• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Might be a delay getting your Big Mac today.

MaggieD said:
I wonder if these people realize that if they're successful, many of them are out of jobs -- not because the chains can't afford it, but because for $15 an hour, they won't be settling for THEM anymore.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's going to piss off all the Libbos when these workers lose their jobs to people who are actually worth $15-$20 an hour.

If McDonalds starts paying $18 an hour--which is what I make now, doing a much tougher job--I'm going to the nearest McDonalds and TAKE one of those job from one of the clowns that has it now, at $7.50 an hour.

Wanna talk about class disparity! Just wait!...lol!!
 
Deuce said:
The point is that the money is there. I'm aware of the nature of franchise fast food.
Click to expand...

Obviously not since wages are not monolitic across franchises. The franchisee determines what they will pay employees.
 
sangha said:
I don't think you understand the business because you are over simplifying the problems to an extreme degree
Click to expand...
Maybe. It HAS been about 15 year or so since I worked at a BK and Taco Bell. While active duty in the military I managed the night shift at a Taco Bell. Took us about 4 hours to do a top down store cleaning. Im sure things have changed.
 
Deuce said:
McDonald's corporate could eat the cost of raising wages to $15/hour and not raise the price of food a single penny.

Food for thought.
Click to expand...

Right.

And then when McDonald's ROE falls through the floor and share price plummets who get's left holding the bag?

That's right, the pension plans and mutual funds that own ~70% of MCD.

So who really ends up paying the increased wages of McDonald's employees?

Retirees on a fixed income and the public and private union employees who will see their pension plan funding levels drop to a fraction of their benefit obligations (most are already underfunded so this would just be a further decrease).

More food for thought...the economy is interconnected. Publicly traded businesses don't operate in a silo.

If you want McDonald's (and all other low-wage-paying retail franchise businesses, I'd have to assume) to deliberately take actions that are going to make them less profitable and consequently less valuable to shareholders you have to be willing to accept that that decrease in value is eventually going to settle somewhere.

The people who will be hardest hit will always be the people who are least able to sustain a financial hit.

Yes, executive salaries will decrease.

Yes, the 1%ers' portfolios will take a hit.

But the folks who will REALLY take a shellacking are the folks who have their retirement savings (whether DB or DC) in the market.
 
VanceMack said:
I think the ULTIMATE goal here is to demand 15 but...OK...we'll be reasonable and settle for say 10.50-11.
Click to expand...

At $10, a full time worker makes $1800 a month. If single, they qualify for nothing in welfare. If they are married with kids, they probably (IDK) eligible for food stamps. So, how does this work? A minimum wage based on family size?

I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of lower income workers. In fact, I'm not unsympathetic to those less fortunate in general. But I see a gross unfairness as a consequence of these machinations. The minimum wage should go up based on the COL. As a SS recipient, I've gotten 2 miniscule increases in 5 years. But now we're giving out 30% increases?

The largesse never stops for the rich and the "poor". What about us middle-class folks? You know all this generosity, whether a huge minimum wage increase or another 33M bonus for a CEO comes from us? Is that fair or don't we matter in the grand scheme of things?
 
specklebang said:
So, my best friend, 7 years admin assist. for a large Corp. has worked her way up to $18 p/h. She drives 45 minutes to the other side of town because its damn hard to find a replacement job. Now she can quit, work at the Mickey Ds down the street and make as much. I'm sure she can handle burger flipping and while her income will be $24 less a day, she'll save a lot not buying nice clthes for work and driving all that way.

I keep seeing this "living wage" stuff. At $15, that $2600 a month which is well over the welfare total. Or maybe that $15 is supposed to support a family of 5? Even at $8, you're over the welfare rate (for a single person). This makes not very much sense I'm afraid.

This really needs to be reviewed before a catastrophic decision is made.
Click to expand...

