McDonald's workers want $15 an hour

[nCred]

The quality of life will be higher for the Swedish McDonalds worker.

Sure, but the difference in salary is in part an illusion.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The quality of life will be higher for the Swedish McDonalds worker.

Well yeah, Sweden is a much smaller country with a lower fertility rate. A smaller working class means that unskilled labor is relatively more valuable vs a country with tens of millions of marginalized minorities and desperate illegal immigrants. Right now the USA has more worthless people than we have menial jobs for them to fill.

EDIT: And just to clarify I don't think that all menial laborers are worthless. That is directed more towards those that have been here for several generations and believe a well-paying, unskilled job to be a birthright of being an American.

 

[Veliko]

Well yeah, Sweden is a much smaller country with a lower fertility rate. A smaller working class means that unskilled labor is relatively more valuable vs a country with tens of millions of marginalized minorities and desperate illegal immigrants. Right now the USA has more worthless people than we have menial jobs for them to fill.

What an absolute load of shite.

 

[Nintendesert]

What an absolute load of shite.

No, you're full of shit!

 

[coloumb]

Go to Japan and visit a McDonalds. Unlike american workers, they actually take pride in their work, even if it is just a part time McDonald's job. They keep their restuarants exceptionally clean, and take extreme pride in giving you perfect food on every order.

Same thing in China as well.

When I worked at McDonald's back in the 80's - we had the exact same work ethic - pride in our job, kept the place extremely clean, etc.

I'm for $15.00 and hour as long as the employees put more effort/pride into their jobs [and use that extra money to take an ESL class - nothing's worse than trying to order food from someone who can't speak basic fluent English]

 

[HamburgerBoy]

What an absolute load of shite.

How so? I'm fairly certain that Sweden isn't nearly as accepting of immigrants as the United States. Per this, our rate of people coming here more than doubles Sweden's, and looking elsewhere a significant number of Sweden's immigrants come from Finland and other wealthy European states. On the other hand, we border the fairly shitty country of Mexico, and their immigrants are generally not as educated and are also far more motivated to work for sub-minimum wage, increasing the supply of cheap labor for American businesses.

 

[Veliko]

How so? I'm fairly certain that Sweden isn't nearly as accepting of immigrants as the United States. Per this, our rate of people coming here more than doubles Sweden's, and looking elsewhere a significant number of Sweden's immigrants come from Finland and other wealthy European states. On the other hand, we border the fairly shitty country of Mexico, and their immigrants are generally not as educated and are also far more motivated to work for sub-minimum wage, increasing the supply of cheap labor for American businesses.

The entire Swedish culture and economic setup is completely different.

It's got nothing to do with a lack of labour.

 

[bas1c]

And socialism is bad because?

Your arguments would perhaps be valid if they were asking for $25 an hour, but $15 is very reasonable and won't have any "ripple" effects, only positive effects by reducing poverty and actually giving these people a chance at improving their situation (something that isn't possible when you're making $6 - 7 an hour). Your "ripple effects" are easily offset by other factors, of which not the least is outsourcing to 3rd world countries.

Again, McDonald's workers in Sweden make $15-$16 an hour and we seem to be doing alright. I was at McDonalds' the other week, and they didn't have any plans to close down.

Socialism as a concept is not bad in and of itself. It's an altruistic ideal. However, it's flaw is in not factoring an important variable when implementing socialism. People are naturally greedy and will look out for themselves. Socialism will not close the economic gap between classes nor eliminate class structure. There will always be the haves and have nots. True socialism will never be obtained.

 

[kache]

Socialism as a concept is not bad in and of itself. It's an altruistic ideal. However, it's flaw is in not factoring an important variable when implementing socialism. People are naturally greedy and will look out for themselves. Socialism will not close the economic gap between classes nor eliminate class structure. There will always be the haves and have nots. True socialism will never be obtained.

Does it matter that much, as long as everyone has everything they need to live properly?

 

[bas1c]

Does it matter that much, as long as everyone has everything they need to live properly?

Yes it does, when current real-world examples of countries that are communistic / socialist have people suffering far worse than we have in America.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The entire Swedish culture and economic setup is completely different.

It's got nothing to do with a lack of labour.

I won't dispute that cultural issues are a problem here, but I didn't say it was due to a lack of labor. It's due to an excess in the United States. The first-world lifestyle isn't sustainable for all 7 billion people in the world to partake in, and since we are expected to support far many more than relatively homogenous and racist European countries, we have the option of either 1) Decreasing the number of jobs to compensate for increased wages, 2) Decreasing wages to compensate for the number of increased laborers. Of course, we can always create new tax-paid government jobs (or social programs) for those incapable of finding jobs profitable to society, or we can subsidize private companies to take on more minimum-wage serfs, but ultimately the problem comes down to insufficient goods for an ever-increasing population.

Yes it does, when current real-world examples of countries that are communistic / socialist have people suffering far worse than we have in America.

tbh I don't think Scandinavians are suffering worse than Americans.

 

[Veliko]

I won't dispute that cultural issues are a problem here, but I didn't say it was due to a lack of labor. It's due to an excess in the United States. The first-world lifestyle isn't sustainable for all 7 billion people in the world to partake in, and since we are expected to support far many more than relatively homogenous and racist European countries, we have the option of either 1) Decreasing the number of jobs to compensate for increased wages, 2) Decreasing wages to compensate for the number of increased laborers. Of course, we can always create new tax-paid government jobs (or social programs) for those incapable of finding jobs profitable to society, or we can subsidize private companies to take on more minimum-wage serfs, but ultimately the problem comes down to insufficient goods for an ever-increasing population.

That depends what you define that first-world lifestyle as.

The biggest problem is the unequal distribution of wealth.

 

[Veliko]

Yes it does, when current real-world examples of countries that are communistic / socialist have people suffering far worse than we have in America.

Which countries are you talking about here?

 

[bas1c]

Which countries are you talking about here?

Off the top of my head, China and North Korea.

 

[Veliko]

Off the top of my head, China and North Korea.

The problems that the people in those countries face are not down to the economic models, you blundering buffoon.

 

[bas1c]

Which countries are you talking about here?

For clarification, my viewpoints to be centered rather than leaning to either extreme. I tend to think that any extreme view point is great conceptually, but not feasible in reality. Just like I think people's greed will get in the way of a socialist Utopia, I feel that the greed in capitalism can get carried away. The greed should be managed and I think capitalism is best suited for that. I just don't think a completely laissez faire approach to capitalism is the right one.

 

[bas1c]

The problems that the people in those countries face are not down to the economic models, you blundering buffoon.

It's part of it because socialism requires a governing body to execute it. And because people are not infallible, it leads to abuse. If you think the economic model does not have anything to do with it...then I dunno. You are a hostile one. I didn't see one aspect of my posts that stooped to personal attacks. Is that how all your education has taught you to approach things? (Now I did)

 

[Veliko]

For clarification, my viewpoints to be centered rather than leaning to either extreme. I tend to think that any extreme view point is great conceptually, but not feasible in reality. Just like I think people's greed will get in the way of a socialist Utopia, I feel that the greed in capitalism can get carried away. The greed should be managed and I think capitalism is best suited for that. I just don't think a completely laissez faire approach to capitalism is the right one.

By and large that's a sensible approach, but the middle ground is neither socialist nor capitalist in nature.

It's a mixture.

 

[bas1c]

By and large that's a sensible approach, but the middle ground is neither socialist nor capitalist in nature.

It's a mixture.

Yes, but I believe capitalism should be the base to start off from.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

That depends what you define that first-world lifestyle as.

The biggest problem is the unequal distribution of wealth.

Distribution of wealth helps nothing if given to people that will only consume it. The biggest problem is that the overwhelming majority of the world is content to eat, fuck, and sleep on the backs of those that increase the tangible, functional value in the world (i.e. petroleum engineers that provide us more energy to power our gadgets, physicists and electricians designing renewable sources of energy, doctors/surgeons that prolong the lives of their patients and thus the amount of products they create, etc). So we double the wage of the average McDonald's and Walmart employee. Even assuming it has a negligible effect of McDonald's and Walmarts profitability and that it does not increase the cost of their goods, what will that accomplish? Why do we want to make raising a family more comfortable for a family that is content to revel in the trivial existence of monotony and bare consumption?

Machination of menial labor is becoming less and less sci-fi, and although it may take a hundred or two hundred years until the cooking of burgers or transaction of counter goods are mostly controlled without human influence, it will happen. We need to discourage people from working these jobs as much as possible, and low wages help that. The biggest area of government-funded programs that needs an overhaul is education, and I don't have a problem with trying to improve the productivity of the lower classes, because I realize that a lot of people that spend their life working at McDonald's probably had very poor guidance from their families, and while the 50 year olds are probably irredeemable, there is still potential in fixing the kids headed in that direction.

 

[Veliko]

Distribution of wealth helps nothing if given to people that will only consume it. The biggest problem is that the overwhelming majority of the world is content to eat, fuck, and sleep on the backs of those that increase the tangible, functional value in the world (i.e. petroleum engineers that provide us more energy to power our gadgets, physicists and electricians designing renewable sources of energy, doctors/surgeons that prolong the lives of their patients and thus the amount of products they create, etc). So we double the wage of the average McDonald's and Walmart employee. Even assuming it has a negligible effect of McDonald's and Walmarts profitability and that it does not increase the cost of their goods, what will that accomplish? Why do we want to make raising a family more comfortable for a family that is content to revel in the trivial existence of monotony and bare consumption?

Machination of menial labor is becoming less and less sci-fi, and although it may take a hundred or two hundred years until the cooking of burgers or transaction of counter goods are mostly controlled without human influence, it will happen. We need to discourage people from working these jobs as much as possible, and low wages help that. The biggest area of government-funded programs that needs an overhaul is education, and I don't have a problem with trying to improve the productivity of the lower classes, because I realize that a lot of people that spend their life working at McDonald's probably had very poor guidance from their families, and while the 50 year olds are probably irredeemable, there is still potential in fixing the kids headed in that direction.

You're off your rocker.

 

[kache]

Distribution of wealth helps nothing if given to people that will only consume it. The biggest problem is that the overwhelming majority of the world is content to eat, fuck, and sleep on the backs of those that increase the tangible, functional value in the world (i.e. petroleum engineers that provide us more energy to power our gadgets, physicists and electricians designing renewable sources of energy, doctors/surgeons that prolong the lives of their patients and thus the amount of products they create, etc). So we double the wage of the average McDonald's and Walmart employee. Even assuming it has a negligible effect of McDonald's and Walmarts profitability and that it does not increase the cost of their goods, what will that accomplish? Why do we want to make raising a family more comfortable for a family that is content to revel in the trivial existence of monotony and bare consumption?

Machination of menial labor is becoming less and less sci-fi, and although it may take a hundred or two hundred years until the cooking of burgers or transaction of counter goods are mostly controlled without human influence, it will happen. We need to discourage people from working these jobs as much as possible, and low wages help that. The biggest area of government-funded programs that needs an overhaul is education, and I don't have a problem with trying to improve the productivity of the lower classes, because I realize that a lot of people that spend their life working at McDonald's probably had very poor guidance from their families, and while the 50 year olds are probably irredeemable, there is still potential in fixing the kids headed in that direction.

I agree on education. That's the most important thing for a society.
I remember long time ago someone suggesting to actually pay the students to study, instead of them paying. That would help a lot, IMHO.

 

[randomrogue]

It's irritating when people's only input is not based on any tangible experience but simply what they've heard around. Talking points at best from some scewed source.

I've lived all over the place and the propaganda machine is working everywhere but it's really strong in the states right now. We like to try to justify our failing economy by critiquing Europe (or China, or ... ) without even realizing that Europe is a continent with 740 million people and 47 counties. If you're going to compare then do it by country. Scandinavia is doing much better than the USA while Southern Europe is doing much worse. If you want to be really thorough compare by state since some states are doing much worse than others. CA and NV have economies in the shitter while others aren't doing so bad.

With that said, one of the main problems our economy has had for about 20 years is a significant reduction in manufacturing jobs and a huge increase in the service sector. We've replaced good jobs with skill less jobs. People buy these services with borrowed money. I'm not for encouraging this so personally I would never reward someone who worked at McDonalds for 8 years. That person could have bettered themselves. If you've been at McDonalds for that long you should be in management and not doing remedial work. There is virtually no skill involved working as staff at a fast food restaurant. Just because the job sucks and the hours suck doesn't mean you should get a raise. Get another job if you don't like it. Someone else will replace you. If that's a problem then get with your state and local representatives and lobby for higher minimum wage rates. San Fransisco is at $10 iirc.

 

[MaxPayne63]

I agree on education. That's the most important thing for a society.
I remember long time ago someone suggesting to actually pay the students to study, instead of them paying. That would help a lot, IMHO.

Paying kids to go to high school with keggers will not help anything.

 

[randomrogue]

I won't dispute that cultural issues are a problem here, but I didn't say it was due to a lack of labor. It's due to an excess in the United States. The first-world lifestyle isn't sustainable for all 7 billion people in the world to partake in, and since we are expected to support far many more than relatively homogenous and racist European countries, we have the option of either 1) Decreasing the number of jobs to compensate for increased wages, 2) Decreasing wages to compensate for the number of increased laborers. Of course, we can always create new tax-paid government jobs (or social programs) for those incapable of finding jobs profitable to society, or we can subsidize private companies to take on more minimum-wage serfs, but ultimately the problem comes down to insufficient goods for an ever-increasing population.



tbh I don't think Scandinavians are suffering worse than Americans.

Historically people moved when there was no food or work. Didn't the Irish migrate to America due to the famine? The problem today is that everyone feels entitled to be able to live where they want. If you have no education and no skills then clearly living in San Francisco is a really stupid idea. Get the fuck out.

I was in Barcelona recently and it was just astonishing to see the amount of South American immigrants there and the amount of people who were doing nothing. I'm going to assume that those SA immigrants will leave Spain in short order since it's probably better where they came from but more importantly the Spanish should be leaving Spain. Unemployment is at 25%. LEAVE! If people would move to more affordable places with jobs they would solve a lot of problems. You can go to Africa or Asia and survive for next to nothing. Find a job there instead of sitting on your ass and living off the state. Someone told me that the Spanish gave 100% unemployment benefits for 3 years. I don't know if it's true but either way it was really shitty there.

All of us native English speakers can invest $1000 in an English certification course and go teach English in Saudi Arabia for $80,000 a year. There is no excuse. Adapt, Migrate, or Die. Words to live by.