[Parlay44]

Moreless, the problem is that labor is a commodity. Corporations control the price of food and everything else. I laugh when I see job postings that say "We offer a Competitive Salary". Yeah competitively low as you can get away with.

That's why unions are so important to the regular blue-collar guy. They keep corporations from enslaving working people at a "minimum wage".

They don't give a fuck about you. They'll work you to death and replace you once you break. Why do you think corporate job turner over is 2-3 years? Because they're required to give people a small (3-5%) cost of living raise every year to offset inflation. After 3 years they figure they're over paying you and increase your workload and pressure you to work longer hours. That's their MO.

Most people quit. Others get laid off. Then they hire recent grads for cheap and the cycle repeats.

[Anon-A-Moose]

(07-17-2013 09:48 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Saw this article floating around. The question is why shouldanyone be able to survive on a minimum wage job? Is that a human right?

Quote:

When large companies make profits by paying their workers unlivable wages, we end up subsidizing their bottom lines

Some people get a raw deal, some people bring it on themselves, some people are incapable of more. Doesn't matter. The concept of morality of if they should or shouldn't is irrelevant. Money's gotta come from somewhere. McDonalds is the one who benefits from their labor, not us. It's wrong that we foot the bill for a restaurant that's killing us to underpay their worker so they can continue to survive to do something they probably hate.

[Anon-A-Moose]

(07-30-2013 09:37 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

Moreless, the problem is that labor is a commodity. Corporations control the price of food and everything else. I laugh when I see job postings that say "We offer a Competitive Salary". Yeah competitively low as you can get away with.

That's why unions are so important to the regular blue-collar guy. They keep corporations from enslaving working people at a "minimum wage".

They don't give a fuck about you. They'll work you to death and replace you once you break. Why do you think corporate job turner over is 2-3 years? Because they're required to give people a small (3-5%) cost of living raise every year to offset inflation. After 3 years they figure they're over paying you and increase your workload and pressure you to work longer hours. That's their MO.

Most people quit. Others get laid off. Then they hire recent grads for cheap and the cycle repeats.

You said it perfectly. Kudos to you.

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

Anyone who supports the minimum wage because they think it helps the poor hasn't done their research. The minimum wage only helps the poor when the employer is a monopsonistic employer for a specific type of work. In all other cases, the minimum wage increases unemployment among the poorest segment of society.

[Moreless]

(07-30-2013 10:08 PM)Anon-A-Moose Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 09:37 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

Moreless, the problem is that labor is a commodity. Corporations control the price of food and everything else. I laugh when I see job postings that say "We offer a Competitive Salary". Yeah competitively low as you can get away with.

That's why unions are so important to the regular blue-collar guy. They keep corporations from enslaving working people at a "minimum wage".

They don't give a fuck about you. They'll work you to death and replace you once you break. Why do you think corporate job turner over is 2-3 years? Because they're required to give people a small (3-5%) cost of living raise every year to offset inflation. After 3 years they figure they're over paying you and increase your workload and pressure you to work longer hours. That's their MO.

Most people quit. Others get laid off. Then they hire recent grads for cheap and the cycle repeats.

You said it perfectly. Kudos to you.

It sounds like you are in favor of them making more money. I'm not because I feel that I have worked hard getting to where I am. Is this beta :X

I started out sacking groceries at minimum wage. If they were going to pay me $15 to do that I would have probably stayed at that store for a few years and lost a lot of ambition to do something more (assuming inflation never kicked in). Why would I run around a hospital working my ass off troubleshooting complex problems all day when I could sack groceries and make the same. Hell, at least I'd be outside some of the day.

[Hotwheels]

If McDonald's gets the workers they want/need for $7.81 an hour there is no need for them to pay any more.

When the labor supply gets tight, wages naturally rise as businesses have to compete for help.

Kick every illegal out of the country and wages will go up.

[ElJefe]

Not just illegals. Legal immigration too needs to be changed to a level where it doesn't outpace productivity growth.

America's economy is increasingly based on forcing the working poor to remain poor. I don't mind that people are poor at some point in their lives. It makes sense and probably also builds character, as many self-made men attest to.

What gets my nerve is people who work hard, single parents deserted by their spouses, people who made poor choices in life - in this economy, they just don't get a second chance. Even for the Hispanics already here, and for the African-Americans who in particular have been fucked over by the culture revolution of 60's and immigration, we need to do this. Otherwise they're fucked for good and Detroit will become standard procedure. Just because you ahve good intentions is no guarantee of success - see Monrovia. You need sound economics based on core values like thriftiness, hard-work and trust. Virtually all these core values have been undermined aggressively since the 60's. First by the left, and now by the progressives and neo-cons on the right.

So... deport the illegals and their associates. And get realistic about who should become a citizen or not. This includes the option to take away citizenship. Being a US citizen is more than a hollow oath and a piece of paper - it's really about culture and a way-of-life. Americans should not be asked to solve Mexico's and Central America's social problems - they have plenty of their own.

[NY Digital]

^^ Exactly. And all the BS about how they refuse to learn English... dumb. Complete refusal to integrate into our culture, and it's rewarded.

My brother's best friend has a B.S. in Computer Science but has been doing Construction for the last 6 years here in America. Law-abiding citizen. Good guy that is smart and has his head on his shoulders. But he can't get citizenship at this point. So he won't be able to get a Computer Science job.

It's retarded.

[Samseau]

(07-30-2013 05:28 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Here's How Much More A Big Mac Would Cost If McDonald's Doubled Wages

Quote:

Fast food workers from McDonald's and other major companies are striking for higher pay.
The strikers are seeking wages of $15 per hour—about twice the minimum wage.

If McDonald's doubled wages for all employees, including CEO Don Thompson, Big Macs would cost 68 cents more, increasing from $3.99 to $4.67, reports Caroline Fairchild at The Huffington Post.

Dollar Menu items would cost 17 cents more, according to HuffPo.

Fairchild cites a University of Kansas researcher, who crunched numbers to see what would happen if McDonald's doubled the salary of every employee then passed that cost on entirely to consumers.

Only 17% of McDonald's revenue goes toward salary and benefits, according to the report.

That means that the company could increase wages without passing that cost to consumers, and simply make a smaller profit.

McDonald's CEO Don Thompson told Bloomberg TV last week that the company is an “above minimum-wage employer.”

McDonald's pays an average hourly wage of $7.81, according to Glassdoor. This puts it just above the national average of about $7.50.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/big-macs-...z2aZQyJZQF

Yeah, I read up on this "study," turns out (not surprisingly) it's 100% bullshit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29...72006.html

Quote:

This story has been updated to reflect the fact that Morelix's analysis excludes franchisee-run stores.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misrepresented Arnobio Morelix as a researcher for the University of Kansas. Morelix is registered as a undergraduate student at the university, according to University of Kansas School of Business Communications Director Austin Falley.

The kid isn't even a researcher, it's just some undergrad who read Karl Marx and did some internet research to come up with his number.

He didn't include franchisee run stores, which is incomplete and automatically renders the analysis false.

On top of it, look at how he did his analysis:

Quote:

Morelix looked at McDonald's 2012 annual report and discovered that only 17.1 percent of the fast-food giant's revenue goes toward salaries and benefits. In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its more than 500,000 U.S. employees. Thus, if McDonald's executives wanted to double the salaries of its employees and keep profits and other expenses the same, it would need to increase prices by just 17 cents per dollar, according to Morelix.

This guy wouldn't pass 10th grade math. So bad. Can't believe the news media took this mainstream. Shows how left-wing they are. Anything to raise wages! That will help!

Here's what would happen if wages doubled:

- McDonald's HQ must raise it's food prices
- The franchise stores then must pay more to buy the food from HQ
- Franchise stores must then raise prices they sell to the customer

The food goes through many hands so we can expect the food costs to raise more than 17%. Cheaper competitors (like Burger King) will then enter the scene and McDonald's will go out of business.

[Samseau]

(07-17-2013 05:07 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Interesting thread. I don't know what my views are.

Before the Bailouts of Wall Street, I was libertarian.

But once I really started looking into the issue, I realized we live in a corpocracy.

Wall Street and other large corporations received welfare on orders of magnitude larger than wage slaves receive.

If corporations and high level executives are on the dole, why should the common man be denied his share of the pie?

This makes no sense. You know the government is gutting out America with it's corporate welfare, so the solution is to gut out America even more by giving more people welfare?

I don't think you were ever a libertarian, or you simply did not understand Austrian economics. If you were following the principles correctly you'd understand that the correct solution would have been to get rid of the corporate welfare and bailouts, not to increase it.

[NYJ]

@ Samseau

The doucenozzle you quoted definitely has no clue what he is talking about I manage at a fast food place so I can speak on this. I know that after every week our profit after all expenses is 11 cents on the dollar or roughly 11% of our weekly revenue. That is actually not bad as some restaurants in our chain regularly operate at a loss. That means they're costing the company money just to be open. If we doubled wages of all the employees and kept them all around at their usual hours we would be going broke very fast. That idiot doesn't realize all the expenses a restaurant has.

[Parlay44]

It's not always about turning a profit. Sometimes companies operate at a loss to retain market share from other companies.

[NYJ]

(07-31-2013 05:40 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

It's not always about turning a profit. Sometimes companies operate at a loss to retain market share from other companies.

That is true too. There are lot of other factors. All of our restuarants are corporate owned so that will change things vs it being owned by a franchisee.

[MikeCF]

(07-31-2013 04:56 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 05:07 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Interesting thread. I don't know what my views are.

Before the Bailouts of Wall Street, I was libertarian.

But once I really started looking into the issue, I realized we live in a corpocracy.

Wall Street and other large corporations received welfare on orders of magnitude larger than wage slaves receive.

If corporations and high level executives are on the dole, why should the common man be denied his share of the pie?

This makes no sense. You know the government is gutting out America with it's corporate welfare, so the solution is to gut out America even more by giving more people welfare?

I don't think you were ever a libertarian, or you simply did not understand Austrian economics. If you were following the principles correctly you'd understand that the correct solution would have been to get rid of the corporate welfare and bailouts, not to increase it.

Haha, you've been on a rampage lately.

It could be that I lack your sophisticated understanding of these subjects.

Could be.

Or it could be that you're a typical libertarian who agitates against working class people earning more money when the real looting is taking place at the highest echelons of society.

The poor people aren't the ones ruining the country. Looking into LIBOR and any number of Wall Street scams.

Those scams are priced in the TRILLIONS of dollars. So why so upset about the poors scamming a few billion here and there?

The fact that you're worried so much about poor people on welfare shows that you don't understand the world nearly as much as you purport to.

Redirect that rage away from people like yourself.

Because let's be real, you have more in common with a McDonald's worker than you do with the CEO of Goldman Sachs.

[Aliblahba]

(07-31-2013 05:53 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Because let's be real, you have more in common with a McDonald's worker than you do with the CEO of Goldman Sachs.

[Samseau]

(07-31-2013 05:53 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Because let's be real, you have more in common with a McDonald's worker than you do with the CEO of Goldman Sachs.

And unless you make over 1 million per year, you have more in common with the McDonald's worker than a multi-billionaire as well.

Quote:

Or it could be that you're a typical libertarian who agitates against working class people earning more money when the real looting is taking place at the highest echelons of society.

The poor people aren't the ones ruining the country. Looking into LIBOR and any number of Wall Street scams.

Those scams are priced in the TRILLIONS of dollars. So why so upset about the poors scamming a few billion here and there?

The fact that you're worried so much about poor people on welfare shows that you don't understand the world nearly as much as you purport to.

First, the idea that by scamming the country further into oblivion that the poor will be saved is in itself highly questionable.

The more we loot from the taxpayer, the faster the dollar devaluates and the faster the entire country goes to hell.

Second, you're dodging the issue entirely. Let me make it very simple.

Should we allow everyone to be a scam artist, or is it better to stop the scams altogether?

[MikeCF]

(07-31-2013 06:18 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Should we allow everyone to be a scam artist, or is it better to stop the scams altogether?

I'll worry about the scams of the common man when the trillion dollar scams of Wall Street have been taken care of.

If you want to use a bucket to try keeping the Titanic from seeking, go right ahead.

Your masters will laugh as they ride away in the life rafts while you fight against your own social class like a good little slave.

[MikeCF]

When working class people obsess over other working class people, this is what comes to mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

Libertarians are useful idiots. Agitating for "free markets" and no regulation is why so many young men have student loans but no real job opportunities.

I remember when guys on this board who probably don't even make 50K were mocking Occupy Wall Street - as if somehow supporting Wall Street allowed the haters to become part of the Wall Street class.

How's that quote go? "Every poor person believes he's a millionaire down on his luck."

[TheSlayer]

(07-31-2013 06:38 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

I remember when guys on this board who probably don't even make 50K were mocking Occupy Wall Street - as if somehow supporting Wall Street allowed the haters to become part of the Wall Street class.

How's that quote go? "Every poor person believes he's a millionaire down on his luck."

Very well said, Mike. I remember reading a study about how many middle class and lower middle class people support tax cuts for the wealthy because they think one day they will be a part of the upper class.

This isn't to say I support OWS but the fact is that we do live in a corpocracy. Whether you are a democrat or republican or lean left or right, in the end both the sides serve their corporate masters.

[Blaster]

One issue with low-wage workers is that they tend to drive demand for basic living and cheap goods including low-quality substitutes, and do not pay much in taxes. A certain threshold of this is healthy. You want some low-quality options in the economy and they should be cheap. But when the bottom gets too large, demand is high anyway and prices for basics go as high as possible leaving nothing leftover for discretionary spending or saving and investment. And over time, the economy will morph into an economy that caters to the poor, at which point middle class will either leave or join the ranks of the poor themselves. The upside is that the wealth they earn tends to be used in the local economy. They generally add to the overall wealth of the economy. After the issues with draining public services, the question is whether you're OK with a large economy but poor per-capita. (Personally I'd prefer a stronger middle)

The very wealthy on the other hand, drive demand for luxuries-- mansions, yachts, servants, private jets, luxury cars (Ferrari/Rolls Royce), waterfront property, exclusive resorts and country clubs, private chefs, private security, etc. As the poor, some amount is healthy but too much will price out the middle class from nice things. Your options are Saks 5th Avenue or Wal-Mart. Again-- middle class will flee or bend over and resign to shop at Wal Mart. On the upside, billionaires can't spend all their money on luxuries and will invest the rest. The problem is that it's gotten really easy for them to invest that money in competing economies (say, Chinese factories making cheap toys for poor people).

Quote:

Should we allow everyone to be a scam artist, or is it better to stop the scams altogether?

At some point you have to start looking out for yourself. If one side is cheating and bribing the referee to ignore your complaints, you have only two options: cheat or lose with your principles intact.

[MHaes]

"Poor Americans see themselves not as an exploited working class but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
-John Steinbeck

He said that in the early Sixties.

If he thought that was true then, it's interesting to imagine what his sentiments would be in 2013.

[Samseau]

(07-31-2013 06:35 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(07-31-2013 06:18 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Should we allow everyone to be a scam artist, or is it better to stop the scams altogether?

I'll worry about the scams of the common man when the trillion dollar scams of Wall Street have been taken care of.

If you want to use a bucket to try keeping the Titanic from seeking, go right ahead.

Your masters will laugh as they ride away in the life rafts while you fight against your own social class like a good little slave.

Why do you keep dodging the question? Sorry bro, but you're the one serving the corporate masters.

The big corporate masters all want welfare for the poor, that way people will look past the fact that the rich get massive welfare.

If everyone stood up to them and said, "No more welfare of any kind," it would be a much larger step forward for the poor than continuing the endless bailouts and money printing for NYC firms and other large corporations. The reason the rich stay rich today isn't because of talent or hard work, but because they get free cash.

