Fast Food Workers Go On Strike For Higher Pay From The Business Men

So you must also be against unearned money from inheritance and trust funds? Just trying to see if hypocrites realize how illogical and selective they are. The preppies are laughing at useful idiots who preach these values and never apply it to their Masters. The house slaves themselves won't preach working their way through college to their own children, if the house slaves manage to brown-nose their way to wealth.

 

Hahaha, why would I seek the respect from someone I consider to be on the same level as gum that gets stuck to the bottom of my shoe?

 

You'd never say that to a preppy. Why are you intimidated by those spoiled worthless punks?

Again class-climbing class traitors exclude inheritance, trust funds, and most important of all living off an allowance in college.

Also, another key hidden by the ruling class's mind control is that you don't "obtain" ability. It is the public obligation of the employers to get the most talented for the jobs, just as we demand of our sports teams. The only way to do that is to reward for talent instead of rewarding for sacrifice, which of course they never preach to their heirs.

Speaking of sports, a significant fact that they won't let us think about is that, in the 60s, when a team owner broke ranks and started giving a bonus to players before they ever played professionally (exactly like paying people to go to college), the other owners forced him to pay a penalty for that, wasting a roster spot on a Bonus Baby instead of having him learn his trade in the minor leagues. But even back then, players got a salary in the minors. College is the rest of the economy's minor leagues.

 

You're asking them to embrace an idea that is foreign to them, individual responsibility. It is much easier to blame others for the circumstances they find themselves in than to responsibility for their own choices.

Oh and let's not forget Obamacare is going to make it even more diffucult for the burger flippers to earn a "living wage". A lot of those that worked a full week will only be working 29 hours a week.

 

That's not what it's about at all. It has nothing to do with druggie brotherhood, which is a red herring. All "the right choice" means is living like a little boy in college because you are afraid to grow up. You will pay for that the rest of your life, no matter how much you get paid for submitting to what Castrating Capitalism demands to become a "success."

The 6th Grade grammar of these Right Choicers proves they never should have been admitted to college at all. But if the ruling class wants groveling flunkies, it has to scrape the bottom of the barrel and is stuck with the lowest both in brains and morals.

 

How does that work with any rate of unemployment above one percent? It can't be an Individual problem with any Natural Rate of Unemployment engendered by Capitalism.

 

There is always going to be employee churn. It's unavoidable for many reasons. It is the individuals responsibility to make themselves valuable to the market place.

I worked for a business that ran into trouble because of miss management. They started paying the employees with bad checks. I complained and was fired. I had a new job the next day with the company's biggest competitor at a higher rate of pay. I didn't get the job because they needed someone or because I previously worked for their competition. I got it because my skill set was valuable to the firm.

 

If a job is not worth a living wage the job cannot exist except in a society where corporations are permitted to profit by paying less than a living wage and passing the cost of that worker's very existence on to the taxpayer. Which is what is happening in our society. Not only socialists but also libertarians and conservatives should be appalled by this. It isn't free market at all.

 

Knock it off with your little boy in college routine. It's stupid.

 

You may be missing the point about a natural of rate of unemployment engendered by capitalism; hypothetically, people would still be making "wrong life choices" according to those of your point of view, even if everyone had a doctorate. It can't be an Individual problem if it is that Institutional.

 

unemployment has nothing to do with a person having only a minimum waged skill set like flipping burgers.

 

No how did you make that leap? You aren't entitled to those funds, the person how owned them freely gave them to you.

 

So you are left with having to put words into my mouth.............fail................I tell it to everyone.

Why are you so jealous of successful people, you know envy is really ugly.

So I take it you do not accumulate wealth and plan for you retirement days? If you do what do you invest in?

 

That's exactly what it is about, we should all share especially when the other guy has the stuff to share.

