Mcdonalds employee told to sign up for welfare

[Matt1970]

Where are all of these "real jobs" for the people to get? Do they grow on a magic jobs tree? If there aren't enough "real jobs" to go around for everyone, could it mean that in some instances if one person gets a "real job" that someone else somewhere has lost a "real job"?

What about this job? - Oh I don't want to work there.
Ok, what about this job? - That's too far away.
Ok, what about this job? - I don't want to work outside.
Ok, what about this job? - I'll get my hands dirty.
Ok, what about this job? - I don't want to have to get up at 5:30.

Congratulations. Here is your name badge. Don't forget to ask if they want fries with that?

 

[Exterous]

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

Hmmm....that study takes employee data from 1998, 2001 and 2003 and just adjusts it for 2011 levels. It makes the assumption that the ratio of worker in various positions positions remains constant for 10 years as does their wage distribution. It also makes assumptions about Walmart's total hourly wage expenditures

They also acknowledge they have no way to determine the wage variance in the company so they make assumptions about that as well - basically a 'best guess' to what the data is.

Seems like a lot of assuming and old data to be making a conclusion from

 

[Matt1970]

Hmmm....that study takes employee data from 1998, 2001 and 2003 and just adjusts it for 2011 levels. It makes the assumption that the ratio of worker in various positions positions remains constant for 10 years as does their wage distribution. It also makes assumptions about Walmart's total hourly wage expenditures

They also acknowledge they have no way to determine the wage variance in the company so they make assumptions about that as well - basically a 'best guess' to what the data is.

Seems like a lot of assuming and old data to be making a conclusion from

Never mind the fact that all of a sudden everyone is an expert on how better to run the largest corporation in the world.

 

[glenn1]

What about this job? - Oh I don't want to work there.
Ok, what about this job? - That's too far away.
Ok, what about this job? - I don't want to work outside.
Ok, what about this job? - I'll get my hands dirty.
Ok, what about this job? - I don't want to have to get up at 5:30.

Congratulations. Here is your name badge. Don't forget to ask if they want fries with that?

Too bad telling other people what they should pay their employees isn't a paid job. Maybe some progressives ought to dig into their own pockets and pay some of those McDonalds employees to do that on the side to alleviate their hardships.

 

[umbrella39]

Or people could get a real job and stop complaining. Unskilled positions requiring the IQ of a moron were never meant to provide a living wage. It's like washing cars, delivering newspapers, or delivering pizzas.

Wow... it must be pretty confusing to be one of these people! The goal posts move so often with these McJobs.

When Bush was at the helm everyone who was out of work was told to shut the fuck up, stop complaining, stop taking the UE check they paid into an earned, and go work a 20 hour a week McD's job to support their families. Hell, I remember a few saying they should grab a couple McJobs.

Now when politically convenient these people have noses thumbed at them and are told to get a real fucking job. Awesome.

 

[Matt1970]

Wow... it must be pretty confusing to be one of these people! The goal posts move so often with these McJobs.

When Bush was at the helm everyone who was out of work was told to shut the fuck up, stop complaining, stop taking the UE check they paid into an earned, and go work a 20 hour a week McD's job to support their families. Hell, I remember a few saying they should grab a couple McJobs.

Now when politically convenient these people have noses thumbed at them and are told to get a real fucking job. Awesome.

You got a link with Bush saying that?

 

[halik]

We have a choice, demand companies like walmart and mcdonalds pay a higher wage, or pay more in taxes to support the welfare state those companies are creating.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-employees-to-sign-up-for-food-stamps/280812/

McDonalds employee calls company help line, help line tells the employee about food stamps and other social programs.

Here's a quick economics lesson:

A) MCDs hires the guy because they generate about $7/hr of value for mcDs, government subsidizes some percentage of the guys life with welfare

B) Gov't demands MCDs pays the guy $15/hr, so they cut large amount of the workforce and automate the shit out of it (because now they have to pay $15/hr for someone that only generates $7/hr in value of ). Government now has to subsidize 100% of life for all the guys that have the skills to generate $7/hr but can't find a job, because companies have to pay them $15/hr


The real answer there is for the gov't to train people to have skills to generate $15/hr worth of value, that is if the goal is to pay less in welfare.

 

[umbrella39]

You got a link with Bush saying that?

I never said Bush said any such thing... read the sentence again and replace "When Bush was at the helm" with "From the years 2001 thru 2008". Bush clearly was not the one saying such stupid things. Those stupid remarks were made by the Fanboi Club members posting here and abroad.

 

[Incorruptible]

Whoever told the employee to sign up for welfare is a complete idiot. He should be ashamed of himself for encouraging people to go on welfare and deserves to be fired but it won't happen.

Welfare is a waste of money and it just helps keep the poor dependent on the government.

 

[glenn1]

Wow... it must be pretty confusing to be one of these people! The goal posts move so often with these McJobs.

When Bush was at the helm everyone who was out of work was told to shut the fuck up, stop complaining, stop taking the UE check they paid into an earned, and go work a 20 hour a week McD's job to support their families. Hell, I remember a few saying they should grab a couple McJobs.

Now when politically convenient these people have noses thumbed at them and are told to get a real fucking job. Awesome.

I must be missing the part where they said "....and then don't improve your education or skill set and stay in that same McD's burger flipper job for the rest of your life." Or maybe it's just that unlike progressives, the other side hasn't completely given up on the working poor and the idea that they could use an entry-level job to get their foot in the door, then work their way up the career ladder. But I guess it's easier just to go with the liberal solution of saying "don't bother to improve yourself, we'll just force the employer to pay more so you can stay in your entry level job for the next 30 years. If the job still exists and isn't automated because of the higher wage mandate."

 

[umbrella39]

I'll grab the matches you grab the gas and together we'll burn that straw man!

 

[EagleKeeper]

Companies I used to for for hired a bunch of people to do minimum skilled jobs, paid the a decent wage, and worked them a bunch of overtime.

When I was a weld shop helper in 1988 I was making around $24,000 a year. But then again I worked 50 - 80 hours a week.

If you want skilled people, and to retain people, you have to pay them a liveable wage.

But more important, tax payers should not be used to subsidize low wage jobs.

These people are not skilled

There is no need to pay a higher wage to retain them.
1) There are others waiting to take that job
2) There is no skill required to need to retain the worker.

How much more than the minimum wage is needed to no subsidize the worker.

Most workers are students or seniors;

You will be hard put to find someone from 25-60 working at a fast food place if they are not in some shift lead/management position

 

[EagleKeeper]

Bullshit! Prove your statement. At best, a higher minimum wage negatively affects .05% of the total work force. Higher minimum wage does not cause inflation.

1) Look up the definition of inflation - more money chasing the same amount of goods devalues the money.

Give the low end an extra $2.
But that puts them above the next level - they now need an extra $2 to keep pace and get paid for their new value
(You do feel that people should be paid for their value?)
You have 4 levels of workers - so each now have been bumped up $2 to be fair
(you do believe in fairness?)

So now, to help one group; you have affected 3 other groups.
Who coves those costs?
Not the company - they need to pass on those costs to the consumer.

And what do you know, the consumer happens to also be the person that got the $2 raise.

So prices of goods have been raised to everyone to accommodate a few.

Sounds like typical government knee jerk operations

 

[exdeath]

Here's a quick economics lesson:

A) MCDs hires the guy because they generate about $3/hr of value for mcDs, government subsidizes some percentage of the guys life with welfare

B) Gov't demands MCDs pays the guy $7/hr, so they cut large amount of the workforce and automate the shit out of it (because now they have to pay $7/hr for someone that only generates $3/hr in value of ). Government now has to subsidize 100% of life for all the guys that have the skills to generate $3/hr but can't find a job, because companies have to pay them $7/hr

Fixed

 

[halik]

Fixed

Hmm I would be inclined to say no, just because robots to replace the $7/hr workers probably won't come in at $3/hr I would think.

Even though the real minimum federal wage has declined between the 70s and mid 2000s, you also see a decline in the percentage of population doing these jobs. If the true value add of the minimum wage employee was under the federal minimum wage, you'd expect an increase in numbers employed, ceteris paribus. (your workers are now relatively cheaper compared the the value they produce). Although this probably has more to do with technology pushing down the actual marginal value of unskilled labor than anything else.

 

[Smoblikat]

We have a choice, demand companies like walmart and mcdonalds pay a higher wage, or pay more in taxes to support the welfare state those companies are creating.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-employees-to-sign-up-for-food-stamps/280812/

McDonalds employee calls company help line, help line tells the employee about food stamps and other social programs.

How about a third choice where people grow some fucking balls and take personal responsibility for their lives?

 

[Texashiker]

These people are not skilled

There is no need to pay a higher wage to retain them.
1) There are others waiting to take that job
2) There is no skill required to need to retain the worker.

So company should be allowed to turn a massive profit while the employees are supported by tax payers?

 

[glenn1]

So company should be allowed to turn a massive profit while the employees are supported by tax payers?

"Allowed" to turn a profit? How generous of you.

How about you justify being allowed to oblige tax payers to support them?

 

[exdeath]

How about a third choice where people grow some fucking balls and take personal responsibility for their lives?

That's too hard and takes too long. Their friends all have new iPhones RIGHT NOW, who has time for school?

 

[nehalem256]

So company should be allowed to turn a massive profit while the employees are supported by tax payers?

In most cases I think its is more like a company turning a "massive profit" while the employees bastard children are supported by the taxpayer.

 

[Texashiker]

"Allowed" to turn a profit? How generous of you.

How about you justify being allowed to oblige tax payers to support them?

There was once a time when companies shared the profits with its employees. People were able to buy a home, buy a car, and have a family.

Today, the profits are horded and the employees are told to sign up for public housing.

And you see nothing wrong with that?

 

[nehalem256]

There was once a time when companies shared the profits with its employees. People were able to buy a home, buy a car, and have a family.

Today, the profits are horded and the employees are told to sign up for public housing.

And you see nothing wrong with that?

Please name the time when working at McDonald's or an equivalent restaurant you could support a family of 4.

 

[halik]

So company should be allowed to turn a massive profit while the employees are supported by tax payers?

Yes, would you prefer they employ none of them, turn massive profit and tax payers pay for the full 100% of the employees life via welfare?

 

[halik]

There was once a time when companies shared the profits with its employees. People were able to buy a home, buy a car, and have a family.

Today, the profits are horded and the employees are told to sign up for public housing.

And you see nothing wrong with that?

What was this? Because as long as corporations existed, shareholders were the ones risking capital and receiving profits. Employees don't risk capital, don't get profits.

I think you're confusing the whole "profits" thing with the time where menial unskilled labor didn't have to compete with technology and was earning higher wages.

 

[Texashiker]

Please name the time when working at McDonald's or an equivalent restaurant you could support a family of 4.

How about home ownership per capita?

Yes, would you prefer they employ none of them, turn massive profit and tax payers pay for the full 100% of the employees life via welfare?

Welfare should not be a company perk.

It seems to me a lot of people in this thread are trying to justify what they make through their education. Surely people who spent tens of thousands of dollars on their college education should make more than people who did not go to college. That is a flawed mindset.

If a company can afford to pay its employees are liveable wage, shouldn't they be required to do so?

Why should the tax payers be required to subsidize corporate greed?