensation is close, although I'd like to see some recent research on that.

From my experience the big difference is stock options. When you read about US CEOs making huge salaries the great bulk of it is from stock options. Other countries don't allow those (or didn't, it's been some years since I worked abroad).

Fern

 

[Fern]

What does that have to do with my comment?

A single 20 year old can't live off 40 hours a week at minimum wage, not without government assistance, in most of the country.

Basically, I don't think the government should be subsidizing corporations by making their low paying jobs livable with assistance.

Really?

In most of the country I would think people can get along with min wage. And that it's the exception where there are very expensive cities like Manhattan where they can't.

Fern

 

[Chiropteran]

If you still need Gov assistance (generic you) to suppliment your pay, then you should probably be looking for a better job, or keeping your life really simple.

The problem is, the you in this example is perfectly fine with the situation. The min wage worker is getting benefits from OUR government, living a decent life, while me and you are left paying the bill in taxes.

Why the hell should the min wage worker care that we are paying extra taxes? Why would they want a better job to supplement their income? Government aid goes away if they make more money! They would just be working harder and getting similar amount of money.

The problem here is that the incentives aren't aligned properly. You and I have an incentive for min wage guy to get a better job, but we can't make him get a better job! He has no such incentive, he is living fine thanks to our government picking up the slack where his mcdonalds paycheck fails.

Min wage guy is fine with mooching on society. Mcdonalds is fine with him mooching off society, as it gives them a very inexpensive worker. You and I might not be fine with it, but no matter how much we aren't fine with it we can't force the guy to go find a better job.

Suburbs of Minneapolis

Apartment was $600/month within walking distance of both Target and Walmart.

Haven't you heard of the 1/3 rule? If you are spending more than 1/3 of your gross take home pay for rent alone, it's too much. The interesting thing is that the rule is much more flexible when you are at the highest levels of income, but at minimum wage it really doesn't leave you with any breathing room if you ignore it.

Specifically, take your $600/month apartment. With min wage, you have a little over $1300/month- lets call it $1250 because even if your net federal tax rate is 0 there is still money taken for social security and other taxes.

$600 for rent,

$650 left over for food, transportation, entertainment, clothes, healthcare, education expenses.

How much do you think it costs to eat?

Even cheap fast food will run you $5-7 per meal, which can potentially add up to $600/month alone. Cooking at home is immensely healthier, but for a single person it's probably going to cost just as much $5+ per meal, more if you ever want to eat any meat.

I suppose you could assume that you live off of ramen noodles and cut food costs down to $200/month or so, but I doubt anyone could actually live like that long term without serious health issues.

So you got an apartment and you got food, and you have $100 left over for clothes, entertainment, a cellphone (you may think it's a luxury, but without a phone chance of ever getting a better job is close to 0), education, healthcare. I don't see it working.

 

[Chiropteran]

In most of the country I would think people can get along with min wage. And that it's the exception where there are very expensive cities like Manhattan where they can't.

In those destitute areas where minimum wage could be enough, you can't even get a 40 hour a week min wage job. The economy is in the dump and jobs don't exist.

In the rest of the US, where the economy is doing okay enough that there are readily available jobs, the cost of rent and food alone pretty much equals the entire take home pay at min wage, which leaves nothing for any other sort of expense.


edit:

oh yeah, don't forget to add college loans to the expenses these min wage workers need to worry about every month:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-17/end-u-s-student-loans-don-t-make-them-cheaper.html

The Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us that we now have 115,000 janitors, 83,000 bartenders, 323,000 restaurant servers, and 80,000 heavy-duty truck drivers with bachelor’s degrees -- a number exceeding that of uniformed personnel in the U.S. Army.

(Not all of those jobs pay min wage, but some certainly do)

 

[buckshot24]

Except government assistance, which makes it possible to live on min wage. Why get a better job if your $7.25/hr + government check is enough to pay for everything you need?

Not only that but the incentive to make more money is reduced because as their wages increase they have to pay more for rent (those on HUD) and potentially food as well.

Imagine a woman making $150 a week is offered to work more hours so she can make $250 a week. So she has $400 more coming in per month! Great. Problem is if she is on HUD she will need to pay perhaps an extra $200 a month in rent. Well she is up a net $200 per month but she has to work 15 hours extra per week to get that $200 which works out to be $3.33 an hour in net pay for those extra hours.

Obviously the numbers are pulled out of my rear end but the principle is what I'm talking about.

 

[drebo]

Not only that but the incentive to make more money is reduced because as their wages increase they have to pay more for rent (those on HUD) and potentially food as well.

Imagine a woman making $150 a week is offered to work more hours so she can make $250 a week. So she has $400 more coming in per month! Great. Problem is if she is on HUD she will need to pay perhaps an extra $200 a month in rent. Well she is up a net $200 per month but she has to work 15 hours extra per week to get that $200 which works out to be $3.33 an hour in net pay for those extra hours.

Obviously the numbers are pulled out of my rear end but the principle is what I'm talking about.

The flaw in your logic: getting rid of financial government assistance nullifies your example.