• 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.

MrVicchio said:
You are SOO right Deuce, they COULD. And they'd make a profit still. However, at least ONE FF chain wouldn't. And guess where investors would flock? Yeah, where the money is. McD's would lose investors, people would quit buying stock. That would kill the company. But hey, for a short while some burger flipper could make "a living wage". Good plan.
Click to expand...

The health of the business is never figured in to these situations.

How can a franchise owner double his employees pay without it affecting everything else.

If the workers made themselves worth twice as much, maybe I could see that, but minimum wage workers are minimum wage workers for a reason.
 
Deuce said:
The point is that the money is there. I'm aware of the nature of franchise fast food.
Click to expand...

There is money everywhere but why should it go to these people if they are not worth that pay?

The employees don't work for corporate, so why would they pay anything.

Maybe Wal-Mart should pay the McDonald's employees. Maybe that would work.
 
Deuce said:
By the way: if minimum wage had been indexed to inflation 40 years ago, it would be $10.74.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Minimum wage in 1973 was $1.60, that is $8.42 with inflation (per Bureau of Labor Statistics). Counting the lower taxes today than in 1973 (12% effective tax versus 16% in 1973) puts the minimum wage in 1973 equivalent to more like $8.00/hour. Still slightly higher than today but still far less than currently is being asked for.

In the US today 3% of workers actually make minimum wage. The subset of that 3% that actually support a family on minimum wage is less than that (approaching zero). The average minimum wage earner only earns minimum wage for a short period of time. McDonald's and other companies that start unskilled labor at minimum wage do value the employees who show they are capable of doing the job and would rather give an existing employee a raise over bringing in someone new.

Consequently, the vast majority of people making minimum wage are college age or younger. My guess is that if you were to raise minimum wage to $12.00 you would see that bell curve shift heavily to the right, and you would see a corresponding jump in unemployment rate for people 24 and younger. As MaggieD pointed out, at those wages the employer can start asking for experience.
 
Deuce said:
They're a profitable enterprise with plenty of assets. And would still be a profitable enterprise with plenty of assets.
Click to expand...


Your posts would seem to indicate that you don't have any idea at all what is going on in the United States. Why do you think Obama and all the big corporations and the Chamber of Commerce are pushing for amnesty and open borders now?

It's pretty simple, the first wave of 40 million uneducated Mexicans is tired of living at minimum wage and now they want more money.

Solution: Import millions more, uneducated minimum-wage Mexicans to replace the dissatisfied ones they have now and keep paying low wages to everyone.

This is happening right before your eyes and you don't even see it. As soon as amnesty happens, none of those McDonald's workers striking for higher minimum wages aren't going to mean a thing because they'll all be fired and replaced.

The problems you have are only beginning, it's going to get much much worse. The Mexicans were the first immigrants in American history to never do anything to improve themselves, now they're going to see the results of that sort of dependence. You're only needed here when you're willing to work for free.
 
Last edited:
buck said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why do you think $15/hour at McDonald's would become underpaid?
 
Mason66 said:
There is money everywhere but why should it go to these people if they are not worth that pay?

The employees don't work for corporate, so why would they pay anything.

Maybe Wal-Mart should pay the McDonald's employees. Maybe that would work.
Click to expand...

Who says they aren't worth it?
 
jmotivator said:
Not exactly. Minimum wage in 1973 was $1.60, that is $8.42 with inflation (per Bureau of Labor Statistics). Counting the lower taxes today than in 1973 (12% effective tax versus 16% in 1973) puts the minimum wage in 1973 equivalent to more like $8.00/hour. Still slightly higher than today but still far less than currently is being asked for.

In the US today 3% of workers actually make minimum wage. The subset of that 3% that actually support a family on minimum wage is less than that (approaching zero). The average minimum wage earner only earns minimum wage for a short period of time. McDonald's and other companies that start unskilled labor at minimum wage do value the employees who show they are capable of doing the job and would rather give an existing employee a raise over bringing in someone new.

Consequently, the vast majority of people making minimum wage are college age or younger. My guess is that if you were to raise minimum wage to $12.00 you would see that bell curve shift heavily to the right, and you would see a corresponding jump in unemployment rate for people 24 and younger. As MaggieD pointed out, at those wages the employer can start asking for experience.
Click to expand...

My mistake, that number was 45 years, not 40. (in 1968 the minimum wage was also $1.60)
 
AlabamaPaul said:
The marketplace...
Click to expand...

If the market place says they deserve minimum wage, and minimum wage is $15/hour, then they deserve $15/hour! Problem solved!
 
Deuce said:
If the market place says they deserve minimum wage, and minimum wage is $15/hour, then they deserve $15/hour! Problem solved!
Click to expand...

If you let the market determine the "minimum wage", I would agree, but an artificial wage set by government is not a reflection of the marketplace...
 
Mason66 said:
The health of the business is never figured in to these situations.

How can a franchise owner double his employees pay without it affecting everything else.
Click to expand...

Between McD's corporate and the franchise owners, sufficient profits exists to do just that and not raise food prices one penny. They would just be less profitable. Corporate would still be profitable to the tune of billions of dollars.

If the workers made themselves worth twice as much, maybe I could see that, but minimum wage workers are minimum wage workers for a reason.
Click to expand...

Yes. Because the employer/employee relationship is not an equal one and they lack the power to obtain a better life through negotiation.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
If you let the market determine the "minimum wage", I would agree, but an artificial wage set by government is not a reflection of the marketplace...
Click to expand...

Does every single person make precisely what they deserve?
 
Deuce said:
Does every single person make precisely what they deserve?
Click to expand...

In every employee/employer relationship, both sides have implicitly agreed to the wages paid...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
In every employee/employer relationship, both sides have implicitly agreed to the wages paid...
Click to expand...

Explicitly.

That wasn't the question.
 
Last edited:
AlabamaPaul said:
Then answer your own question if you don't like the answer offered...
Click to expand...

You didn't offer an answer. You dodged the question.

I will answer for you, then, since you gave permission. You aren't willing to say yes. You aren't willing to suggest that everybody is making precisely what they deserve.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
In every employee/employer relationship, both sides have implicitly agreed to the wages paid...
Click to expand...

Good evening, AP. :2wave:

:agree: You can always privately think you're worth more, but once you agree, it's a done deal, until the employer also agrees that you're worth more.

I haven't had the TV on today, so do you know the outcome of the nationwide strike of fast food workers? My neighbor told me our local McDonalds was operating as usual, but there were no strikers in sight, either.
 
Deuce said:
You didn't offer an answer. You dodged the question.
Click to expand...

No, I answered, but because you chose not to accept it, feel free to makeup one of your own. If you want to continue the discussion from this point forward, I'm available, but I will not play your game as to which answers are acceptable...
 
polgara said:
Good evening, AP. :2wave:

:agree: You can always privately think you're worth more, but once you agree, it's a done deal, until the employer also agrees that you're worth more.

I haven't had the TV on today, so do you know the outcome of the nationwide strike of fast food workers? My neighbor told me our local McDonalds was operating as usual, but there were no strikers in sight, either.
Click to expand...

Hey there pg. I hope you're doing well. In most instances both sides are satisfied with the agreement, but when they aren't, then they may seek alternative arrangements...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
No, I answered, but because you chose not to accept it, feel free to makeup one of your own. If you want to continue the discussion from this point forward, I'm available, but I will not play your game as to which answers are acceptable...
Click to expand...

It was a yes or no question, and you brought up something about employment contracts. Because you're not willing to say yes.
 
Deuce said:
Why do you think $15/hour at McDonald's would become underpaid?
Click to expand...

Prices would have to increase to cover the labor costs, other businesses would have to raise their wages to attract employees, which would cause them to have to raise their prices, after all is done and the economy has corrected itself, the $15.00 / hr wage will be poverty again. The way to get out of poverty is to get out of non-skilled jobs, not to make those non-skilled jobs pay more.
 
buck said:
Prices would have to increase to cover the labor costs, other businesses would have to raise their wages to attract employees, which would cause them to have to raise their prices, after all is done and the economy has corrected itself, the $15.00 / hr wage will be poverty again. The way to get out of poverty is to get out of non-skilled jobs, not to make those non-skilled jobs pay more.
Click to expand...

The price increases wouldn't be as much as you think.
Also, there's no inherent reason that a "skilled" job must pay a "living wage" but an "unskilled" job can't. We used to have that in this country: someone straight out of high school could get a job in manufacturing that was good enough to raise a family on. No experience, no degree.
Finally, somebody has to do the "unskilled" jobs or else society doesn't function, and enough "skilled" jobs to go around simply don't exist. So, what, a certain population is just SOL and has to live below the poverty line because alternatives don't exist? When our GDP/capita is nearly $50k, 16% of the population has to live under the poverty line because there just aren't enough jobs that meet your personal standard?

80 hours a week at minimum wage barely feeds yourself, much less a family. Just how much harder do you think someone should have to work? 100 hours? 120?
 
Deuce said:
The price increases wouldn't be as much as you think.
Also, there's no inherent reason that a "skilled" job must pay a "living wage" but an "unskilled" job can't. We used to have that in this country: someone straight out of high school could get a job in manufacturing that was good enough to raise a family on. No experience, no degree.
Finally, somebody has to do the "unskilled" jobs or else society doesn't function, and enough "skilled" jobs to go around simply don't exist. So, what, a certain population is just SOL and has to live below the poverty line because alternatives don't exist? When our GDP/capita is nearly $50k, 16% of the population has to live under the poverty line because there just aren't enough jobs that meet your personal standard?

80 hours a week at minimum wage barely feeds yourself, much less a family. Just how much harder do you think someone should have to work?
Click to expand...

Minimum wage jobs, or any entry level job for that matter, is not intended to be one's forever job as the employee does gain experience and skills to move up either with their current employer or another, but what you're advocating is forcing the market to provide an inflated wage for the work being performed relative to the available labor supply...
 
Deuce said:
Who says they aren't worth it?
Click to expand...

Same people who consider people commodities like 2x4s. Same people cheerfully exploiting the desperate anywhere they can be found. Same people who have been ****ing everything up for millenia:

The greedy and power hungry.
 
Deuce said:
The price increases wouldn't be as much as you think.
Also, there's no inherent reason that a "skilled" job must pay a "living wage" but an "unskilled" job can't.
Click to expand...

There is. Demand, supply both of the labor and the product in question.


80 hours a week at minimum wage barely feeds yourself, much less a family. Just how much harder do you think someone should have to work? 100 hours? 120?
Click to expand...

They shouldn't have to work at all. Food, clothes, transportation and television are all human rights and the government should provide it to everyone.

I just read a story on Huffpo about the strikers, and one of the examples they gave was some woman couldn't make enough working at McD's to support her and her three kids. It's just not fair, right?

Edited to add her quote:
Sanny Velezquez, a 34-year-old Los Angeles McDonald's employee, said she skipped work Thursday to protest. She said she's struggling to afford basic necessities for herself and her three kids on an $8.70 per hour wage.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom