$15 to Flip a Burger

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
One of my co-workers started off in fast food. Started as a dishwasher and ended up becoming a manager of Taco Bell. He worked in the service industry for 20 years. When he realized that he wanted to raise his standard of living, he learned a trade (completed a FIVE YEAR APPRENTICESHIP) and now makes around a hundred thousand a year. He began the apprenticeship at age 35. He was married with kids.

At the beginning, his wife had to work two jobs to compensate for the pay cut. They moved to a cheaper apartment, didn’t eat out and made other sacrifices as well. But only for a year or two. Let me repeat: HE NOW MAKES 100K A YEAR. Didn’t go to college. Didn’t take out any student loans. Got paid while he learned the trade. Got predictible raises every year that he was able to budget around. ANYONE can do this.

It’s not a very difficult concept. Fast food has ALWAYS been an ENTRY LEVEL job. Just because people lack the motivation to improve themselves and choose to remain at an ENTRY LEVEL job does not constitute an obligation for McDonalds to pay them more.

We live in a (relatively) free country. There is NO law that will prevent an individual from improving himself and thereby making himself more marketable and more able to command a higher wage/salery. It all comes down to how much VALUE that YOU, as an individual, can provide. If the only value that you can provide is the ability to fog a mirror and flip a burger without burning it, year after year, then that is a DECISION to remain poor. That’s not ANY company’s problem to fix. That’s not any Gubment’s problem to control. You simply CANNOT legislate AMBITION!

If someone lacks the motivation to make something of themselves it is NO ONE’S fault but the individual. We live in a country where ANYONE can be ANYTHING with a little foresight and hard work. Smarter people tend to look ahead and make better decisions. They tend to provide more value. Once they figure out that they’ve hit the ceiling in their current endeavor, they either find a way to provide MORE value (more education/training) OR… THEY MOVE ON TO SOMETHING BETTER. They leverage their experience and existing skillset and find a way to provide value AND earn more. It’s not rocket science.

Stupid and lazy people who lack motivation just complain about their lives and don’t do anything about it. They demand ridiculous pay increases with no equal value proposition. They foolishly think that if they complain loud enough that basic economics will somehow transform or that the Gubment will intervene to give them a short term victory. If they spent HALF of the engergy they spend COMPLAINING about making minimum wage and spent that energy DOING SOMETHING to improve themselves, then they would see some real magic: they would be able to do something more valuable and <<>> make more money.

But they wont. Because they are stupid and lazy. I have no sympathy for stupid and lazy. And I certainly won’t PAY MORE for stupid and lazy.

[/quote]

Swing

crack

Going, going, gone, homerun!

As usual angry crushes it out of the park and it’s ignored…

262

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

I agree that the government should not subsidize people who aren’t willing to do what it takes to make a living themselves. [/quote]

I would agree if they do not want to work , how ever there are many that can not work work for many reasons and I am not in favor of turning them out to the streets .

263

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

I agree that the government should not subsidize people who aren’t willing to do what it takes to make a living themselves. [/quote]

I would agree if they do not want to work , how ever there are many that can not work work for many reasons and I am not in favor of turning them out to the streets .
[/quote]

The percentage of them that cannot work is far far lower than the percentage that just doesn’t want to. Most of your “I cant works” have medical issues like IBS, Asthma, migraines, or shoulder or back trouble. Not exactly debilitating illnesses. And we aren’t talking about those that cant work anyway. We are talking about the people that work 20 hrs a week at Mcdonalds and complain because they don’t make enough. Really? You should starve to death if you are only willing to work 20 hrs a week. Hunger is a pretty good motivator to get off your ass and get a job.

264

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
And I certainly won’t PAY MORE for stupid and lazy.
[/quote]

The fact that you would pay anything for McDonald’s food is ridiculous. That, is being stupid and lazy. I don’t care how much McDonald’s pays and how it will affect prices because I don’t eat there and if they go out of business, good.

And what if, just what if, the best someone can do is work at McDonald’s? Maybe they are mentally handicapped (or whatever the PC term is nowadays) or something. Maybe they are too feeble to do hard manual labor and just not book smart enough to get a college degree. The best they can do is min wage type jobs but they do them well and work hard. The idea that anybody can succeed if they really want to is not exactly true as success is relative. For some being the best burger flipper in the world is about as high as they can go. It takes a real piece of work to belittle them. I’m sure Warren Buffet could look at you and say stupid and lazy. Would he be correct?

I notice a lot of elitism on this thread. At the same time I notice a lot of fast food connoisseurs. Seems a bit incongruous.

265

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
The fact that you would pay anything for McDonald’s food is ridiculous. That, is being stupid and lazy. I don’t care how much McDonald’s pays and how it will affect prices because I don’t eat there and if they go out of business, good.
[/quote]

How does eating fast food make you stupid and lazy? Is it just fast food or is it when you eat anything you don’t prepare? So if my wife cooks dinner and I eat it does that make me stupid and lazy?

Oh you don’t eat there, so how about __insert place you do eat does eating there make you stupid and lazy?

I doubt anyone in here is referring to the metally challenged. There are also plenty of jobs for uneducated and feeble people paying more than minimum wage. Any person can sit in a cubicle and there are 1,000s of entry level/remedial cubicle jobs that pay more than minimum wage.

99.99% of Burger Flippers can do better than that if they try…

[quote]
I notice a lot of elitism on this thread. At the same time I notice a lot of fast food connoisseurs. Seems a bit incongruous. [/quote]

If pointing out how absurd it is to earn 30k a year to:

1.) Open a bag of frozen (pre -cut) French Fries
2.) Drop them in a deep fryer
3.) Press a button
4.) Remove French Fries
5.) Place in bag

or.

1.) Open pre-packaged burger
2.) Place on Grill
3.) Wait
4.) Add cheese
5.) Wait some more
6.) Place on plate or in box

Is elitism, than I guess that’s me.

266

For some perspective; my first job after being an NCO of Marines (In charge of 4-6 Marines most days and as many as 20-30 on occassion) reporting on a couple hundred million dollars in Air Wing expenditures, I made $17 an hour…

267

I want MOAR FREE STUFFZ

268

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

And what if, just what if, the best someone can do is work at McDonald’s? Maybe they are mentally handicapped (or whatever the PC term is nowadays) or something. Maybe they are too feeble to do hard manual labor and just not book smart enough to get a college degree. The best they can do is min wage type jobs but they do them well and work hard. The idea that anybody can succeed if they really want to is not exactly true as success is relative. For some being the best burger flipper in the world is about as high as they can go. [/quote]

These people will be given raises and kept happy by good managers (who also started out on fries). So they won’t be making min wage.

[quote]
I notice a lot of elitism on this thread. [/quote]

No. You are confusing people’s positions.

If flipping burgers is the best someone can do, and they do it as best they can, no one here will look down on them for taking pride in their work.

What is being “looked down upon” is the notion that low skilled labor should be paid some arbitrary amount chosen by some random stoner because they don’t understand the very basics of economics.

269

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

Don’t bring farmers into this :slight_smile: [/quote]

There are some geo-political reasons for making sure a nation doesn’t go too short on its own agriculture due to comparative or absolute advantage of other nations.

Agriculture subsidies are at least in part a portion of national defense. [/quote]

This is a justification for getting involved in the market.

It’s a copout for a handout essentially.

270

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
any reasons and I am not in favor of turning them out to the streets .
[/quote]

The percentage of them that cannot work is far far lower than the percentage that just doesn’t want to. [/quote]

I am glad you realize that is your opinion

271

[quote]H factor wrote:

It’s a copout for a handout essentially. [/quote]

Not really, no. Not even close. If I need to explain why, it isn’t worth my time to do so to be honest. You seem like a relatively intelligent person so I assume you understand what I’m saying and are just looking to debate. Of which I’m not going to partake.

We had 2 world wars in the last 100 or so years, the thought we wouldn’t have a third is silly. If a country goes 100% free market on their agriculture and imports 90% of its food due to comparative advantage (and absolute in some foodstuffs) and then suddenly loses the ability to import food due to war, and half their population starves to death…

I guess one man’s copout is another man’s well reasoned safe harbor against wide spread famine should history repeat itself.

272

You can not lose this many jobs and not have many people that want to work going unemployed , I know you pulled your self up by your boot straps .

But right now employers are exploiting our labor market and if you don’t regulate it to some degree the working class will lose more at a faster rate than ever

The crux of this discussion is a policy that made employers pay a living wage so tax payers do not have to subsidize them is fair to all. Ther is honor in all labor and all laborers should be treated with respect , not expected to work for a living and live below what america calls poverty

273

LOL @ being completely unaware that one is regurgitating Marx…

And no “a policy that made employers pay a living wage” is not fair to all. Not only can not a single person put a national level dollar amount on what a “living wage” is, it isn’t fair to those that make more than the “living wage”.

This is like trying to talk about multiplication with someone who can barely count to 12. All emotion, no logic or reason.

274

What the heck is a living wage?

275

Blaming Marx for all social programs is like blaming Capitalism for all crime involving money , prostitution, drugs , Murder for hire , theft

276

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What the heck is a living wage?[/quote]

America has a standard , they call poverty , if some one falls below it they get Government subsidies unless it is deemed they are lazy and do not want to work

277

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What the heck is a living wage?[/quote]

America has a standard , they call poverty , if some one falls below it they get Government subsidies unless it is deemed they are lazy and do not want to work
[/quote]

So for a single person it’s about $11,484, which is about $5.51/hr working 40 hours a week or about 2,086 hours a year. So our $7.25 minimum is actually a litte higher than a living wage.

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq1.htm#thresholds

278

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What the heck is a living wage?[/quote]

America has a standard , they call poverty , if some one falls below it they get Government subsidies unless it is deemed they are lazy and do not want to work
[/quote]

So for a single person it’s about $11,484, which is about $5.51/hr working 40 hours a week or about 2,086 hours a year. So our $7.25 minimum is actually a litte higher than a living wage.

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq1.htm#thresholds

[/quote]

The smallest family unit would be two , a mother and a child , a father and a child A child and aging adult . other wise it would be single .

I personally could live with 12 dollars and hour . but you will never get what you want you have to start high and negotiate down

279

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Blaming Marx for all social programs is like blaming Capitalism for all crime involving money , prostitution, drugs , Murder for hire , theft [/quote]

Theft has nothing to do with capitalism.

280

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What the heck is a living wage?[/quote]

America has a standard , they call poverty , if some one falls below it they get Government subsidies unless it is deemed they are lazy and do not want to work
[/quote]

So for a single person it’s about $11,484, which is about $5.51/hr working 40 hours a week or about 2,086 hours a year. So our $7.25 minimum is actually a litte higher than a living wage.

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq1.htm#thresholds

[/quote]

The smallest family unit would be two , a mother and a child , a father and a child A child and aging adult . other wise it would be single .

I personally could live with 12 dollars and hour . but you will never get what you want you have to start high and negotiate down
[/quote]

Who said anything about a family unit? Okay, two people = $14,657 = $7.03/Hr.