[TheSlayer]

(09-02-2013 03:36 AM)Damedius Wrote:  

(08-31-2013 01:46 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

McDonalds is a publicly traded corporation, so their financials are open for all to see.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MCD&annual

McDonald's made $5,464,800,000 Net Income in 2012 in the US. That's how much it made after all expenses, wages, etc. They're not barely making it by as many people on here, and the fox-news-osphere would like you to believe.

I have had some sleep and went over the numbers. If McDonalds raised their workers wages by just $2/hr world wide it would evaporate their profits. This assumes like you suggest that they were to take the hit as a corporation and not pass it on to the consumer/franchise owner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's
They have 1.8 million workers worldwide.

http://nbclatino.com/2013/08/29/fast-foo...ter-wages/
I have heard 24 hours per week thrown around as the average a fast food worker works per week. So I'll use that for the example.

24 hours x 52 weeks=1248 hours per year

1248hr x 1.8 million employees = 2 246 400 000 or 2.246 billion total employee hours worked.

2.246 billion x $2/hr wage increase = 4.492 billion dollars.

A $3/hr increase would put them at a net loss. While their profit numbers seem like they are enormous. They aren't that big considering how many stores they have and how many people they employ.

There are few problems with your calculations. You are wrongly assuming that all 1.8 million of their workers are minimum-wage restaurant workers. Out of that 1.8 million, they have thousands of corporate workers around the world (who work for a salary and not on an hourly wage) and even within their restaurants their store managers and assistant store managers are already salaried as well. This means that you can't use 1.8 million as basis for your calculations. The real number of minimum wage workers in their restaurants which should be used for this calculation is much lower.

Secondly, within the hourly workers who work in their restaurants for minimum wage (around the world since you used 1.8 million) not all of them are demanding an increase in the wage. For example, in Ontario that minimum wage is already $10.25/hour. Why would they increase their minimum wage for places that already have 'acceptable' minimum wages say like Canada and Australia.

Once you subtract the appropriate number of workers accounting for the two factors I listed (which is basically minimum wage workers in the US only), the real number is much much smaller than 1.8 million. As such, the point others are making about the company splitting their revenue/profit wouldn't evaporate their profits as you claim. This is not to say that my position is that they should definitely raise the wages for their restaurant workers $15/hour. I just want to make sure that the numbers being to debate are being presented accurately.

[lskdfjldsf]

I'd rather side with corporations than labor on this.

I could understand if these workers were in mine shafts risking their necks for dirt wages, but the overwhelming majority in fast food are the modern equivalent of peasantry. Why should a high school dropout flipping burgers get paid more than a mechanic, or infantryman humping 150lbs rucks in Afghanistan?

They should be happy they even have a minimum wage to begin with, in Germany its common to see interns and "trainees" with Master and PHD degrees working 40 hours per week for less than 400€ monthly.

[Damedius]

(09-02-2013 04:59 AM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 03:36 AM)Damedius Wrote:  

(08-31-2013 01:46 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

McDonalds is a publicly traded corporation, so their financials are open for all to see.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MCD&annual

McDonald's made $5,464,800,000 Net Income in 2012 in the US. That's how much it made after all expenses, wages, etc. They're not barely making it by as many people on here, and the fox-news-osphere would like you to believe.

I have had some sleep and went over the numbers. If McDonalds raised their workers wages by just $2/hr world wide it would evaporate their profits. This assumes like you suggest that they were to take the hit as a corporation and not pass it on to the consumer/franchise owner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's
They have 1.8 million workers worldwide.

http://nbclatino.com/2013/08/29/fast-foo...ter-wages/
I have heard 24 hours per week thrown around as the average a fast food worker works per week. So I'll use that for the example.

24 hours x 52 weeks=1248 hours per year

1248hr x 1.8 million employees = 2 246 400 000 or 2.246 billion total employee hours worked.

2.246 billion x $2/hr wage increase = 4.492 billion dollars.

A $3/hr increase would put them at a net loss. While their profit numbers seem like they are enormous. They aren't that big considering how many stores they have and how many people they employ.