You talk about this scenario as if it's a bad thing. Your friend could do an allegedly easier job and have a better living situation, and that upsets you. Are you sure you're using the word "friend" correctly?
 
specklebang said:
At $10, a full time worker makes $1800 a month. If single, they qualify for nothing in welfare. If they are married with kids, they probably (IDK) eligible for food stamps. So, how does this work? A minimum wage based on family size?

I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of lower income workers. In fact, I'm not unsympathetic to those less fortunate in general. But I see a gross unfairness as a consequence of these machinations. The minimum wage should go up based on the COL. As a SS recipient, I've gotten 2 miniscule increases in 5 years. But now we're giving out 30% increases?

The largesse never stops for the rich and the "poor". What about us middle-class folks? You know all this generosity, whether a huge minimum wage increase or another 33M bonus for a CEO comes from us? Is that fair or don't we matter in the grand scheme of things?
Click to expand...

You've reminded me of a study done where people are given the option between a large raise, but their neighbor gets a bigger one, and a small raise. Most people choose the small raise.

"Largesse" for the poor. Jesus Christ. Listen to yourself.
 
Deuce said:
You talk about this scenario as if it's a bad thing. Your friend could do an allegedly easier job and have a better living situation, and that upsets you. Are you sure you're using the word "friend" correctly?
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
You've reminded me of a study done where people are given the option between a large raise, but their neighbor gets a bigger one, and a small raise. Most people choose the small raise.

"Largesse" for the poor. Jesus Christ. Listen to yourself.
Click to expand...

Did you even read what I wrote or just the parts that offended your sensibilities?
 
specklebang said:
Did you even read what I wrote or just the parts that offended your sensibilities?
Click to expand...

Yes, you don't want other people to make more money because that's not fair to you. Which, apparently, is "catastrophic."

You present a situation in which this supposed best friend of yours might have a better life. And then immediately called that decision "catastrophic."

Oh, and you think being just over the poverty line for a family of four is "largesse."

By the way: if minimum wage had been indexed to inflation 40 years ago, it would be $10.74.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Yes, you don't want other people to make more money because that's not fair to you. Which, apparently, is "catastrophic."
Click to expand...

It would be - it's all about "fairness", fair share, fair everything.
 
Deuce said:
Yes, you don't want other people to make more money because that's not fair to you. Which, apparently, is "catastrophic."
Click to expand...

You're being absurd. I'm here for discussion and I try to post thoughtfully. You are just twisting my words for argument sake and I'll just drop out of this conversation since I'd rather not just have that happen.

If you refuse to look at what I actually said, lets go ahead and assume that I'm anti-poor and a mean old man. Who knows, maybe I'm a Republican at heart?

:roll:
 
americanwoman said:
I packed three lunches today, maybe I need to start charging for my services instead of letting my family exploit me. Them peanut butter sandwiches don't make themselves. Should I go on strike?



Now give me some support here before a certain someone tells me it's just my womanly job to do it! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Will you demand 2 hugs per sandwich instead of just 1?
 
HenryChinaski said:
$15 is too much for flipping burgers especially when many skilled trades start off at a wage in that ballpark. They should be thrown a bone though. Give em' a half a buck and move on.
Click to expand...

You do not reward employees for acting like this.

If the employee was worth more, they would be paid more.
 
Beaudreaux said:
And... Automation. Many of these firms are looking into and beginning automation for ordering, paying and cooking. The only job that will be left is the person that gets the order together and hands the bag to the customer. This could cut the number of employees by as much as 80%. In other words, these people are trying to get 80% of their jobs replaced by computers.

I really like your point though. If a company has to pay $15.00 and hour, the work force available opens up to a hell of a lot of people that are dramatically more qualified and capable than the unskilled hoard that's trying to extort the companies now.

Maybe if they succeed, they will loose their jobs, get replaced by better people, and my damned order will be correct for once.
Click to expand...

How much would the $15.00 per hour cost the company?

That money could and should be used to automate. If you are going to spend that money, at least come away with workers that don't complain and screw up.
 
Deuce said:
Yes, you don't want other people to make more money because that's not fair to you. Which, apparently, is "catastrophic."

