Mcdonalds employee told to sign up for welfare

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,581
472
126
And when the cost of goods for that working family goes up $30 as a result of the $1/hr increase?

Who benefits - not that working family.
The government that collected taxes that that family can not spend from the $1


The thing is that a place raising their wages by a decent amount doesn't cause their overall prices to go up all that much.

For instance in Walmart's case if they raised their wages to $12 an hour then the cost to their shoppers would be about 46 cents per trip on average... not a bad trade off imo.

And when you consider that Walmart's employees would probably purchase a bit more from the convenient place to shop after their shift ends not necessarily a bad thing for Walmart either.

Even for taxpayers in general it would be a good thing because then Walmart's employees would be less likely to have to sign up for public assistance.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-a-walmart-wage-hike-would-cost-you-2013-7
So how much would a higher minimum wage cost shoppers at Walmart?
About 46 cents per trip, reports Caroline Fairchild at The Huffington Post.
That figure is based on a 2011 study by CUNY's Stephanie Luce and University of California Berkeley's Ken Jacobs and Dave Graham-Squire.
"Even if Wal-Mart decided to pass 100 percent of the cost on to customers, store prices would still only increase by 1.1%," Fairchild writes.
Because the average customer spends $1,200 per year, that would amount to about $12 annually.


here is the study that you find when you follow the first articles links to the main source.

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/bigbox_livingwage_policies11.pdf





===
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
So you are willing to pay more taxes to support people who work for mcdonalds?

What ever happened to teaching people a skill? Excuse the pun but they are on the very bottom of the food chain. They don't even qualify as a chef. They stick food in a fryer or oven and a little "ding" tells them when they are done. There is knowledge needed of how long to cook something based on weight, thickness, cut of meat, or anything.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
What ever happened to teaching people a skill?

Like getting dirty, and working outside, and sweating???

That sounds like hard work.

One welding shop I worked at we had around a 75% turnover rate. It seems very few people want to work 7 days a week 12 hours a day and 4 - 6 weeks without a day off.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,035
1
81
No, the difference is that jobs like McDonalds are replacing manufacturing and other good paying middle class jobs.

dsg2341_500_350.jpg


Florida_JobMachine_5-4_chart.png

Bullshit. Your graphics prove nothing other than that the US economy has had a multi-decade trend toward services. That's been happening since the 60s and even before.

It has nothing to do with "middle class families switching to McDonald's as their primary income." To say otherwise is dishonest at best.

Fast food was never meant to support a family. Never. Not in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, or 2000s. Never. It's not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be.

There are jobs for people who don't want to work fast food and are capable of doing something else. Your claims to the contrary are nothing more than you shoving your head in the sand.
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Those jobs are not intended to support a family.

They are intended to be second jobs, college jobs, retirement jobs, or transition jobs.

Of course you can't support a family flipping burgers. Nor should you be able to.

It's ridiculous to even suggest it.

Just as it's ridiculous to flip burgers all your life and then whine about your wages.

/thread
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106

Good example of why we have turned into a welfare nation.

As long as companies are allowed to turn hundreds of millions in profits and pay minimum wage, nothing is going to change.

Regardless of the required skill, the company could afford to pay a liveable wage, but refuses to do so. Who is left to pick up the pieces? The tax payers.

Regardless of what the job was intended for, people who work there still need to pay their bills.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Like getting dirty, and working outside, and sweating???

That sounds like hard work.

Well if you are unwilling to get your hands dirty or work in the elements, don't be surprised that all you are going to make is minimum wage.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
Well if you are unwilling to get your hands dirty or work in the elements, don't be surprised that all you are going to make is minimum wage.

When I was working in the welding field I saw dozens, maybe even hundreds of people who turned down a full time job with benefits.

They simply did not want to get up everyday and go to work. They wanted to work a few weeks, get laid off, draw unemployment for a couple of months, go back to work for a 2 - 3 months, get laid off,,,, repeat.

They would be offered the job, then they would want to know when the lay off was going to be. When the job was described to them that it was a full time job and there were no lay offs, they said forget that, get up and walk out the door.
 
Last edited:

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Good example of why we have turned into a welfare nation.

As long as companies are allowed to turn hundreds of millions in profits and pay minimum wage, nothing is going to change.

Regardless of the required skill, the company could afford to pay a liveable wage, but refuses to do so. Who is left to pick up the pieces? The tax payers.

Regardless of what the job was intended for, people who work there still need to pay their bills.

1) revenue vs profit, two different things. McDonalds lost money recently for the first time in forever.

2) Why should unskilled workers get free raises and I don't? Them getting a raise is like me getting a pay cut. Its wealth equalization. How would you feel busting your ass to get what you want only for Jose working at McDonalds to be making the same as you for doing nothing and having a nicer car than you and then BRAGGING about it? THAT is your welfare state.

Shut your legs and stay in school if you don't want to work a shitty job.

My first job was fast food for $4.50/hr how about that?
 
Last edited:

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Because the company they are working for can afford it.

And if my company can't? No fair! I demand income proportional to my skills vs the fast food worker. If they make more, I have to make more too so the ratio stays constant.

Otherwise why bother with 8 years of school and loans etc?