There are few problems with your calculations. You are wrongly assuming that all 1.8 million of their workers are minimum-wage restaurant workers. Out of that 1.8 million, they have thousands of corporate workers around the world (who work for a salary and not on an hourly wage) and even within their restaurants their store managers and assistant store managers are already salaried as well. This means that you can't use 1.8 million as basis for your calculations. The real number of minimum wage workers in their restaurants which should be used for this calculation is much lower.

Secondly, within the hourly workers who work in their restaurants for minimum wage (around the world since you used 1.8 million) not all of them are demanding an increase in the wage. For example, in Ontario that minimum wage is already $10.25/hour. Why would they increase their minimum wage for places that already have 'acceptable' minimum wages say like Canada and Australia.

Once you subtract the appropriate number of workers accounting for the two factors I listed (which is basically minimum wage workers in the US only), the real number is much much smaller than 1.8 million. As such, the point others are making about the company splitting their revenue/profit wouldn't evaporate their profits as you claim. This is not to say that my position is that they should definitely raise the wages for their restaurant workers $15/hour. I just want to make sure that the numbers being to debate are being presented accurately.

True.

However the number given was a total for worldwide profit. Which means it is in itself inaccurate for the purpose of just the US.

So I believe the two cancel each other out.

Also the vast majority of McDonald's employees work in stores. So it wouldn't alter the calculation by much.

Third the point is here is to show how a single dollar raise to employees can have a huge impact. Which I believe it does. It's not perfect by it serves the purpose.

(I should also add that $10.25 in Ontario doesn't go as far as $7.25 does in some places in the US. For instance Montana.)

[Easy E]

(09-02-2013 04:59 AM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 03:36 AM)Damedius Wrote:  

(08-31-2013 01:46 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

McDonalds is a publicly traded corporation, so their financials are open for all to see.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MCD&annual

McDonald's made $5,464,800,000 Net Income in 2012 in the US. That's how much it made after all expenses, wages, etc. They're not barely making it by as many people on here, and the fox-news-osphere would like you to believe.

I have had some sleep and went over the numbers. If McDonalds raised their workers wages by just $2/hr world wide it would evaporate their profits. This assumes like you suggest that they were to take the hit as a corporation and not pass it on to the consumer/franchise owner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's
They have 1.8 million workers worldwide.

http://nbclatino.com/2013/08/29/fast-foo...ter-wages/
I have heard 24 hours per week thrown around as the average a fast food worker works per week. So I'll use that for the example.

24 hours x 52 weeks=1248 hours per year

1248hr x 1.8 million employees = 2 246 400 000 or 2.246 billion total employee hours worked.

2.246 billion x $2/hr wage increase = 4.492 billion dollars.

A $3/hr increase would put them at a net loss. While their profit numbers seem like they are enormous. They aren't that big considering how many stores they have and how many people they employ.

There are few problems with your calculations. You are wrongly assuming that all 1.8 million of their workers are minimum-wage restaurant workers. Out of that 1.8 million, they have thousands of corporate workers around the world (who work for a salary and not on an hourly wage) and even within their restaurants their store managers and assistant store managers are already salaried as well. This means that you can't use 1.8 million as basis for your calculations. The real number of minimum wage workers in their restaurants which should be used for this calculation is much lower.

Secondly, within the hourly workers who work in their restaurants for minimum wage (around the world since you used 1.8 million) not all of them are demanding an increase in the wage. For example, in Ontario that minimum wage is already $10.25/hour. Why would they increase their minimum wage for places that already have 'acceptable' minimum wages say like Canada and Australia.

Once you subtract the appropriate number of workers accounting for the two factors I listed (which is basically minimum wage workers in the US only), the real number is much much smaller than 1.8 million. As such, the point others are making about the company splitting their revenue/profit wouldn't evaporate their profits as you claim. This is not to say that my position is that they should definitely raise the wages for their restaurant workers $15/hour. I just want to make sure that the numbers being to debate are being presented accurately.

Good point. Yes, there is a lot to be left from his simplistic analysis. He needs to take US McDonald's corporate profit and see what impact increasing its hourly employees wages that work at minimum wage would have on profit. Remember that not all hourly workers work at minimum wage, so he can't just use US McDonald's hourly workers when making his calculation. He needs to find out how many of US McDonald's hourly workers are working at the federal minimum wage first.

Also, he needs to figure in a small amount of inflation into the prices they charge since McDonald's wouldn't take the entire brunt of the wage increase. Figure a 5-10% increase in the cost of items if there was an increase of a couple bucks on the federally mandated minimum wage, so revenue would increase that amount assuming there isn't much price elasticity for that small increase.

One last thing, there are states that already have a higher minimum wage than the federally mandated one, like California - $8.00, Oregon - $8.95, Washington - $9.19, etc...

http://money.cnn.com/interactive/pf/stat...ge/?iid=EL

The wages of minimum wage US McDonald's workers in these higher wage states would have to be factored into the calculation since they would see a much smaller wage increase.

[Damedius]

(09-02-2013 06:16 AM)Easy E Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 04:59 AM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 03:36 AM)Damedius Wrote:  

(08-31-2013 01:46 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

McDonalds is a publicly traded corporation, so their financials are open for all to see.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MCD&annual

McDonald's made $5,464,800,000 Net Income in 2012 in the US. That's how much it made after all expenses, wages, etc. They're not barely making it by as many people on here, and the fox-news-osphere would like you to believe.

I have had some sleep and went over the numbers. If McDonalds raised their workers wages by just $2/hr world wide it would evaporate their profits. This assumes like you suggest that they were to take the hit as a corporation and not pass it on to the consumer/franchise owner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's
They have 1.8 million workers worldwide.

http://nbclatino.com/2013/08/29/fast-foo...ter-wages/
I have heard 24 hours per week thrown around as the average a fast food worker works per week. So I'll use that for the example.

24 hours x 52 weeks=1248 hours per year

1248hr x 1.8 million employees = 2 246 400 000 or 2.246 billion total employee hours worked.

2.246 billion x $2/hr wage increase = 4.492 billion dollars.

A $3/hr increase would put them at a net loss. While their profit numbers seem like they are enormous. They aren't that big considering how many stores they have and how many people they employ.

There are few problems with your calculations. You are wrongly assuming that all 1.8 million of their workers are minimum-wage restaurant workers. Out of that 1.8 million, they have thousands of corporate workers around the world (who work for a salary and not on an hourly wage) and even within their restaurants their store managers and assistant store managers are already salaried as well. This means that you can't use 1.8 million as basis for your calculations. The real number of minimum wage workers in their restaurants which should be used for this calculation is much lower.

Secondly, within the hourly workers who work in their restaurants for minimum wage (around the world since you used 1.8 million) not all of them are demanding an increase in the wage. For example, in Ontario that minimum wage is already $10.25/hour. Why would they increase their minimum wage for places that already have 'acceptable' minimum wages say like Canada and Australia.

Once you subtract the appropriate number of workers accounting for the two factors I listed (which is basically minimum wage workers in the US only), the real number is much much smaller than 1.8 million. As such, the point others are making about the company splitting their revenue/profit wouldn't evaporate their profits as you claim. This is not to say that my position is that they should definitely raise the wages for their restaurant workers $15/hour. I just want to make sure that the numbers being to debate are being presented accurately.

Good point. Yes, there is a lot to be left from his simplistic analysis. He needs to take US McDonald's corporate profit and see what impact increasing its hourly employees wages that work at minimum wage would have on profit. Remember that not all hourly workers work at minimum wage, so he can't just use US McDonald's hourly workers when making his calculation. He needs to find out how many of US McDonald's hourly workers are working at the federal minimum wage first.

Also, he needs to figure in a small amount of inflation into the prices they charge since McDonald's wouldn't take the entire brunt of the wage increase. Figure a 5-10% increase in the cost of items if there was an increase of a couple bucks on the federally mandated minimum wage.

One last thing, there are states that already have a higher minimum wage than the federally mandated one, like California - $8.00, Oregon - $8.95, Washington - $9.19, etc...

http://money.cnn.com/interactive/pf/stat...ge/?iid=EL

The wages of minimum wage US McDonald's workers in these higher wage states would have to factored into the calculation since they would see a much smaller wage increase.

So it's okay for someone to bring worldwide profit to use as an argument but I can't use worldwide employees. Bit of a double standard. Don't you think?

Also the person who I quoted implied that McDonald's could afford to take the hit without passing it on to consumers. You don't think this proves otherwise?

