Yet another fast food worker strike

[Zaap]

I've seen her type working at places like iHOP and Denny's etc. (The step-up from fast food type places where you'd have to be insane not to earn more than Mcdonalds.)

The trouble is, you have to actually move your ass down the street from McDonalds sometime within a 10 year stretch and actually apply there... and that's a much harder burden for the dipshit generation than demanding magic doubling wages wherever theyve rooted themselves to.

 

[nehalem256]

I've seen her type working at places like iHOP and Denny's etc. (The step-up from fast food type places where you'd have to be insane not to earn more than Mcdonalds.)

The trouble is, you have to actually move your ass down the street from McDonalds sometime within a 10 year stretch and actually apply there... and that's a much harder burden for the dipshit generation than demanding magic doubling wages wherever theyve rooted themselves to.

Its also a harder job. You actually have to walk around the Denny taking orders and carrying people their food.

Why do that when you can just stand at McD and push buttons all day?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I would be interested to know how she arrived at that conclusion?

Replace That number with anything:

"Salgado thinks that $15 an hour would be a fair wage for her work."

"Salgado thinks that $20 an hour would be a fair wage for her work."

"Salgado thinks that $40 an hour would be a fair wage for her work."

Something tells me she would equally agree every time.

 

[Zaap]

You'd almost think a person whose worked in what passes for a kitchen in fast food for 10 years might be able to parry that into a cook position somewhere better. (Hotel I worked in as a kid paid cooks very well... and even trained several of them from people with no previous experience. )

No walking around out in the dining room, just preparing food all day.... just a bit more complicated than slapping burgers on a bun. And again you'd have to be a total insane dipshit not to make more money at it than a kids job at McDonalds.

Today's dipshit generation: first of all would never think of it apparently, and 2nd of all would scream "OMG!!!!!!!!!!! That's too hard!!!!!!! Its so much easier to demand McDonalds pay me more than expect ME to go earn more you heartless bastard!!!!!!!!!"

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

You'd almost think a person whose worked in what passes for a kitchen in fast food for 10 years might be able to parry that into a cook position somewhere better. (Hotel I worked in as a kid paid cooks very well... and even trained several of them from people with no previous experience. )

No walking around out in the dining room, just preparing food all day.... just a bit more complicated than slapping burgers on a bun. And again you'd have to be a total insane dipshit not to make more money at it than a kids job at McDonalds.

Today's dipshit generation: first of all would never think of it apparently, and 2nd of all would scream "OMG!!!!!!!!!!! That's too hard!!!!!!! Its so much easier to demand McDonalds pay me more than expect ME to go earn more you heartless bastard!!!!!!!!!"

Dropping a bucket of frozen fries into a bucket of grease, sadly, isn't going to get you anywhere. Maybe the guy that flips the burgers can start working his way into real sit down restaurants? (Chili's, etc.)

Frankly, I don't understand why it's so hard to go over to the nextdoor neighboor Burger King and say "Hey, I'm busting my ass over at McDonalds, I see you are in need of some hard workers that are willing to work. I have a 10 year history with McDonalds..." those statements alone are enough to start the process of "working your way up the ladder" in life. I guarantee you won't start with minimum wage with that statement.

It's like people expect life to be like Walmart: "Where is my electric scooter to do my work for me?!"

 

[Greenman]

I thought McJobs were a temporary thing, something you did to keep the wolf from the door while writing your doctoral thesis or perfecting a cure for ingrown toenails? When did they become a career?

 

[theeedude]

Or at least someone attractive.

I think you mean kids. Not only did she ignore every piece of advice. Apparently she ignored her own experience from having the first kid in abject poverty as well.D:
No wonder she hasn't gotten a raise from McDonald in 10 years :sneaky:

Of course liberals refuse to call a woman having multiple bastard kids with multiple baby daddies(some of whom are in prison) abusing the system.

If you spend less money on the undeserving then you have more money to spend on the deserving.

That would require walking though. She doesn't look like someone who does a lot of walking.

You are on a roll there. Looks like Republican-Corporatist solution to poverty and rising inequality is to denigrate poor people until they accept it.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I thought McJobs were a temporary thing, something you did to keep the wolf from the door while writing your doctoral thesis or perfecting a cure for ingrown toenails? When did they become a career?

When you became too lazy to move on to Burger King next door with the phrase "I have experience".

 

[nehalem256]

You are on a roll there. Looks like Republican-Corporatist solution to poverty and rising inequality is to denigrate poor people until they accept it.

So you are conceding that the issue is that the woman is unable to take care of herself and is therefore basically a 2nd Class citizen?

I guess that explains why liberals think poor people are unable to get a driver's license.

 

[Veliko]

I'm not advocating taking away their benefits. The problem is that even with access to free birth control, they still don't seem to practice safe sex... And look, I get that. I haven't always been safe 100% of the time either... But I wasn't living in poverty.

The fact you weren't living in poverty is irrelevant because people of all creeds, colours, and social standing will have sex and those same people will have babies.

It really is as simple as that.

We have a system or we should say a "Web" of social programs that are problematic due to any number of issues.

- No hard limits on time in the system. There is an arbitrary limit of 60 months for some programs that is never enforced.
- We automatically bump benefits up with each child born. This I believe is different from state to state, and many have set limits.
- We automatically enroll every child born here to an illegal immigrant in Medicaid, and due to their status as natural born citizen the parents(guardians in the eyes of the law as they are illegally here) then apply for food stamps, etc in the name of the child but the benefits get paid/administered directly to the guardians.
- A weak record of job creation in this country over the last ten+ years.

I imagine I could make a list much longer than that. The core of the issue is that the liberals and even many conservatives say "But the Children!!!" suggesting that no cost is too high and that the child isn't at fault. Morally, that is correct. Many of those same children though make the same mistake their parents did. They become the next generation of welfare recipients in that family tree, they have children early and children they can't afford. I'm not saying that people on welfare are living well, but as long as we continue to not question how they got there and as long as we continue to minimize the penalty for their poor choices in life they'll continue to make those same choices along with their existing and eventual offspring.

I honestly have no idea what your point is here. You seem to have bought into the idea that women en masse are having kids en masse just so they can claim a few extra pennies from the state.

 

[desy]

15317 useless posts and counting

 

[Veliko]

So you are conceding that the issue is that the woman is unable to take care of herself and is therefore basically a 2nd Class citizen?

I guess that explains why liberals think poor people are unable to get a driver's license.

So you're conceding that you're as thick as two short planks?

I guess that explains why you still haven't got your pee pee wet yet.

 

[theeedude]

So you are conceding that the issue is that the woman is unable to take care of herself and is therefore basically a 2nd Class citizen?

I guess that explains why liberals think poor people are unable to get a driver's license.

I think it's pretty clear that Republican-Corporatists consider her a second class citizen already since she is working full time, instead of living off dividends and capital gains.

 

[BoberFett]

I think it's pretty clear that Republican-Corporatists consider her a second class citizen already since she is working full time, instead of living off dividends and capital gains.

Unless someone has refuted the math, she is not working full time.

 

[theeedude]

Unless someone has refuted the math, she is not working full time.

I don't know her exact situation, but non-executive employees in general are second or third class citizens to Republican-Corporatists. Only corproations (whom they consider people), investors, and "job creators" are first-class citizens.

 

[WackyDan]

The fact you weren't living in poverty is irrelevant because people of all creeds, colours, and social standing will have sex and those same people will have babies.

It really is as simple as that.



I honestly have no idea what your point is here. You seem to have bought into the idea that women en masse are having kids en masse just so they can claim a few extra pennies from the state.

Some do. Shit, my wife's best friend has a daughter who pumped out four from 3 different fathers. The State of NC asked if they could pay to have her tubes tied during the delivery of kid #4 which thankfully she took them up on. Her and her latest baby daddy are meth heads, had the kids taken away once because she can't be fucking bothered to send them to school... Both her and the baby daddy refuse to work. Those types of parents spend little to none of the benefits on the kids... The grandmother is the one picking up the slack for clothes, food, etc.

Yes, some have "accidents". The point I was trying to make as others here have noted... If you are in poverty you should probably be taking extra care to ensure you don't get pregnant. Birth control is a choice. If you aren't in poverty and can afford a child without it dropping you below the poverty level then by all means, have as much unsafe sex as you want to have - guilt free even.

 

[Greenman]

You are on a roll there. Looks like Republican-Corporatist solution to poverty and rising inequality is to denigrate poor people until they accept it.

That's actually not a bad plan. I'll propose it at the next RR meeting. I will of course give you full credit for the idea (unless there is a profit to be made, then Ill toss your whinny ass under the buss and keep the cash.)

 

[werepossum]

That's actually not a bad plan. I'll propose it at the next RR meeting. I will of course give you full credit for the idea (unless there is a profit to be made, then Ill toss your whinny ass under the buss and keep the cash.)

You, sir, are made of win.

 

[BoberFett]

I don't know her exact situation, but non-executive employees in general are second or third class citizens to Republican-Corporatists. Only corproations (whom they consider people), investors, and "job creators" are first-class citizens.

You still can't answer very simple questions, can you?

When confronted with the reality that she is NOT working full time based on simple math, you try to dodge and deflect.

If she is not working full time (because is she was, she'd be making more than $600/mo) then why should she expect to make a living wage?

Are we now going to pay everyone a living wage even if they work 2 hours per week? 1 hour? 10 minutes? Does anybody really have to contribute anything to take advantage of what this country has to offer?

Because I guarantee you that people in other countries are willing to work harder for less reward, so stop your crying that industry is moving away.

 

[theeedude]

You still can't answer very simple questions, can you?

When confronted with the reality that she is NOT working full time based on simple math, you try to dodge and deflect.

If she is not working full time (because is she was, she'd be making more than $600/mo) then why should she expect to make a living wage?

Are we now going to pay everyone a living wage even if they work 2 hours per week? 1 hour? 10 minutes? Does anybody really have to contribute anything to take advantage of what this country has to offer?

Because I guarantee you that people in other countries are willing to work harder for less reward, so stop your crying that industry is moving away.

Where did she say she expects to make a "living wage" working part time?
Nowhere, because you just made it up, and put words in her mouth. So not only are you focusing on this one lady as opposed to the broader issue, because it's easier for you to attack a person than discuss an issue, but you are making stuff up to attack her.
Let me do the math for you, step by step, and slowly:
According to the link from another resident Corporatist-Republican,
http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/1703114000
Living take home wage for a single mother with 1 child is $37,428 per year, or $3119 per month, or a 5.2x increase over the $600 she takes home now.
She is making $8.25, and asking for $15 per hour, an increase of 1.8x, nowhere near a living wage if she intends to work her present hours. So the bolded claim is something you pulled out of thin air, because not only is your substantive argument non-existent, but your ad-hominem on her is lacking without making stuff up.

 

[BoberFett]

So even if she gets $15/hr she's not going to be afford to live because she only wants to work part time? Is that your argument?

 

[theeedude]

So even if she gets $15/hr she's not going to be afford to live because she only wants to work part time? Is that your argument?

Maybe if she is making a decent enough wage, she can afford day care so she can work full time. Have you thought of that? Of course not, thinking is too hard. :biggrin:

 

[nehalem256]

Where did she say she expects to make a "living wage" working part time?
Nowhere, because you just made it up, and put words in her mouth. So not only are you focusing on this one lady as opposed to the broader issue, because it's easier for you to attack a person than discuss an issue, but you are making stuff up to attack her.
Let me do the math for you, step by step, and slowly:
According to the link from another resident Corporatist-Republican,
http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/1703114000
Living take home wage for a single mother with 1 child is $37,428 per year, or $3119 per month, or a 5.2x increase over the $600 she takes home now.
She is making $8.25, and asking for $15 per hour, an increase of 1.8x, nowhere near a living wage if she intends to work her present hours. So the bolded claim is something you pulled out of thin air, because not only is your substantive argument non-existent, but your ad-hominem on her is lacking without making stuff up.

Note the Living wage signs, $15/hr signs/shirts and McD in the picture.

Apparently those fighting for a living wage don't even know what a living wage is. No wonder they get paid so little ^_^

 

[nehalem256]

Maybe if she is making a decent enough wage, she can afford day care so she can work full time. Have you thought of that? Of course not, thinking is too hard. :biggrin:

If you read the link you would realize that child care costs were factored in. $15/hr still isn't a living wage.

 

[theeedude]

Note the Living wage signs, $15/hr signs/shirts and McD in the picture.

Apparently those fighting for a living wage don't even know what a living wage is. No wonder they get paid so little ^_^

Nice, another insult of working Americans, keep it up. 47% every election year.
BTW, that looks like Hollywood, the working woman BoberFett is bashing is from Chicago.