Its not fair WAAAAA
 
Last edited:

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,382
7,445
136
I bet that people in the 1970s, making a fraction of what people are making today, were able to buy a home, buy a car and still have money to raise a family.

As more money has shifted to wall street and the bankers, that has left less money for working class families.
Not on entry-level fast food jobs, they couldn't.

The difference is that people are far more useless now, and we have a lot more of them.

I hear the anecdote that you could "pump gas at a gas station" and "feed a family".
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,035
1
81
Because the company they are working for can afford it.

That has nothing to do with anything. Pay is derivative of work performed.

My first job was bagging groceries for $3.35 an hour (1984).

My first job was $15/hr as a desktop support technician.

Get smarter, learn a skill, and don't be lazy. You have no one to blame but yourself if you cannot find good paying work right now.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,035
1
81
I hear the anecdote that you could "pump gas at a gas station" and "feed a family".

Back then, full service gas station attendants were considered service-oriented. I imagine they made pretty damn good tips, like any other well-performing service employee can now adays.

No different than waiting tables, if you're good at it.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
3
0
Actually wages are artificially deflated, due to the difference being made up with middle class taxpayer paid federal/state assistance.

Option #3 Remove ALL forms of assistance. Wages will then move up to a natural price equilibrium. VS being artificially deflated.

Yes, and we get to bring back 19th century tenaments as the standard of living for a few million Americans.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,035
1
81
Pay should be directly related to how much money the company makes.

No, it shouldn't be.

Pay is derivative of your value to the company, and by extension, the work you perform.

If the work you perform can be done by anyone with two arms and half a brain, that work is not worth very much.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
My first job was bagging groceries for $3.35 an hour (1984).

My first job was at a local fast food restaurant for $1.00/hr (1972), when I left for my second job 15 months later I was making $1.35/hr. My second job was bagging groceries for $2.65/hr (1974).

I made enough on the first job able to afford a 1966 Dodge Coronet ($600) that I bought the day I turned 16 and passed the test to get my drivers license. I started the second job the next day.

The car was the same color but had stock Mopar rims.

1966_dodge_coronet-pic-34488.jpeg
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Bullshit. Your graphics prove nothing other than that the US economy has had a multi-decade trend toward services. That's been happening since the 60s and even before.

It has nothing to do with "middle class families switching to McDonald's as their primary income." To say otherwise is dishonest at best.

Fast food was never meant to support a family. Never. Not in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, or 2000s. Never. It's not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be.

There are jobs for people who don't want to work fast food and are capable of doing something else. Your claims to the contrary are nothing more than you shoving your head in the sand.

So the by tell, where are those people who used to make good money in manufacturing going then and what kind of wages are they making?

Over 2% of the US jobs are now provided by Walmart, McDonalds and KFC-Yum Brands.

I'm sure that there are plenty of high paying jobs just waiting for these people to jump into....talk about head in the sand.

Just keep watching the lines of good paying jobs leaving, the rise of low wage service jobs and the eventual collapse of the nation and it's economy. Enjoy your service job utopia. You've earned (and apparently are happy with) it.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,035
1
81
So the by tell, where are those people who used to make good money in manufacturing going then and what kind of wages are they making?

Over 2% of the US jobs are now provided by Walmart, McDonalds and KFC-Yum Brands.

I'm sure that there are plenty of high paying jobs just waiting for these people to jump into....talk about head in the sand.

Just keep watching the lines of good paying jobs leaving, the rise of low wage service jobs and the eventual collapse of the nation and it's economy. Enjoy your service job utopia. You've earned (and apparently are happy with) it.

I have no illusion that a services-only environment is good for America.

What you are trying to do, however, is blame the companies for the actions of their workers. Your complaints have nothing to do with whether or not the people working at these companies are CAPABLE of doing anything else, because the employee could never, ever be worthless.

From your point of view, the companies are at fault, even if they aren't. There are a multitude of reasons why jobs were off-shored. Cost is a huge one. Costs caused by over-reaching government influence, costs caused by unreasonable demands by unions, etc. And there are a multitude of reasons why a lot of those jobs are starting to come back.

Flat blaming the company, however, just makes you look like a fucking moron.

Employees who are lazy or lack ambition will never make good money. The company they work for has nothing to do with that. Employees who have drive and ambition will find jobs that pay well.

The onus is on the person to improve their quality of life, not on society to provide one for them.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
642
126
Before retiring a year ago April, my wife managed a garage door company. She stopped in earlier this week when in the area and the new manager told her she has been trying to hire help for over two weeks and is getting no calls at all.

The position she's trying to fill is for a technician to work out in the field with a truck and tools provided. Her highest paid tech was compensated at $28 per hour when my wife was there and there is overtime available with regularity at time and a half. A new hire with mechanical skills and experience will hire in at $20 per hour. A rank amateur that shows potential would hire in the $14 to $15 dollar range. The job provides medical and a 401K plan.

No interest in the position at all. None. When my wife was still there she would come home telling me about receiving phone calls asking if they were hiring. She always told the caller that they were. There would be a long pause and the caller would tell her that they just wanted to be able to tell the unemployment office that they tried to find work. They were not interested in a job.

What has created this atmosphere? We know the answer.