Can you at least admit that raising the wages of all their employees by just $1/hr would have a large impact on their profits, if it came out of their pockets?

[Easy E]

(09-02-2013 06:46 AM)Damedius Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 06:16 AM)Easy E Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 04:59 AM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 03:36 AM)Damedius Wrote:  

(08-31-2013 01:46 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

McDonalds is a publicly traded corporation, so their financials are open for all to see.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MCD&annual

McDonald's made $5,464,800,000 Net Income in 2012 in the US. That's how much it made after all expenses, wages, etc. They're not barely making it by as many people on here, and the fox-news-osphere would like you to believe.

I have had some sleep and went over the numbers. If McDonalds raised their workers wages by just $2/hr world wide it would evaporate their profits. This assumes like you suggest that they were to take the hit as a corporation and not pass it on to the consumer/franchise owner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's
They have 1.8 million workers worldwide.

http://nbclatino.com/2013/08/29/fast-foo...ter-wages/
I have heard 24 hours per week thrown around as the average a fast food worker works per week. So I'll use that for the example.

24 hours x 52 weeks=1248 hours per year

1248hr x 1.8 million employees = 2 246 400 000 or 2.246 billion total employee hours worked.

2.246 billion x $2/hr wage increase = 4.492 billion dollars.

A $3/hr increase would put them at a net loss. While their profit numbers seem like they are enormous. They aren't that big considering how many stores they have and how many people they employ.

There are few problems with your calculations. You are wrongly assuming that all 1.8 million of their workers are minimum-wage restaurant workers. Out of that 1.8 million, they have thousands of corporate workers around the world (who work for a salary and not on an hourly wage) and even within their restaurants their store managers and assistant store managers are already salaried as well. This means that you can't use 1.8 million as basis for your calculations. The real number of minimum wage workers in their restaurants which should be used for this calculation is much lower.

Secondly, within the hourly workers who work in their restaurants for minimum wage (around the world since you used 1.8 million) not all of them are demanding an increase in the wage. For example, in Ontario that minimum wage is already $10.25/hour. Why would they increase their minimum wage for places that already have 'acceptable' minimum wages say like Canada and Australia.

Once you subtract the appropriate number of workers accounting for the two factors I listed (which is basically minimum wage workers in the US only), the real number is much much smaller than 1.8 million. As such, the point others are making about the company splitting their revenue/profit wouldn't evaporate their profits as you claim. This is not to say that my position is that they should definitely raise the wages for their restaurant workers $15/hour. I just want to make sure that the numbers being to debate are being presented accurately.

Good point. Yes, there is a lot to be left from his simplistic analysis. He needs to take US McDonald's corporate profit and see what impact increasing its hourly employees wages that work at minimum wage would have on profit. Remember that not all hourly workers work at minimum wage, so he can't just use US McDonald's hourly workers when making his calculation. He needs to find out how many of US McDonald's hourly workers are working at the federal minimum wage first.

Also, he needs to figure in a small amount of inflation into the prices they charge since McDonald's wouldn't take the entire brunt of the wage increase. Figure a 5-10% increase in the cost of items if there was an increase of a couple bucks on the federally mandated minimum wage.

One last thing, there are states that already have a higher minimum wage than the federally mandated one, like California - $8.00, Oregon - $8.95, Washington - $9.19, etc...

http://money.cnn.com/interactive/pf/stat...ge/?iid=EL

The wages of minimum wage US McDonald's workers in these higher wage states would have to factored into the calculation since they would see a much smaller wage increase.

So it's okay for someone to bring worldwide profit to use as an argument but I can't use worldwide employees. Bit of a double standard. Don't you think?

Also the person who I quoted implied that McDonald's could afford to take the hit without passing it on to consumers. You don't think this proves otherwise?

Can you at least admit that raising the wages of all their employees by just $1/hr would have a large impact on their profits, if it came out of their pockets?

You should be using US McDonald's profits if you are talking about US McDonald's employees getting a wage increase. Only makes sense.

McDonald's probably can afford to take the price increase without passing it onto consumers, but it won't. It will either increase the costs very slightly or make the portions slight smaller or use some other tactic like more automation to ensure that they don't eat the brunt of the wage increases.