Furthermore, welfare for the poor just creates more single moms. I'll never understand how red pill men understand that, on one hand, the government has replaced the man and thus she can dump men whenever she feels like because welfare will provide for her children, and yet on the other hand, think that welfare for the poor is good.

This is false. Welfare for the poor only creates more single mothers and children without fathers, thus perpetuating the cycle.

I would like to see an end to ALL welfare, but it would need to be done in a very progressive manner - first welfare for the rich is cut out, and then welfare for the poor is gradually reduced over several decades.

Instead of a rational policy like that, we instead get people fighting for more welfare and more bailouts, with everyone shouting "GIMME GIMME GIMME," which is why America is heading for bankruptcy.

[Samseau]

(07-31-2013 08:17 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

Quote:

Should we allow everyone to be a scam artist, or is it better to stop the scams altogether?

At some point you have to start looking out for yourself. If one side is cheating and bribing the referee to ignore your complaints, you have only two options: cheat or lose with your principles intact.

Of course. If one side isn't playing fair, neither should you. That's why I teach other students how to scam the system. That doesn't mean you should vote in scum bag candidates who are going to continue the madness, however.

[Norset]

I have only read page 4. But I think this discussion is missing (or just not spelling it out, Sam touches on it 2 posts above): There are not just working class poor and the wall street rich, there is also the middle class. Which is the economic engine of all first world countries. They are the engineers, the guys starting new businesses, the doctors, those who keep civil life orderly and well functioning so that business can thrive. They are us.

Welfare goes to the rich and the poor. Who pays for it? The middle class. The unholy alliance between two different styles of parasitic behavior (I am not saying that _being_ poor or rich makes you a parasite) is a highjacking of the democratic system and all the accumulated wealth of the middle class. The poor have a shorter time horizon than the rich, and do not realize that they will never be able to raise their position in society via this plan, the only effect is to reduce the middle class into the ranks of the poor. And now the rich own everything and I am living in a mud cave working 14 hours shifts.

"Democracy ceases to function once the average citizen realizes he can vote himself into the property of others".

[TheSlayer]

(07-31-2013 08:49 PM)Norset Wrote:  

I have only read page 4. But I think this discussion is missing (or just not spelling it out, Sam touches on it 2 posts above): There are not just working class poor and the wall street rich, there is also the middle class. Which is the economic engine of all first world countries. They are the engineers, the guys starting new businesses, the doctors, those who keep civil life orderly and well functioning so that business can thrive. They are us.

Welfare goes to the rich and the poor. Who pays for it? The middle class. The unholy alliance between two different styles of parasitic behavior (I am not saying that _being_ poor or rich makes you a parasite) is a highjacking of the democratic system and all the accumulated wealth of the middle class. The poor have a shorter time horizon than the rich, and do not realize that they will never be able to raise their position in society via this plan, the only effect is to reduce the middle class into the ranks of the poor. And now the rich own everything and I am living in a mud cave working 14 hours shifts.

"Democracy ceases to function once the average citizen realizes he can vote himself into the property of others".

Good points but the middle class has been hammered in the US and Canada in the last few years and especially since the financial meltdown of 2008. Manufacturing jobs have disappeared and are probably never coming back.

The reality is whether or not we reduce regulations and just allow corporations to do whatever they want, people in the US and Canada can't compete with workers in the third world who work for pennies an hour.

This is why it's funny when people will blame "Liberals" or even conservatives because globalization doesn't care whether you conservative or a liberal. Once companies have the license to outsource jobs and produce everything in China (and other third world countries), you can't really do anything.

Wealth concentration and economic inequality is worsening and I am not even sure what the answer is anymore. The cat is out of the bag and businesses have all the power now. Workers aren't valued anymore (and this isn't just for people working minimum wage jobs). I am talking about middle class, respectable jobs and even workers in those jobs are extremely expendable. Basically the the balance of power between companies and labour has become very lopsided and that's not a good thing. It has been shifting towards the companies for a few decades now and doesn't look it's going to stop anytime soon.