Itinerant Air-Cooled

This is exactly what pisses me off. Millionaire corporate pigs come up with a "solution" to providing their employer responsibilities. I'll bet the dirtbags who came up with this complain about their taxes and "handouts to the poor".

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/208222/ ... -medicaid/

Lanval wrote:This is exactly what pisses me off. Millionaire corporate pigs come up with a "solution" to providing their employer responsibilities. I'll bet the dirtbags who came up with this complain about their taxes and "handouts to the poor".

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/208222/ ... -medicaid/

This is a critical truth right here.

I would love to hear from some people who can explain this current inequity.

Thanks for posting that. We used to take to the streets . . . we need to do something to make our voices heard through the thick walls and sound-deflecting chandeliers in Congress.
Colin

Oct 22, 2013

More than half of low-wage workers employed by the largest U.S. fast-food restaurants earn so little that they must rely on public assistance to get by.
McDonald's is the worst offender, costing taxpayers $1.2 billion in poverty benefits for its employees. McDonald's claims that they operate on razor-thin profit margins and can't pay a living wage.
Yet they announced they had bought yet another brand new $35 million corporate jet for their fleet.
Marketing materials claim the jet, a luxurious Bombardier 605, "makes listening to Beethoven on the dual Blu-Ray Disc player, or watching a movie on either of the two 22” HD monitors, a real pleasure."
It's not right to impoverish your employees while sailing above them at a rate of $2,500 an hour. It's immoral to do it with a taxpayer subsidy.

not that I think it's a good thing, but here's my take on the fast food job problem.

these aren't jobs meant for working parents trying to feed a family. these were always the jobs for high school kids to work, as an introduction to the workforce. sure, anyone is welcome to apply and take that job if that's the job they want to shoot for, but there are other less skilled jobs that pay more for warehouse work, dirty and/or manual labor jobs/etc.

not every job that is offered in the workforce is designed to be a sustainable solution for someone supporting a family.

should the same job pay more for the family man/woman than it does for the high school kid just looking for some money to buy video games and hit the mall? should they limit the age of the persons who are allowed to apply for jobs that low on the totem pole?

I thought working at McD's was you start at the bottom and work your way up to a Manager etc...Problem is hardly anyone working at McD's makes living wage as they make their record profits for the CEO and Board members. Its really Reaganomics, trickledown style where the TOP makes all the money and a little piss falls on the workers.
A minimum wage of $15 and Employer Obamacare would help even if they are part time workers.

are McD managers making minimum wage? or so close to minimum wage that it still isn't a living wage?

really my comments were more geared towards the rest of the staff, and even then im just trying to play devils advocate. I think kids need jobs and those jobs shouldn't be considered as a way to support a family - but companies SHOULD pay a living wage to those who work in a job that would be considered a profession one does to support a family.

Chris,

If you believe these guys, the managers make $3-5000 per month.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does ... nager_earn

That's probably doing OK, but I'm not convinced that any full-time job should be paid poorly enough that they can't get by. If it were true that the top end wasn't unholy rich, maybe I could swallow that argument, but I see no reason why the top end of McD's couldn't cut their profit margin down to a more reasonable level in the name of improving the lives of the people making them rich. I understand that a lot of people have a knee jerk response to "socialism" as a concept, but I don't ~ and I get to vote. So I vote for the guy that understands that forcing people who earn hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to give up 10-15 percent of that (over and above the taxes they're already paying) to improve the lives of their workers.

I said before some time ago, that if you look, you'll see that the top tax rate in the US, after WW II and during our period of greatest economic power/growth, was over 80% and as high as 90%. It's not hard to guess that the average guy who served in the military expected the wealthy guys who stayed home safe and sound to pay their due for the luxury of safety and freedom bought with the blood of others. I doubt the rich were happy about it, and I have no doubt whatsoever that they did whatever they could to hide their money and avoid taxes (people being people, as they always have and always will), but at least they were smart enough to recognize that maybe, just maybe, they could be rich AND responsible; that they could share the wealth, and be wealthy too.

FWIW, I saw this today, and thought, "Hey, that's interesting!"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/busin ... .html?_r=0

I wouldn't call Switzerland the land of socialism per se but it's fair to argue, I think, that the CEO isn't really that much more important than the workers. Yeah, someone's gotta make the big decisions, but someone's gotta make the burgers and swab the deck too. Without the counter guy and the cleaning guy, the biz makes no money. So they're worth a few bucks, and maybe a decent medical plan. I say.

ML

A lot of seniors are working at McD's, BK's and Wendy's etc just to try to make ends meet. So any basic job should pay a decent minimum wage esp. since we allowed the big corporations to trash the pensions 20 years ago. Remember, wages for the lower and middle class have been stagnant in terms of growth and buying power.... I just met a UA retired pilot who lost most of his pension due to UA going thru bankruptcy so he is still working at 70 to help make ends meet.

Relevant link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html

Bet the congress people haven't gotten rid of their pensions yet. I can't say I love the guy, but kudos to Ron Paul for refusing to take part in it. Apparently he called it "immoral". I might have used stronger words...

ML

airkooledchris wrote: these aren't jobs meant for working parents trying to feed a family. these were always the jobs for high school kids to work,

should the same job pay more for the family man/woman than it does for the high school kid just looking for some money to buy video games and hit the mall? should they limit the age of the persons who are allowed to apply for jobs that low on the totem pole?

There is no "meant for" in the American job market.
fast food workers
motel workers
restaurant workers
the guys at Discount Tire
FLAPS workers
gardeners
retail workers
. . . . it goes on and on, people being paid wages that cannot support a dignified life. Then all the cheap-asses jump on board and point to McDonalds and WalMart as their rationalization and justification "hey, razor-tight margins, ya know".

I could ask you, should "they" limit upper income of those "allowed to apply" for jobs that high on the totem pole? After all, these jobs weren't meant for people to be able to buy Congress AND a Bombardier 605 (painted on the side of their jet "I'm Lovin' It!").

We have lost our perspective since Saint Reagan, we have lost our moral compass, and worst of all, we have lost our common sense. Increasing wages at the bottom would prime this economy like no other action . . .
Colin

Amskeptic wrote: Increasing wages at the bottom would prime this economy like no other action . . .
Colin

Quoted because it deserves to be.

No additional comment.

Cindy

I understand that in Australia, McD workers earn about $15 per hour. Burgers cost about the same. Seen on a Web video somewhere, but can't provide link.

glasseye wrote:I understand that in Australia, McD workers earn about $15 per hour. Burgers cost about the same. Seen on a Web video somewhere, but can't provide link.

I completely agree with all that's been stated here, ive just been trying to play devils advocate, and YES I think the jobs at the top should be limited as well. (I think there should be a salary cap in big business, unless you are the owner of the business. )



http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ia/278313/

Thanks, aircooledchris.

Here's a parallel article to the original that points out that you can either:

1. Increase the minimum wage, so that people can take care of themselves

or

2. Increase your tax payment to supplement the income of minimum wage people so that they can take care of themselves.

Seems like 1 would be more empowering.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/per ... e/3295759/

Amskeptic wrote: fast food workers
motel workers
restaurant workers
the guys at Discount Tire
FLAPS workers
gardeners
retail workers

I respect every person who puts in an honest day's work. I wish all of them could live the American dream, and have a comfortable middle-class life. But wishes won't repeal the laws of economics. The fact is, those jobs require the minimum attributes most humans possess; language, sight, basic manual dexterity. Throughout most of human history, those qualities were enough to provide a life that was nasty, brutish, and short. At least today, if one stays off drugs and signs up for Obamacare, they can look forward to food, shelter, some free time, and a lifespan that was undreamed of a few generations ago. Trying to legislate a wage higher than the economic contribution of the labor will only increase unemployment and push more jobs overseas.

Expand the control volume beyond the USA, and the good news is striking. Just one generation ago, all but the thinnest of Chinese elites lived miserable lives of depredation and humiliation. Inequality there is still huge, but by embracing capitalism, literally hundreds of millions of souls have been lifted out of abject poverty to what can be considered middle class.



http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/26/news/ec ... dle-class/

We need to provide universal health care, and ensure no-one falls through the safety net. But the problem is not that some people make too much money, it's that too many aren't able to contribute more than the bare minimum of human skills. Some that are able aren't willing. Go to the websites of IBM, Intel, Nvidia, etc., and you will see thousands and thousands of jobs they are desperate to fill. Most of them pay six figures, because the work contributes that much or more in value. You will also see that around half of them are still located in the USA. We have no right to insist people in other countries stay in poverty and leave the good jobs to us. Anyone who is smart, disciplined enough to defer gratification and educate themselves, and willing to work, will have a nice life. Here, and in an increasing fraction of the rest of the world.