It impacts their profits assuming they don't pass on the entire cost increase directly to the consumer, but this depends on the price elasticity of demand...so I would guess they are limited in how much they can realistically raise prices.

Still, your analysis was simplistic. There are McDonald's that operate for a profit in states like Washington that have a minimum wage of $9.19/hr already. The idea that raising the minimum wage slightly signals economic doom is foolish.

[Damedius]

(09-02-2013 06:58 AM)Easy E Wrote:  

You should be using US McDonald's profits if you are talking about US McDonald's employees getting a wage increase. Only makes sense.

McDonald's probably can afford to take the price increase without passing it onto consumers, but it won't. It will either increase the costs very slightly or make the portions slight smaller or use some other tactic like more automation to ensure that they don't eat the brunt of the wage increases.

It impacts their profits assuming they don't pass on the entire cost increase directly to the consumer, but this depends on the price elasticity of demand...so I would guess they are limited in how much they can realistically raise prices.

Still, your analysis was simplistic. There are McDonald's that operate for a profit in states like Washington that have a minimum wage of $9.19/hr already. The idea that raising the minimum wage slightly signals economic doom is foolish.

You missed the whole point of the exercise I just did. All I was trying to prove is that McDonald's can't really afford to give even a $2/hr raise out of it's own pockets. To do so would have a severe impact on it's finances.

To suggest that McDonald's could give it's employees a $5-8/hr raise out of it's own pockets is asinine.

[Easy E]

(09-02-2013 07:15 AM)Damedius Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 06:58 AM)Easy E Wrote:  

You should be using US McDonald's profits if you are talking about US McDonald's employees getting a wage increase. Only makes sense.

McDonald's probably can afford to take the price increase without passing it onto consumers, but it won't. It will either increase the costs very slightly or make the portions slight smaller or use some other tactic like more automation to ensure that they don't eat the brunt of the wage increases.

It impacts their profits assuming they don't pass on the entire cost increase directly to the consumer, but this depends on the price elasticity of demand...so I would guess they are limited in how much they can realistically raise prices.

Still, your analysis was simplistic. There are McDonald's that operate for a profit in states like Washington that have a minimum wage of $9.19/hr already. The idea that raising the minimum wage slightly signals economic doom is foolish.

You missed the whole point of the exercise I just did. All I was trying to prove is that McDonald's can't really afford to give even a $2/hr raise out of it's own pockets. To do so would have a severe impact on it's finances.

To suggest that McDonald's could give it's employees a $5-8/hr raise out of it's own pockets is asinine.

You haven't made an accurate calculation of the impact yet, so I don't get what you have proven? You have proven nothing.

Who really believes that there is going to be a $5-8/hr raise in the minimum wage? Obama is talking about raising it to $9/hr by 2015.

There is plenty of data out there on the impact of raising the minimum wage by a small amount. The consensus it that is has a small negative impact on unemployment.

Hardly the sky is falling, eh, chicken little?

[Damedius]

(09-02-2013 07:39 AM)Easy E Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 07:15 AM)Damedius Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 06:58 AM)Easy E Wrote:  

You should be using US McDonald's profits if you are talking about US McDonald's employees getting a wage increase. Only makes sense.

McDonald's probably can afford to take the price increase without passing it onto consumers, but it won't. It will either increase the costs very slightly or make the portions slight smaller or use some other tactic like more automation to ensure that they don't eat the brunt of the wage increases.

It impacts their profits assuming they don't pass on the entire cost increase directly to the consumer, but this depends on the price elasticity of demand...so I would guess they are limited in how much they can realistically raise prices.

Still, your analysis was simplistic. There are McDonald's that operate for a profit in states like Washington that have a minimum wage of $9.19/hr already. The idea that raising the minimum wage slightly signals economic doom is foolish.

You missed the whole point of the exercise I just did. All I was trying to prove is that McDonald's can't really afford to give even a $2/hr raise out of it's own pockets. To do so would have a severe impact on it's finances.

To suggest that McDonald's could give it's employees a $5-8/hr raise out of it's own pockets is asinine.

You haven't made an accurate calculation of the impact yet, so I don't get what you have proven? You have proven nothing.

Who really believes that there is going to be a $5-8/hr raise in the minimum wage? Obama is talking about raising it to $9/hr by 2015.