You present a situation in which this supposed best friend of yours might have a better life. And then immediately called that decision "catastrophic."

Oh, and you think being just over the poverty line for a family of four is "largesse."

By the way: if minimum wage had been indexed to inflation 40 years ago, it would be $10.74.
Click to expand...

He makes a good point. In the short term, her friend would do well to quit the job where she is actually obtaining real skills to go to work at McDonalds and make nearly the same salary. It reduces the amount of people that will try harder and succeed. Yes, there are a lot of people that think that way.

in the long term, when McDonald's is paying 15/hr - and raising their prices.. The place his friend works will have to pay 40/hr to attract good candidates.

When that happens, McDonald's employees - even at 15/hr, will shortly be "underpaid" and "on strike" again...

Add to that and, eventually when labor becomes too expensive, technology will take its place. We see it at grocery stores now - with those awful self checkouts. Those were a response to employee wages.
 
Last edited:
Beaudreaux said:
And... Automation. Many of these firms are looking into and beginning automation for ordering, paying and cooking. The only job that will be left is the person that gets the order together and hands the bag to the customer. This could cut the number of employees by as much as 80%. In other words, these people are trying to get 80% of their jobs replaced by computers.

I really like your point though. If a company has to pay $15.00 and hour, the work force available opens up to a hell of a lot of people that are dramatically more qualified and capable than the unskilled hoard that's trying to extort the companies now.

Maybe if they succeed, they will loose their jobs, get replaced by better people, and my damned order will be correct for once.
Click to expand...

On this point, I always order my hamburger cheese only, and one employee actually asked me one time if I wanted meat with that. I said yes I do or it would be a grilled cheese sandwich. She didn't laugh. I don't think she was smart enough to get the joke.
 
TheNextEra said:
I don't think that is happening anytime soon, unless they get voice automated ordering. I've seen the touch screen come and go and the same complaint is given each and every time. They simply aren't intuitive enough for elderly people and most people don't want to stand behind someone who has to look at every single button on the touch screen.

I personally don't mind them, but every place I've seen them so far here in the Reno, NV area has eventually taken them right back out.
Click to expand...

Most of the places I've seen them in restaurants are similar to the airlines; they have a one real person at a register, and three or four self service lines. Those seem to work real well.
 
rocket88 said:
Of course a lot of people that work these jobs still don't make enough to get off of public assistance. It could be a big relief on the welfare rolls.
Click to expand...

You are assuming the majority don't lose their jobs altogether and get on welfare.
 
Deuce said:
You talk about this scenario as if it's a bad thing. Your friend could do an allegedly easier job and have a better living situation, and that upsets you. Are you sure you're using the word "friend" correctly?
Click to expand...

It's sad that you wrote that whole thought out and never once saw what was wrong with it.
 
Mason66 said:
How much would the $15.00 per hour cost the company?

That money could and should be used to automate. If you are going to spend that money, at least come away with workers that don't complain and screw up.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's exactly what their thought process is going toward.

These same people that feel they are "entitled" to a higher wage, also feel they are "entitled" to a job. They may find out that they aren't "entitled" to either pretty soon.
 
Mason66 said:
On this point, I always order my hamburger cheese only, and one employee actually asked me one time if I wanted meat with that. I said yes I do or it would be a grilled cheese sandwich. She didn't laugh. I don't think she was smart enough to get the joke.
Click to expand...

I think she's served me as well in different states... She seems to get all around the country.
 
Deuce said:
McDonald's corporate could eat the cost of raising wages to $15/hour and not raise the price of food a single penny.

Food for thought.
Click to expand...

Try again. Most stores are franchises so Corporate would have nothing to say about it.
 
VanceMack said:
Should read "are trying"...and as soon as it becomes cost effective...they will. That will be about the time fry cooks demand 15 dollars an hour for the arduous task of opening a bag, pouring fries in a basket, and punching a button.
Click to expand...

If somebody ever tells them to ask for hazard pay I am sure they will try that.

That hot oil hurts when it hits skin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom