8 of 9
8
Fast Food Employees on Strike
Posted: 07 August 2013 05:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 106 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2591
Joined  2011-04-24
StephenLawrence - 07 August 2013 03:56 AM


1) To be able to feed yourself and your family With healthy food.

Is this too much?

Healthy food is relatively expensive

2)To be able to afford accommodation to a decent standard.

By this I simply mean to have a shower and a toilet available, to have shelter from the elements which is safe and to have cooking facilities.

Is that too much?

The working poor in America have these things.

3)To be able to plan for a good future, which means not being on a treadmill, but rather being able to end up owning your home

The point here is you have to stop working sometime and you’ll go on needing accomodation unless you drop dead on the day you die.

Is it too much to ask that you can have accomodation after you stop working?

It’s not too much to ask, but it may be inevitable in the future that the retired are increasingly homeless.

4)To be able to afford to pay for your childrens education and all that goes with it, uniforms, musical instruments e.t.c.

Here I’m just talking about basic education, not anything special.

Is that too much to ask?

You don’t have to pay for public school in the USA, except though taxes, of course.

5) To be able to pay into a pension.

Again people have the same basic needs once they’ve stopped working so that has to be provided for somehow.

Is that too much to ask.

Not sure about this.

6) To be able to pay for health care if needed

Again I’m not talking about anything special. Just to be able get the treatment they need when sick.

Is that too much to ask?

Not unreasonable for everyone, but some people should not be saved.

Well, it’s reasonable to want those things for people’s well being. And it’s reasonable to try to attain those people’s well being.

And it’s defeatist to say it’s impossible. It’s not impossible just hard to achieve.

What it would take is a great deal more fairness over division of wealth (amongst other things), which is, I suspect, why you don’t like the look of it.

This is basically impossible because most Americans in power don’t want more equal division of wealth - they can’t be taken down.  Also, more than a few people are simply not capable of doing anything right in life - even if they are provided with everything to live a middle class existence, they will mess it up somehow.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2013 08:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 107 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

StephenLawrence,
I totally disagree with your thought that every job in America should be a career job. Yes, it is too much to ask that these occupations that are known as starter jobs for people are turned into a lifetime career job with good pay.

When you are done with the fast food, where do you go to next? The paperboy delivery jobs or the pizza delivery, how about the taxi cab drivers or the tutor who helps students at home. Should they make enough to put money away for retirement and raise a family too?

These jobs are known as starter jobs or secondary jobs. A person is working his regular job and then takes on a second part time job to earn extra money for something that he wants.

If it wasn’t for the fact that companies like McDonald’s figured out how to capitalize on these jobs and made money, you can’t stand that fact and want the country to become communistic where every worker receives the same benefits.

The real problem is that today we need more of these McDonald types of jobs. There are not enough jobs for the people. And yet the government is allowing over a million new people into the country each year that need jobs.

Our economy has become “Inflationary Recession” in structure.

That is in a recession you can not buy a job.

In Inflationary Recession there are plenty of jobs, you just can not afford to work for the pay scale of those jobs.
And that is some of the problems that you are seeing in the fast food industry today.

The proper fix is to stop the inflation.

Economists are saying that we are going to experience massive inflation in the coming years. The government has been pumping billion and billion of dollars into the economy each month to get people working and it is not working. Because the government has over-regulated the employer to the point nobody wants to be an employer today.

You are just like the government in blaming the problems on the employers when you should be dealing with the real facts and real problems and helping the employers get us back to work.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2013 12:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 108 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
Cloak - 05 August 2013 05:44 PM

It’s posts like this as well as many others (e.g. “THIS IS JUST CONJECTURE AND WINDBAGGERY!!!!”) that show that you’re the one that’s getting emotional friend. Like I said, I think you need to take a break or something.

No, that’s not emotional. That’s pointing out fact.  Conjecture is real and can be identified. 
Windbaggery is a term I used to describe this statement from M.Yohe.-

There are a fair percentage of fast food workers that would lose income by getting a raise. Many are on relief and minimum wage and less than forty hours lets them qualify for relief. They might make say $560.00 a month more and take home $450.00 of that after taxes, but they would lose $600.00 a month in food stamps. So I do not see this movement coming from all the workers.

That’s what I call windbaggery and conjecture.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2013 01:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 109 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

Vyazma-So you are agreeing that other factors like unions also determine wages. Aside from this “market value” idea of yours.
Now that you have conceded this we can move onto your next hackneyed idea about unions over-reaching and negative consequences.
See all the pages you wasted trying to explain elementary “market forces” and “value of labor”?

Cloak-Nope, I’ve conceded that from the very beginning.


Ok then, but that means you concede that your “Market Value of Labor” ideas are wrong. Because it can clearly be shown that the value of labor can be adjusted through education, agitation, public campaigns, direct action, political action and laws, union organization, strikes etc.
You were stating that your ideas of “Market Values of Labor” was the determining factor of wages.
You tried to explain that by using an analogy of someone trading “bottled faucet water for a car.”
But in the context of the FFWs you have stated that FFWs don’t deserve more pay because they are
“people who consistently make bad choices in their lives, and complain when people refuse to give them a handout after it.”
-or- that FFWs that ask for more pay can be replaced by people who are willing to accept less wages.

Cloak-I didn’t say what I think they should be paid.

Yes, yes you did.  You said they should be paid whatever their employers are willing to pay them, because if they don’t like it they can be replaced.
That’s your idea of “market value of labor”.
However if the FFWs were able to successfully campaign and get enough people to want to organize a union then they couldn’t be replaced according to Federal Law.
It’s that simple.  And you said that you weren’t against them unionizing. Which would mean that that the fast food place would have to sit down and agree to a contract with the FFWs, which I’m assuming would result in better wages, benefits and work rules.
So that’s why I stated you wasted alot of time explaining to everyone the rudimentary laws of “market value of labor”.
Because the laws of market value as you explained them don’t work in that situation.  That’s the whole idea of unions! Which you said you weren’t against.

Cloak- I didn’t invent the “market value” idea though. Thanks for the credit, but it wasn’t me.

Who did then?  I’d like to read up them.

Cloak-Nobody was talking to you in the first place friend. I was responding to comments by Jeciron and Lois. You’re the one that jumped in. If you are that upset over this, then find another forum. People like Lois obviously need to educate themselves on basic economic principles, and I demonstrated it. Perhaps you know better, but then again, I wasn’t addressing you, was I? YOU are the one who had a seizure after that. Maybe it was my “jingoism” that was showing, right (whatever the heck that actually means to you)? Is that what it was?

LOL  Yes, yes I used the term jingoism. I still stand by it. Maybe it’s not the best term, but it fits.  Just substitute ideology for patriotism.
You’re just hurt because of your “bottled faucet water” analogy.  Your posts are filled with 8th grade level retorts. Alot of “No I didn’t! You did!”
See your quote directly above for examples. I can jump in whenever, and wherever I want to. 

Vyazma-Secondly, now that we know you realize that Unions will dictate fairly, through a contract what employers are going to pay, we are left with your opinion on what
FFWs should be paid. You’ve been quite clear on this.

If we are clear on this now, I’m ready to move onto your ideas on how unions can be potentially bad for all parties concerned.
That was your follow up. 
Here’s some traction for you: points have been made that the price of Big Macs will go up, people will be fired, and lot’s of folks don’t want raises because then they would be ineligible for food stamps.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2013 01:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 110 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2245
Joined  2012-10-27

It seems to me that any minimum wage job at 40 hours per week should pay enough to provide one person with the basics: shelter, food,  clothing and medical insurance,  maybe throw in basic public transportation, too. It should not be expected to support more than one person. Minimum wage was never expected to support a family.  Part of the problem is that few minimum wage workers can get a job for 40 hours a week because employers won’t allow it. It is possible to figure out how much those basics should cost on average in any geographic area. Anyone have an objection to a formula like this?

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2013 02:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 111 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19
VYAZMA - 07 August 2013 01:22 PM

So you are agreeing that other factors like unions also determine wages. Aside from this “market value” idea of yours.
Now that you have conceded this we can move onto your next hackneyed idea about unions over-reaching and negative consequences.
See all the pages you wasted trying to explain elementary “market forces” and “value of labor”?

It’s you who has wasted his time pattering about unions, when I never spoke against them. What I said consistently was that they have the potential to be just as economically destructive as they can be constructive. The “elementary” basics of economics wasn’t initially for you. It was for those who wanted to make it out as if the employer is somehow immoral for paying the employee according to their market value (especially Lois, with her ridiculously biased preferences towards employees over employers). You keep making it out as if I’m “just now agreeing” with the ability of negotiations to change the market value of a particular labor skillset. I’ve never even disagreed with that. So yes, it is you who’s really been wasting time and energy over this.

Ok then, but that means you concede that your “Market Value of Labor” ideas are wrong. Because it can clearly be shown that the value of labor can be adjusted through education, agitation, public campaigns, direct action, political action and laws, union organization, strikes etc.
You were stating that your ideas of “Market Values of Labor” was the determining factor of wages.
You tried to explain that by using an analogy of someone trading “bottled faucet water for a car.”

This is what it means to explain economics at it’s base level, as you stated I was doing. People that try to make it out as if an employer who pays an employee according to their market value is somehow evil DO need to be educated on base level economics. We cannot even move on to the more complicated aspects, yet.

But in the context of the FFWs you have stated that FFWs don’t deserve more pay because they are
“people who consistently make bad choices in their lives, and complain when people refuse to give them a handout after it.”
-or- that FFWs that ask for more pay can be replaced by people who are willing to accept less wages.

The first part is based on my own personal experience with such people. I’ve worked in fast food, and I know many people who do. You make it out as if I am making my personal experience the sole authority on this issue. It was merely a small isolated sidebar in comparison to everything else I’ve said, but you apparently aren’t willing to accept that it isn’t the main thrust of my arguments.

The second part, however, is economics. If you don’t understand that, I can’t help you. Where it ties in with unions is that union overreach can unfortunately accelerate such outcomes, as well as encourage employees to more quickly be replaced by capital in order to cut costs. Again, ask your auto worker buddies and cashiers. I’m always open to negotiations between employers and employees as I’ve said over and over and over again. That’s part of basic market interactions. What I’ve pointed out was that these negotiations need to be handled carefully, though, as they could backfire. If you don’t understand that, or think it’s just plain impossible, then, again, I can’t help you.

Yes, yes you did.  You said they should be paid whatever their employers are willing to pay them, because if they don’t like it they can be replaced.
That’s your idea of “market value of labor”.

No. It’s not. As I’ve conceded, more than once, there are other factors that can determine this, but 1) overreaching in negotiations can lead to bad outcomes and that 2) there is nothing evil about choosing to pay someone at their current market value (to Lois and Jeciron). If you would take into account the totality of my comments and stop trying to build my entire view of economics on a couple of isolated statements, outside of the context of the discussion as whole, we wouldn’t be here having this discussion.

However if the FFWs were able to successfully campaign and get enough people to want to organize a union then they couldn’t be replaced according to Federal Law.
It’s that simple.  And you said that you weren’t against them unionizing.

Because the laws of market value as you explained them don’t work in that situation.

Yeah, let’s do like the teacher’s unions do and make it so that fast food workers are very hard to replace. That will definitely lead to efficiency and high quality food, won’t it? That really improved our public education system, didn’t it? Oh, wait a minute….

Actually, market forces work perfectly fine in this scenario, except the results are not always positive for everyone. When you reduce the incentive to compete (I can’t be replaced, so why work harder?), you actually get less efficiency and less quality. Why else do you think that most government programs tend to be less efficient, despite the fact that, on average, they tend to get paid higher than those in the private sector? Why else do you think that homeschool and charter school trends are increasing, despite the fact that we throw in billions to improve the public school system.

Who did then?  I’d like to read up them.

You’re on the internet friend.

LOL  Yes, yes I used the term jingoism. I still stand by it. Maybe it’s not the best term, but it fits.  Just substitute ideology for patriotism.
You’re just hurt because of your “bottled faucet water” analogy.  Your posts are filled with 8th grade level retorts. Alot of “No I didn’t! You did!”
See your quote directly above for examples. I can jump in whenever, and wherever I want to. 

Except I’m not a “patriot”, and I’ve already stated how I feel about “patriotism” so your term doesn’t fit. It’s also quite ironic for someone to make such an accusation when, just recently, they wrote a thesis paper justifying governments killing innocent people in other countries for their oil, just so one can still get his flat screen TV in the end. Who’s the “jingoistic” patriot now? I bet you wouldn’t have wrote any of that if Obama was against it….

Sure, you can jump in wherever you want to. You might want to evaluate your thoughts first before posting though.

Vyazma-Secondly, now that we know you realize that Unions will dictate fairly, through a contract what employers are going to pay, we are left with your opinion on what
FFWs should be paid. You’ve been quite clear on this.

No, I didn’t “realize” anything. I stated that union negotiations can be a good thing and a bad thing. Stop trying to act like you’ve won something (“you’re in over your head!” “You’re underwater!”).

I’m ready to move onto your ideas on how unions can be potentially bad for all parties concerned.
That was your follow up. 

No, you are just ready to continue to try to “prove me wrong” (about what, I’m still not sure), even if it means trying to mischaracterize my arguments to make them say something that they were never intended to say. And you will continue to do this, apparently. I’m not going to continue going in these foolish little circles with you. I’ve been quite clear and consistent on my points.

[ Edited: 07 August 2013 02:49 PM by Cloak ]
 Signature 

Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

- Bruce Lee -

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2013 03:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 112 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

Cloak-It’s you who has wasted his time pattering about unions, when I never spoke against them.

There you go again.  “No I didn’t you did!”  You speak against unions in this current posting of yours. And in past posts. You have repeatedly said they can be harmful.


What I said consistently was that they have the potential to be just as economically destructive as they can be constructive.

How is this relevant to anything?  Do you have the formulas for this potential?


This is what it means to explain economics at it’s base level, as you stated I was doing.

Yeah but this is about FFWs unionizing. This thread isn’t about what you feel FFWs should be paid.

The first part is based on my own personal experience with such people. I’ve worked in fast food, and I know many people who do. You make it out as if I am making my personal experience the sole authority on this issue. It was merely a small isolated sidebar in comparison to everything else I’ve said, but you apparently aren’t willing to accept that it isn’t the main thrust of my arguments.

No that’s what you make it out to be. You have made it a personal issue. Based on your personal experiences.  You have obvious contempt for FFWs.

Where it ties in with unions is that union overreach can unfortunately accelerate such outcomes

What is union overreach?  Can you define this?

Yeah, let’s do like the teacher’s unions do and make it so that fast food workers are very hard to replace. That will definitely lead to efficiency and high quality food, won’t it? That really improved our public education system, didn’t it? Oh, wait a minute….

Oh wait a minute what? Do you have resources, studies or facts that you would like to bring to light? You seem to be implying that you have some knowledge about the education system…
Or is this just falsely based sensationalism? What was that? Is this just going to be another one of your statements you accuse me of cherry picking?
Should I not focus on this statement of yours? Because it’s outside your main thrust?

Actually, market forces work perfectly fine in this scenario, except the results are not always positive for everyone. When you reduce the incentive to compete (I can’t be replaced, so why work harder?), you actually get less efficiency and less quality.

Really?  Is this another statement I can’t quote from you in the future because it’s just a sidebar?  It doesn’t represent your main points?
I suppose you have data to back up this statement about quality or work ethic. Ask your Dad about work quality and ethics. Last time I checked UPS was the world leader in package shipping. Hmnnn I wonder how they manage, they are Unionized.

Why else do you think that most government programs tend to be less efficient, despite the fact that, on average, they tend to get paid higher than those in the private sector? Why else do you think that homeschool and charter school trends are increasing, despite the fact that we throw in billions to improve it?

I don’t think that. I’d like to know how you think this.  What government programs, and what are the private counterparts you are comparing them to, to obtain this conclusion? Any studies or science behind this?

You’re on the internet friend.

That didn’t answer my question.  I thought you would have these Market Values of Labor Experts on hand seeing as how you quote them with such authority.

Except I’m not a “patriot”, and I’ve already stated how I feel about “patriotism” so your term doesn’t fit.

Yeah, I said substitute patriotism with ideology…can you read?

 

No, I didn’t “realize” anything. I stated that union negotiations can be a good thing and a bad thing. Stop trying to act like you’ve won something.

So you have been saying unions can be a good thing or a bad thing for 7 pages?  Wow.  I got a different message. I thought you were trying to teach everyone the basics of “Market values of Labor”

No, you are just ready to continue to try to “prove me wrong” (about what, I’m still not sure), even if it means trying to mischaracterize my arguments to make them say something that they were never intended to say. And you will continue to do this, apparently. I’m not going to continue going in these foolish little circles with you. I’ve been quite clear and consistent on my points.

Well, there was some things in here you said too.  But I won’t bring them up if you don’t want me to.
Does this mean you are or you are not going to now tell us about how unions can be potentially bad for everyone?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2013 04:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 113 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
Cloak - 31 July 2013 07:05 PM

They really don’t know what they are asking for. Raising their pay beyond minimum wage will likely cause 25% of them to lose their jobs. Then they won’t be making anything at all.

That’s like the kid who cuts my backyard demanding that I offer him medical benefits.

Here Cloak, I’ll start going back into your posts to look for the content that you say you have been producing.
They really don’t know what they are asking for
-how do you know they don’t know what they are asking for?
Raising their pay beyond minimum wage will likely cause 25% of them to lose their jobs.
-what’s this based on?
That’s like the kid who cuts my backyard demanding that I offer him medical benefits
-is that what it is really like?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2013 04:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 114 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
Cloak - 01 August 2013 09:11 PM
MikeYohe - 01 August 2013 09:08 PM

The standard labor unions are good for the workers and for the business. Business with unions end up with more employee involvement. An example would be the aerospace industry. About half the companies are unionize and the others are not. In the free market system if the unions charge too much for labor, the business is closed and nobody wins.

Strong unions can destroy a company.

Weak unions can work against the employee and for the company.

Unions use to be controlled by the workers, not so today, they are controlled by groups of lawyers.

Exactly.

Here’s your words…“Exactly”
Exactly what?
The standard labor unions are good for the workers and for the business.
What are standard labor unions?
Business with unions end up with more employee involvement.
You said “Exactly” to this but later you contradicted this by saying that unions cause employees to put forth less effort in the workplace.
You stated that unions cause employees to lower the quality of the business.
Strong unions can destroy a company.
-how does this happen. Can you cite examples? List specific companies that were destroyed by unions please.
In the free market system if the unions charge too much for labor, the business is closed and nobody wins.
-So businesses close because unions charge too much for labor?  That’s why businesses close?  Can you cite some businesses that closed because unions charged too much for labor?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2013 05:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 115 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
Cloak - 04 August 2013 02:54 PM

Just get ready for the value of such labor to go down even further, because the supply will increase dramatically beyond the demand. More and more people will realize that you can now be paid $15 dollars just for flipping burgers. Why take a job that requires more skills than that? This will make the whole thing seem even sillier and more arbitrary.

Why take a job that requires more skills than that? Because lot’s of people want to make more than $15.00/hr.  That’s why.
But even still, if I had to choose between three $15.00/hr jobs…say with equal benefits.(none of these jobs requires any skills that couldn’t be learned in 3 days of training..including hamburger cook!)
1.Hamburger cook at Wendy’s
2.Office Cubicle/phone service
3.or Telephone pole inspector
I would choose telephone pole inspector. That’s the job I would want. I could work outside and by myself at my own pace.
So there’s a real good reason why I would take a job over another job.  In fact I would work the telephone job for 14 Dollars an hour over the 15 dollar Fast Food job.
So I guess I would be one of the millions of people who would not realize that I had to work at fast food.
Why would someone take a job that requires more skills than those jobs? Because the want more pay.!  They have to acquire the skills first.
Also $15.00/hr is pathetic! You couldn’t get me to sit on a couch for 1 hour and read People for $15!
But thanks to people like you $15.00 an hour is the new middle class. You’re interested in dragging people down, not lifting people up.

[ Edited: 07 August 2013 06:11 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2013 06:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 116 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  345
Joined  2006-11-27

I did not claim it is “evil” to pay someone a wage based on their current market value.  I make a point not to use the term “evil”, it has supernatural implication and lacks any kind of real definition.

I do believe that a true fair market wage can never be below a living wage.  If the wage determined by the value the free market places on fast food labor is not a living wage, I maintain that the fast food industry is a failed industry.  If a business may be compared to an organism, an organism which is unable to provide sustenance to it’s essential parts is unhealthy.  It may survive by exploiting a consumable resource, in this case, the over abundance of unemployed people, or the industry may survive by forcing society to make up the difference between the wages the market dictates and the labor’s true cost of living, e.g community funded healthcare, housing, food, education. If circumstance change and the availability of labor decreases because the workers die, take better jobs, or the state refuses to aid in their support, fast food restaurants or any business model that does not have the capability to pay workers a true living wage, will not be able to find the workers they need to function and will cease to exist.

There is almost a deification of the idea of the free market.  As if the free market is some kind of invisible omnipotent force, primarily activated by the competition for resources.  While there is a great deal of merit in the idea it is important to realize that the free market acts under no rule that it must be humane.  But as a society we hold ourselves to a certain standard of humanity, if not always in a legal sense than certainly in a moral sense. I think the conflict between the free market and society lies in this difference.  The market may justify things which we, as a society of empathetic human beings, would reject.

[ Edited: 07 August 2013 07:15 PM by Jeciron ]
 Signature 

If we’re not laughing, they’re winning.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2013 07:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 117 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
Jeciron - 07 August 2013 06:23 PM

I do believe that a true fair market wage can never be below a living wage.  If the wage determined by the value the free market places on fast food labor is not a living wage, I maintain that the fast food industry is a failed industry.

It is a failed industry, it just doesn’t know it yet.  The pressures it receives from regulators regarding it’s nutritional content, advertising content, and now the pressure it may receive from labor will hopefully force it to join the 21st century.

There is almost a deification of the idea of the free market.  As if the free market is some kind of invisible omnipotent force, primarily activated by the competition for resources.  While there is a great deal of merit in the idea it is important to realize that the free acts under no rule that it must be humane.  But as a society we hold ourselves to a certain standard of humanity, if not always in a legal sense than certainly in a moral sense. I think the conflict between the free market and society lies in this difference.  The market may justify things which we, as a society of empathetic human beings, would reject.

Unless you can continually bolster that deity by getting people to think and vote against their own interests.
That results in 2% of the population controlling 85% of the nations wealth.
You gotta have Cloaks walking around to sustain that kind of deification.  That curtain that hides the “Wizard”.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2013 10:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 118 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

If there is any issue that is more unresolvable than anything, I think that it is economics. I lean towards the left on this issue but know that it doesn’t resolve anything either way. The first thing that I should point out is that British Columbia, Canada has unionized most major restaurants. But then they have this strange law for preteen workers such that businesses without unions are allowed to hire them with a wage less than a standard minimum wage for adults (18+). I was training for a management position in Vancouver at a Pizza Hut in the late 80s and I learned that it was a bylaw of the organization to hire only preteens if at all possible. I couldn’t continue with the job when I learned how tough it is and virtually impossible in some cases to work sufficiently productive with this age-group. One kid, for example, answered the phone with, “what the fuck to you want?...” and I wasn’ t allowed to dismiss him if I could.

On the other hand, I had tried hard to get into a union restaurant but they were virtually impossible. Although unions have a good advantage for workers, they tend to be a closed out of certain stereotypes of work behavior placed on certain cultures or, especially, the very poor who need work. It is a middle class environment where people usually get in by connections, usually through the social class structure. For most of these jobs, one of the characteristics that seemed to be a prerequisite is any person from an average happy family with at minimum, the ownership of a car being granted to them no later than twenty years of age.

I agree with the communist ideology of Marx to notice that every position in society is equally important regardless of education, skill, or luck and all deserve an ‘equal’ measure of worth for their efforts because each position in society can’t go without one or the other. Of course, what Marx couldn’t anticipate upon his theory is how the crowd pulls down the general quality of products and services because no one likes to have the extra eager employee who has the energy and thrill to do more than their fair share. It tends to make the business operators raise the expectations of the employees to the standard of the few exceptional ones.

Then there is the capitalistic concept which is really no different than how the rest of the world sees it: Imperialistic because in order for at minimum some person or persons to be considered owners of property or production, they require a grant of God to assert their right to be born into such a privilege, and be able to pass on their wealth to whomever their personal wishes favor. This is how Kings and Queens were granted such privilege. The only guarantee that their right to ownership is justified is by the force of the political establishment to assure it. But yet the social advantages of some things require (or at least appear to require) the need for competition. And the best way (or at least, most expedient way) to enhance this competition is when people are struggling for survival.

We are screwed either way. The capitalistic system is ‘evil’ in the sense that it favors at best a pyramidal stratification of society with the vast majority at the bottom. And with the usually false assertions of the optimist to declare that anybody who wants something bad enough, they will get it, is a propaganda to encourage those below to eternally “try harder”. And it also places the false assumption that those who fail earn their failures; that every individual in society is only worth their actual positions in life.

The communistic or socialist concepts have their ‘evil’ in peer pressure to conform to the lowest common denominator and punishes those who try to stand our or be competitive. But yet, at least in this system, (only ideally, of course), it is the sincerest idea of community, sharing and compassionate for everyone equally. But its effectiveness to slow down efficiency and encourage a loss of incentive, makes life less interesting and dull.

I must point out that some of you here commented without fair knowledge of other people’s sincerity and worth in both ownership and labor. Those McDonald workers, as Jeciron pointed out, ARE usually tending towards the unintended ‘career’ for most of them. Claiming that their is jobs meant for “starting positions” places the burden upon individuals to do their own hiring in someone else’s power of establishment. This is absurd and is one of the biggest myths that we can credit America the most for above all countries. When you want to discover how people succeed, most researchers look at the actual successful and stupidly ask them how they did it, and judge their ‘wisdom’ as qualifying proof that anyone can make it. What they ignore is the way people psychologically rationalize their position to credit their own personal and unique capabilities to succeed in either isolation of their environment or with trivial credit to some important people (usually Mom and Dad) for it all. Oh…I almost forgot, they thank God the most. It elevates their preferential status for favor by a supreme entity that they can slough off minor discrepancies of the moral indignities that come with their climb to success. If you doubt this, then ask yourselves how a tiny country like Israel has something like the fifth largest arsonal of WDM? And why is there a familiar relationship amongst such a groups to be so homogenous of a population? I’m assure you that I’m not being anti-Semitic. Israel is just one such arbitrary coincidence of history and fortune that established that group. Why does this happen? Because capitalism favors family inheritance. And how can anyone deny this?

If you want to blame the poor for being so unfair to demand a high wage for their efforts as if they don’t deserve it without skill or effort, then why couldn’t you grant the same for anyone who simply inherits their fortune. Certainly, the more wealthier you are from the bottom up, the better you can provide for your family and be a lot more well adjusted to be kinder towards life. You are going to have that first job come easier than others because you happen to have had a home that you could live in where you weren’t forced to contribute your initial earnings for survival needs; where you had that first car before you were 20 years old (whether given to you or earned from that very money you didn’t have to pay rent at home for.

Then there is the ghettos. And I don’t mean simply a large section of town with a high density of poor people either. In a poorer family, that socialistic attitude becomes stronger within your family and friends and most often requires that those who get their first jobs must “share” the wealth amongst them all. After all, if you’re the only one with even the minimalist pay of jobs, you stand out like a sore thumb amongst all your family and peers. For instance, if you had a known hundred bucks in your pocket and you wanted to go to McDonald’s for just a simple “cheap” meal, either you’d have to go alone, be a tightwad and ignoramus to take your friends with you and eat alone while the rest of your five friends sit and drool, or ... you share. So the expense for what would normally be going dutch for everyone equally for a $5.00 meal turns out to cost you $30.00 or more. More, in many respects in that a poor person is most likely to tip their McDonald attendants a gratuity that goes beyond even the thought of a middle-class person or higher! Why? Again, it is that compassion of the social group that recognizes how others who labor are their next of kin, so to speak.

So I can’t figure out the solution. I too would love to win the lottery and be able to be a more competitive participant in society with such wealth. And yet I know that for every person who succeeds, it necessarily requires at least, two people beneath you who must struggle a little more to grant you that privilege.

If you think of peoples efforts in either acquired or innate skill compared to those who labor as energy units, the energy output of each person averages out. The more effort you use your head to think, the less energy in your body to do physical labor, and vise versa. And since any one person cannot put out more than their actual energy potential limited to what their bodies can provide, than it assures us that some people within a capitalistic society is certainly gaining more for their energy expense than others.

I could go on for hours on this topic and yet I would still find something contradictory or contrary in any temporary conclusion. It’ll always end circular. Why? Because we have a limited supply of resources with an insatiable appetite for continuous pleasure and comfort. We are animals. And no matter how we try to fight it, we need to kill in order to get ahead; but at the same time we want to preserve those who favor us and are forced to be simultaneously altruistic for the same survival.  shock

[ Edited: 07 August 2013 10:21 PM by Scott Mayers ]
 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2013 11:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 119 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

Scott,
It did not use to be like this. People would work a job and after a few years start their own business. Sometimes small diners would be operated by a husband and wife or a couple of sisters. The seating in these small places were mostly ten to twelve seats but never over twenty seats. The name given to these places was “Greasy Spoons”. Then they moved up in size and maybe hired a couple people and became a cafe. Every town in the west had then. Some towns had quite a few. You always got a lot of good home cooked food for a cheap price and the atmosphere was always very friendly. Everyone was part of the conversation of the latest news events or topics of the day. You might have the garbage collector and the banker setting side by side and there was no class of rich and poor in these diners, everyone was looked at equally.

The fast food places came along with the interstate highways and got a lot of business but it was the regulations and the changes in eating styles that ended up putting the Greasy Spoons out of business. 

Myself I still prefer the small business owned diner over the franchised chains. I will eat at McDonalds, about once every two to three years. The term “Dog Food” comes to mind when I think of most of the fast foods today. It is for the younger generation.

Today money seems to drive everything. And when is comes down to it, this post is really about money and who should control the money. The workers are thinking they would like to be able to have a say in how much of the money they should get. And that is fair. They would not have to do this if there was not inflation and all cost stayed the same.

Point being, So I can’t figure out the solution.

What about minimum wage based upon the yearly rise in the cost of living?
And I mean the real cost of living. Not like congress did the last several times and took the rise in food and fuel out of the formula for the cost of living so they could screw the people on social security. That way the worker’s buying power should stay closer to the level of inflation and adjustments (worker strikes) would be needed less.
Mike

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2013 12:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 120 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2591
Joined  2011-04-24
Scott Mayers - 07 August 2013 10:19 PM

If there is any issue that is more unresolvable than anything, I think that it is economics. I lean towards the left on this issue but know that it doesn’t resolve anything either way. The first thing that I should point out is that British Columbia, Canada has unionized most major restaurants. But then they have this strange law for preteen workers such that businesses without unions are allowed to hire them with a wage less than a standard minimum wage for adults (18+). I was training for a management position in Vancouver at a Pizza Hut in the late 80s and I learned that it was a bylaw of the organization to hire only preteens if at all possible. I couldn’t continue with the job when I learned how tough it is and virtually impossible in some cases to work sufficiently productive with this age-group. One kid, for example, answered the phone with, “what the fuck to you want?...” and I wasn’ t allowed to dismiss him if I could.

They hire preteens? Is that legal in Canada?

If you want to blame the poor for being so unfair to demand a high wage for their efforts as if they don’t deserve it without skill or effort, then why couldn’t you grant the same for anyone who simply inherits their fortune. Certainly, the more wealthier you are from the bottom up, the better you can provide for your family and be a lot more well adjusted to be kinder towards life. You are going to have that first job come easier than others because you happen to have had a home that you could live in where you weren’t forced to contribute your initial earnings for survival needs; where you had that first car before you were 20 years old (whether given to you or earned from that very money you didn’t have to pay rent at home for.

I don’t think anyone here is saying those with inherited fortunes are our favorite people.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
   
8 of 9
8