There is plenty of data out there on the impact of raising the minimum wage. The consensus it that is has a small negative impact on unemployment.

Hardly the sky is falling, eh, chicken little?

You're good at talking a lot and avoiding the actual issue that I brought up.

[Easy E]

(09-02-2013 07:43 AM)Damedius Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 07:39 AM)Easy E Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 07:15 AM)Damedius Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 06:58 AM)Easy E Wrote:  

You should be using US McDonald's profits if you are talking about US McDonald's employees getting a wage increase. Only makes sense.

McDonald's probably can afford to take the price increase without passing it onto consumers, but it won't. It will either increase the costs very slightly or make the portions slight smaller or use some other tactic like more automation to ensure that they don't eat the brunt of the wage increases.

It impacts their profits assuming they don't pass on the entire cost increase directly to the consumer, but this depends on the price elasticity of demand...so I would guess they are limited in how much they can realistically raise prices.

Still, your analysis was simplistic. There are McDonald's that operate for a profit in states like Washington that have a minimum wage of $9.19/hr already. The idea that raising the minimum wage slightly signals economic doom is foolish.

You missed the whole point of the exercise I just did. All I was trying to prove is that McDonald's can't really afford to give even a $2/hr raise out of it's own pockets. To do so would have a severe impact on it's finances.

To suggest that McDonald's could give it's employees a $5-8/hr raise out of it's own pockets is asinine.

You haven't made an accurate calculation of the impact yet, so I don't get what you have proven? You have proven nothing.

Who really believes that there is going to be a $5-8/hr raise in the minimum wage? Obama is talking about raising it to $9/hr by 2015.

There is plenty of data out there on the impact of raising the minimum wage. The consensus it that is has a small negative impact on unemployment.

Hardly the sky is falling, eh, chicken little?

You're good at talking a lot and avoiding the actual issue that I brought up.

You are good at fear mongering.

[Damedius]

(09-02-2013 07:47 AM)Easy E Wrote:  

You are good at fear mongering.

I didn't mean to scare you.

[scandibro]

(08-30-2013 07:28 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

What amazes me is that people talk as if there aren't countries that have relatively high wages for low skilled work: Scandinavian countries. Sure, you can't exactly compare America to Scandinavian countries, but let's not pretend that there aren't countries that do pay people living wages for their work. The idea that people must work for very low wages is an American idea, which is funny since the only reason workers can work for such low wages is because they are subsidized.

Sometimes I think we need to decide whether we want to live in a socialist society or a truly free-market society because right now we have a strange mix of free-market capitalism AND socialism, which is leading to some really fucked up policies.

Yes, and do you know what the result is if that?

In the nordic countries 1 million production level jobs have been lost since the 1980s. That is a decline of a staggering 40%!

Companies are leaving the nordic countries in droves, because they simply can't compete by paying the high wages and taxes.

High minimum wages only creates unemployment, it is that simple, the nordic countries are a great example. It works for a while until you hit that spot were productivity can't keep up with wages and then companies go bankrupt or move.

There is no solution to the poor and dumb problem except teach the poor how to manage their money and education better.

It is insane to say that a lot of people are too stupid to add simple skills to their resume. The immigrants like Asians, Irish and Italians to the US were dirt poor yet they managed because they worked very hard, they had street smarts and didn't spend all their money on TV and smoking.

Do any of you realize how many millions of dirt poor Chinese have been lifted out of poverty by hard work and without minimum wage?

Shaniqua should move to a cheaper state. Why in the world does she feel entitled to live in New York City where everyone in the world dream of living?

She can move to a cheaper state if she and her lazy ass leeching boyfriend don't want to get better qualifications.

Btw, a perfect example of what happens with union rule and socialism is Detroit.

It does not work. Communism and socialism does not work, except for take away freedoms.

[GameTheory]

(08-29-2013 01:29 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

I think we all really forget a small but very popular California chain:

http://www.examiner.com/article/in-n-out...reddit-ama

And they start their employees at $10/hr.

It's not only doable, but possible. I would be curious to see what In and Out's balance sheets look like.

[Jaydublin]

Most people in fast food restaurants are fuck ups outside certain groups. I worked at one in high school for 2 years and besides kids in school/college(and disabled) nearly everyone there was a fuck up in life and that is not an exaggeration.

So wtf happens to all these people who actually have a skill and make 10-20$ an hour... I have friends with a BA who barely break 20$ an hour(in rural Appalachia this is decent). This drives their standard of living down. Min wage employees chase the same goods everyone else does... so when they have more money, the prices rise. Which devalues the jobs that require college or a trade.

Min wage has increased so much % wise and people don't realize it. In under a decade min wage has increased somewhere around 40%. Who else can say that without some sort of promotion? That's like a starting nurse going from 20$ an hour to nearly 28. Big Jump % wise but you don't realize it when its min wage because its a couple $(at this time anyway).... It wont be longer than a few years before min wage is 9-10$ an hour but who elses wages will increase that large %? It wont be long before you have some idiot at Mcdonalds who cant keep a job or stay out of jail and makes well over half as much as your average college grad..

[Jaydublin]

Anymore people just think shit should come free or if you put effort in then you deserve a trophy... its our new culture.

[LowerCaseG]

You also have to consider that if you pay someone $15/hr, the employer is probably shelling out closer to $25/hr (probably more) when you factor in everything...everything including latent costs like compliance, liability insurance, payroll, and getting rid of people. The employee is taking home $10-12/hr. I think we all see who the real winner in this scenario is. The reality is, unless hiring someone is going to pay for itself at least three times over, it's not worth it.

You don't have to pay social security, medicare, workers comp, health insurance, and hire someone to manage payroll for a robot.

[Easy E]

California Minimum Wage Increase To $10 An Hour Passes Both Houses, Gov. Brown Expected To Sign:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12...08620.html

[Therapsid]

Just voted in a mail ballot to increase the minimum wage in my state (New Jersey).

To all the amateur economists out there - I don't care.

Neither does anyone else. It's going to pass.

I was probably one of the few people that voted for it while also voting for libertarian candidates for state office.

My opinion is simply that in the U.S. today we have a growing divide between people who are willing to work versus people who just want to sit on their asses and collect unemployment/food stamps/TANF/disability, etc.

People who really want to work will still be able to hustle their way to an entry level job, which will pay a little more than before. Marginal workers who really just wanted to stay home anyway? Well their jobs will disappear and they can go back to their parents rent controlled apartments and get high.

As for employers who want to hire cheap immigrant labor, they can fuck off.

[Ziltoid]

(09-26-2013 12:25 AM)Therapsid Wrote:  

Just voted in a mail ballot to increase the minimum wage in my state (New Jersey).

To all the amateur economists out there - I don't care.

Neither does anyone else. It's going to pass.

I was probably one of the few people that voted for it while also voting for libertarian candidates for state office.

My opinion is simply that in the U.S. today we have a growing divide between people who are willing to work versus people who just want to sit on their asses and collect unemployment/food stamps/TANF/disability, etc.

People who really want to work will still be able to hustle their way to an entry level job, which will pay a little more than before. Marginal workers who really just wanted to stay home anyway? Well their jobs will disappear and they can go back to their parents rent controlled apartments and get high.

As for employers who want to hire cheap immigrant labor, they can fuck off.

Frankly most minimum wage jobs do not qualify as "really working".

If the skill set someone posseses can easily be supplanted by some FOB that barely even speaks English, then they're a failure of such caliber that they should be undyingly grateful to be paid even $9 for their valuable contribution to society in the form of counting change and handing people burgers.

Surviving on $9/hour is completely doable; find some roommates and a cheap apartment, drop your smartphone plan, ditch manicures/haircuts/nights out, cook your own food, quit drinking and smoking, and don't have kids. Tah dah.

Much of the world's population works for under $1 an hour doing backbreaking agricultural or sweatshop work (assuming they're not just plain unemployed and starving). If you were fortunate enough to be born in a developed country with tons of safety nets and opportunities for education, advancement, and self-improvement, and not only STILL fail to muster up some skills with real market value, but in fact whine to get paid more for your worthless do-nothing "job" (that people elsewhere in the world would kill for, and do a way better job of than you) then you truly are a clueless and entitled waste of oxygen.

I haze zero sympathy for ungrateful minimum wage "workers".
These people want more money? They should learn to be more useful.

[Therapsid]

(09-26-2013 01:01 AM)Ziltoid Wrote:  

Frankly most minimum wage jobs do not qualify as "really working".

If the skill set someone posseses can easily be supplanted by some FOB that barely even speaks English, then they're a failure of such caliber that they should be undyingly grateful to be paid even $9 for their valuable contribution to society in the form of counting change and handing people burgers.

Surviving on $9/hour is completely doable; find some roommates and a cheap apartment, drop your smartphone plan, ditch manicures/haircuts/nights out, cook your own food, quit drinking and smoking, and don't have kids. Tah dah.

Much of the world's population works for under $1 an hour doing backbreaking agricultural or sweatshop work (assuming they're not just plain unemployed and starving). If you were fortunate enough to be born in a developed country with tons of safety nets and opportunities for education, advancement, and self-improvement, and not only STILL fail to muster up some skills with real market value, but in fact whine to get paid more for your worthless do-nothing "job" (that people elsewhere in the world would kill for, and do a way better job of than you) then you truly are a clueless and entitled waste of oxygen.

I haze zero sympathy for ungrateful minimum wage "workers".
These people want more money? They should learn to be more useful.

You're looking at people through the prism of your own high intelligence.

Most people, even in industrialized nations like the U.S., aren't that smart!

It seems like you're telling all Americans of 100 and lower IQ to piss off. I disagree. Decent Americans, whether they have an 80, 85 or 90 IQ should be able to make a living if they have a sound work ethic.

[babelfish669]

It's going to be very interesting when all of these jobs fall to automation by the end of the decade.. Keeping the minimum wage low might buy a few extra years but in the end it won't matter.

[Ziltoid]

(09-26-2013 01:05 AM)Therapsid Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 01:01 AM)Ziltoid Wrote:  

Frankly most minimum wage jobs do not qualify as "really working".

If the skill set someone posseses can easily be supplanted by some FOB that barely even speaks English, then they're a failure of such caliber that they should be undyingly grateful to be paid even $9 for their valuable contribution to society in the form of counting change and handing people burgers.

Surviving on $9/hour is completely doable; find some roommates and a cheap apartment, drop your smartphone plan, ditch manicures/haircuts/nights out, cook your own food, quit drinking and smoking, and don't have kids. Tah dah.

Much of the world's population works for under $1 an hour doing backbreaking agricultural or sweatshop work (assuming they're not just plain unemployed and starving). If you were fortunate enough to be born in a developed country with tons of safety nets and opportunities for education, advancement, and self-improvement, and not only STILL fail to muster up some skills with real market value, but in fact whine to get paid more for your worthless do-nothing "job" (that people elsewhere in the world would kill for, and do a way better job of than you) then you truly are a clueless and entitled waste of oxygen.

I haze zero sympathy for ungrateful minimum wage "workers".
These people want more money? They should learn to be more useful.

You're looking at people through the prism of your own high intelligence.

Most people, even in industrialized nations like the U.S., aren't that smart!

It seems like you're telling all Americans of 100 and lower IQ to piss off. I disagree. Decent Americans, whether they have an 80, 85 or 90 IQ should be able to make a living if they have a sound work ethic.

I'm not that intelligent.

And nobody needs to be that intelligent, to be worth something beyond stocking shelves and busing tables.

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/20...-math.html

I know lots of decently paid middle class engineers, dentists, IT workers, even artists who earned their meal ticket through hard work, determination, and fully availing themselves to the advantages afforded to them... Not because Gaia bestowed upon them some genetic propensity for intelligence.

You think anyone making over 25,000 a year is some high IQ genius?

[It_is_my_time]

Raising the minimum wage will simply lower the purchasing power of the middle class. Or in other words, if you live in a state that increases the minimum wage, and you make more than min wage, you will effectively make less money per COL as the prices of goods will increase to offset the min wage increase, but you will see no pay increase.

[cardguy]

Quote:

How to nudge low-wage employers to pay above the poverty line. Put symbols and stickers on products to show they are “poverty-free” — meaning that no American involved in the manufacture or shipping makes less than $12.50 an hour. “Walmart could lead the way. On some items, they might want to try putting poverty-free and non-poverty-free items side by side on the shelf and see how many people go for each”

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/11500...ty-problem