Why are you so jealous of successful people? BTW I have no college degree and worked my up from cutting and stacking lumber in a construction company to managing businesses and being able to accumulate quite a lot of wealth I intend to retire upon. So spare me you jealousy and envy of people who do go to college. Why do you believe you have claim to what I have earned?

- - - Updated - - -

Sure it can, no reason it can't. And define a living wage.

 

Question.

Is an employee entitled to ANY income in return for their work? If the answer is yes, then the rest is just a question of how much. Which negates your entire argument of "you don't deserve a share of THEIR profits"

 

What is the premise of your even having to ask?

Whatever the employer and the employee agree upon.

You don't DESERVE a share of their profits unless you have invested YOUR MONEY and put it at risk along with them. The profits come AFTER the employee has been paid.

 

I disagree if a person is unemployed it is very much a problem for them. Capitalism is a system of creation and destruction; it is not static. Businesses die, new ones are created and some people are bad employees, even people with a doctorate can be bad employees.

Can you name a system that's better than capitalism? Name one that has allowed more people to lift themselves out of poverty?

 

So if a business doesn't make a profit does that mean they don't have to pay their employees? Employees get their share through their pay check. Remember the person agreed to work for that wage, no one forced them to take a burger flipper job.

 

For the most part that stopped years ago, except in upper management and absolutely scarce positions of employment. Like those guys who dangle from helicopters running 'live' (for the most part) high power lines, which are just as "unskilled" as a burger flipper.

The employer tells you what they will pay and you either submit or starve and become homeless. I remember the old days when you could negotiate and there wasn't anybody usually making exactly the same wage. Today when you go to an interview and try to negotiate, the next sound you will hear is, "NEXT"!

 

Actually, it is not the employer who determines the market. It is the customer. If fast food gets too expensive, the customer won't buy it.

Example:
Recently KFC came out with a boneless fried chicken product. They ran a special pricing them at a buck a piece so I tried them. I liked the boneless fried chicken so I went back later for another helping. This time they nicked me for $2.50 a piece. Too expensive. I'll eat burgers instead. So everybody making boneless chicken just lost a little of their job and burger flippers won a small victory.


Another example:
Recently Kodak went bust and thousands of jobs were lost. From the consumer standpoint it was inevitable. A 35mm film picture cost almost a buck a shot but the next electronic picture costs nearly nothing. Now just who do you think the customer will go to? Now if Kodak could have made the 35mm film cost-competitive they'd still be in business. BTW, I do not blame labor in this case. The process Kodak used needed silver and silver is expensive.

 

You and others are the ones who keep screaming about profits here. The only reason I bring it up is to ask the question of how much is enough?

I'm not directly comparing minimum wage to slavery here, but bear with me for a moment.

Why did the southern plantation owners buy slaves rather than hiring labor to pick the cotton, etc etc ? Was it because they truly believed the black African was inferior and deserved to be a slave, or was it because their greed told them that they could keep more of their profits if they did so?

Does anyone here have any confidence that the southerners were on the brink of giving up slaves in favor of paying wages prior to being told they had to If so, you are delusional.

Now instead let's pretend that the USG had declared that slavery while immorally wrong would be legal and in fact the USG was starting a slave welfare program to help the poor slaves. Wouldn't that have been great news for the slave owners?

Similar situation here, the USG is telling employers that it is okay to pay a wage that is so low that the employee qualifies for welfare b/c the USG will make up the difference.

Are you seriously too slow to understand that raising the minimum wage while keeping the welfare limits static lowers the number of people on welfare?

And keep the stupid "inflation" argument to, there is already inflation and it is a matter of record that the minimum wage has NOT kept up with the rate of inflation. In fact, in relative terms the minimum wage is a full $2/hr less than in 1968.

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/facts/entry/amount-with-inflation/
Now how did those poor old McDonalds franchisees ever survive when they were paying their employees $2 an hour more than they are now?

Look here is a McDonalds menu board from 1968.



The minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60. A person could buy roughly 8 cheeseburgers with their take home pay from one hour (8.43 from gross pay to be exact)

The minimum wage today is $7.25 per hour. A McDonalds cheeseburger cost $1.25 so gross pay a person could buy 5.8 of them per hour worked.

Now anyone with even the slightest bit of sense can see that the minimum wage is not set where it was originally designed to be set.

Here is another interesting site I found.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html

They kind of split the difference and show the 1996 value of the minimum wage from each year since its inception. You can see that in 1996 dollars the 1968 minimum wage was $7.21 while the current minimum wage is $4.97 .

Now please show me how what some of these people are asking for is unreasonable.

 

Probably more in effect today than years ago. No one forces you to take a particular job.

Why did you leave out, go apply somewhere else, go get better jobs skills, go get more education. Never in my life has it ever been I either accept this particular job else starve and become homeless.

Yes if you don't agree with the wage they are offering tell them "next". I will agree this far, if you are an employee who believes you are entitled to wage and do nothing to make yourself a more valuable employee than everyone else you won't have much of a position to negotiate from, but it's all in your making.

I lost a job of 26 years in 2009, over 3 months I negotiated with 3 prospective employers and ended up accepting a position that doubled my previous base and the same commission I had before. All of the companies knew of me and my reputation in the industry and were seeking me out. It's what you make of yourself.

 

I'm talking about wages and salaries but how much profit is too much? Do you really NOT invest in companies because the make too much profit?

Because Eurpeans brought slavery here and created it as an institution.

But spare me such silly analogies.

No I am fast enough to know that raising the minimum wage helps to perpetuated poverty by creating a barrier to more people with no jobs skills from entering the workforce to learn such skills.

It's not unreasonable to ask but do show me how it is reasonable for an employee to demand more than they are worth? You seem to believe that the purpose of hiring someone is to supply them with a wage that exceeds their worth.
If you want to earn more money, make yourself a more valuable employee and get a job that is worth more than minimum wage or take a job paying minimum wage and convince the employer he can't afford to lose you.

 

You are simply unworthy of further conversation on this point. I mean seriously a person reasons out a well written post that PROVES that the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation and thus logically unless we are saying that minimum wage employees in 1968 were OVERPAID then we must conclude that minimum wage employees today MUST be underpaid and you can't even concede the point?

Have a nice day

 

"Does anyone here have any confidence that the southerners were on the brink of giving up slaves in favor of paying wages prior to being told they had to If so, you are delusional."

Taxcutter says:
No. You are a student of history and economics. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" rang true because people in Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana saw Kentucky slaves being "sold down the river" to the Mississippi Delta every day from 1848 on. In Kentucky, the agriculture had only one crop a year (tobacco and foodstuffs) and that was highly seasonal. A northern Kentucky farmer could go to Cincinnati and hire immigrant German or iris labor for two or three weeks to get in the crop then send them back to Cincinnati. A slave had to be fed, housed, and clothed (such as they were) year-round. Hired workers fed and clothed themselves (such as they were). Let's see three weeks in the spring and four weeks in the fall - seven weeks of expense versus fifty-two weeks a year of expense. Also in tobacco, quality of presentation matters. Slaves did a generally slovenly job of bundling tobacco. Immigrant labor competed for jobs and the immigrants made much higher-quality (more profitable) bundles of tobacco.

Finally, with low cost river transportation a Kentucky slave owner could get rid of his slaves and make a few bucks rather than take the dead loss of manumitting in place. Twenty years earlier, Thomas Jefferson manumitted his slaves in place. Not because he was a nice guy, but because they were eating him out of house and home. Transportation of slaves by coastal ship to South Carolina or Georgia was too expensive, so he just "fired" his slaves by freeing them in place.

So yeah. Farmers in the northern parts of the south were indeed giving up on slaves because immigrant labor was cheaper. In the Deep South, cotton and sugar came in twice a year and the immigrants were not able to take the hot climate as well as African slaves, so they desired black slaves.