McDonalds answer to $15/hr min wages

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
856
126
Ah, yes. The, "I used to be a fucking scumbag loser piece of shit, but since I changed and started my own business, every other fucking scumbag loser can too" argument.



So, your solution is that everyone should clean everyone else's toilets for $8/hr and then start their own business doing whatever it is you do, and everyone will be rich.



Why isn't everyone beating down your door to pick you up as their economic advisor I wonder?


Because they'd RATHER pressure society to pay them more for doing less. Durr.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,535
7,660
136
Because they'd RATHER pressure society to pay them more for doing less. Durr.
High-earning people would rather pressure society to pay them less for doing more work, and they're the ones winning, since you obviously aren't paying attention.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
Why the fuck do you guys always say "to become rich". we aren't talking about the poor getting rich.It's not about starting your own business.

we are talking about paying for your own rent, clothes, food, vehicles etc yourself and not depending on welfare or such.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
856
126
Why the fuck do you guys always say "to become rich". we aren't talking about the poor getting rich.It's not about starting your own business.

we are talking about paying for your own rent, clothes, food, vehicles etc yourself and not depending on welfare or such.


Right. The American Dream was never supposed to be limited to "get rich." It was supposed to be self-sufficiency and control of one's own destiny. For example, owning a farm instead of being a farm hand. If the farm doesn't make you rich: so be it. At least you're happy, free, and self-sufficient.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Yeah. That's totally it.

..but, it is totally it. For the past 30ish years people have been having their workloads increase, on top of being far more efficient due to the use of computers and other technology. Yet they are paid roughly the same as they were 40 years ago.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Right. The American Dream was never supposed to be limited to "get rich." It was supposed to be self-sufficiency and control of one's own destiny. For example, owning a farm instead of being a farm hand. If the farm doesn't make you rich: so be it. At least you're happy, free, and self-sufficient.

Yup, but how does everyone accomplish this goal when the path is limited to only a few? They don't and they can't. That is the issue.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
Yup, but how does everyone accomplish this goal when the path is limited to only a few? They don't and they can't. That is the issue.

what? the path is not limited to only a few. It can be done with a High school degree.

I know a few families that do it on around $50k combined income. none of them have a college degree.


again. we are talking about paying for your own fucking bills. NO welfare, no wic, no foodstamps etc. NOt owning a business, NOT owning a fucking yaht.

just paying for your own fucking bills

when did society say that it was a "path is limited to only a few"?
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
..but, it is totally it. For the past 30ish years people have been having their workloads increase, on top of being far more efficient due to the use of computers and other technology. Yet they are paid roughly the same as they were 40 years ago.

describe far more efficient. There is far more competition in the workforce now than there was 30 years ago...I always love all this revisionist bullshit...the workplace dynamic and those looking for work has so drastically changed to compare wages then vs now is a bit ridiculous. Would I like for wages to increase, absolutely so long as it is sustainable and driven by the market, but to force companies to increase wages to an unsustainable level and then bitch when they make adjustments to their processes to incorporate said changes and maintain profits is a bit silly.
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,749
4,558
136
..but, it is totally it. For the past 30ish years people have been having their workloads increase, on top of being far more efficient due to the use of computers and other technology. Yet they are paid roughly the same as they were 40 years ago.

Not really. Take into account the cost of college tuition, rent utilities etc. over that 40 year period and their net buying power has actually decreased. Kind of a downer when you're worth less than your parents were despite being expected to be twice as productive.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
describe far more efficient. There is far more competition in the workforce now than there was 30 years ago...I always love all this revisionist bullshit...the workplace dynamic and those looking for work has so drastically changed to compare wages then vs now is a bit ridiculous. Would I like for wages to increase, absolutely so long as it is sustainable and driven by the market, but to force companies to increase wages to an unsustainable level and then bitch when they make adjustments to their processes to incorporate said changes and maintain profits is a bit silly.

Consider, as an example, that a single Employee can provide a Multi page Colour with Graphics Report to be distributed amongst any number of people. Such a feat required Multiple personnel and usually sending it off to other Company's to complete just 40 years ago. The Efficiency and Capablity of a single Worker is dramatically greater than what existed. Even back then Corporations and Businesses made Profits, their Owners were Wealthy, their Employees enjoyed good Wages given the Cost of Living at the time.
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
Collective bargaining to increase wages is fine. Thats kind of what the Fast food workers are doing. Sort of. In general employees are in a weak position so meh. I'm ambivalent about the push for $15. Its just dumb and they don't realize that they aren't worth $15. Maybe $12.50 tops.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Its just dumb and they don't realize that they aren't worth $15. Maybe $12.50 tops.

The thing is, it's not that some evil rich guy is determining what someone is worth. The marketplace for labor does that, and the market equilibrium pretty clearly indicates that they are not. That's what happens when you flood the country with millions of low skill employees and export middle class jobs. You destroy the power of those at the lower end of the economic scale to move up because you increase the supply tremendously. Those at the high end make that much more, and those in the middle just kind of tread water.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,786
6,188
126
Immigrants didn't do it to you, plebs, you did it to yourself. But keep waiting for the trickle down.
 

master_shake_

Diamond Member
May 22, 2012
6,430
291
121
i think the mckiosk is a great idea.

streamline the entire thing and take the human error out of it.

atleast that way there is no having to repeat yourself.

subway iirc has touch screen drive-thrus.
 

mysticjbyrd

Golden Member
Oct 6, 2015
1,363
3
0
The thing is, it's not that some evil rich guy is determining what someone is worth. The marketplace for labor does that, and the market equilibrium pretty clearly indicates that they are not. That's what happens when you flood the country with millions of low skill employees and export middle class jobs. You destroy the power of those at the lower end of the economic scale to move up because you increase the supply tremendously. Those at the high end make that much more, and those in the middle just kind of tread water.

No, if we didn't have the minimum wage, people would be paid far less.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,786
6,188
126
i think the mckiosk is a great idea.

streamline the entire thing and take the human error out of it.

atleast that way there is no having to repeat yourself.

subway iirc has touch screen drive-thrus.

Take human customers out of it too. Just have kiosks buying food from kiosks.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
856
126
No, if we didn't have the minimum wage, people would be paid far less.
Certain people, and that's the beauty of it. There would be many more "paperboy" or "stamp licker" type jobs for the people who really don't need more. Instead of begging for allowance and allotments from the head of household working a real job, those people would be working... unlike today.
 

mysticjbyrd

Golden Member
Oct 6, 2015
1,363
3
0
Certain people, and that's the beauty of it. There would be many more "paperboy" or "stamp licker" type jobs for the people who really don't need more. Instead of begging for allowance and allotments from the head of household working a real job, those people would be working... unlike today.

No, everyone with a shit job would get $3 an hour, because everyone that poor desperately needs the job.

Who do you think only needs $3 an hour?

This won't net any jobs either, as everyone would require three jobs to stay alive.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
No, everyone with a shit job would get $3 an hour, because everyone that poor desperately needs the job.

Who do you think only needs $3 an hour?

This won't net any jobs either, as everyone would require three jobs to stay alive.

I don't believe that either.

Now i do think we need MIN wage. BUT to say that we would be at $3 or so is foolish.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,413
1,570
126
Who do you think only needs $3 an hour?

that old lady who wants to work as a walmart greeter because that's the only social interaction she gets. or that mentally slow 26 year old kid who's not worth more than $3/hr.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
856
126
No, everyone with a shit job would get $3 an hour, because everyone that poor desperately needs the job.

Who do you think only needs $3 an hour?
Maybe not $3, but I gave examples of jobs that would open up if allowed to pay wages lower than the current minimum wage: A paperboy who spends a couple hours tossing papers on the way to school. A bed-ridden person licking-and-sticking envelopes/stamps. The types of jobs it would serve are hard to imagine because the current minimum wage ensures that they don't currently exist.

This won't net any jobs either, as everyone would require three jobs to stay alive.
...and this incorrect assumption here is the big issue. Minimum wage was NEVER supposed to be for people who are trying to stay alive on minimum wage alone. Why does a twice-retired person with three paychecks who only works to stay busy need a "living wage?" Why does the paperboy with two parents raising him need to earn a living wage when the only reason he took up the job was to save up buy a particular video game that comes out in a few months (no different than when I would mow lawns and collect cans to get a game in the early 1990s)? Why does the wife who's husband makes $100K who works a part time job to have some extra spending money she can spend on gifts and such need a wage that she could "stay alive" on? It's a LAUGHABLE misconception but people keep falling back to it OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.

People working minimum wage are not working minimum wage because they have to. They are working minimum wage because they DON'T have to work any harder... until it stops being enough to survive on when combined with government assistance and such. Understand?
 
Last edited: