This is The Average Man's Body

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
McDonald’s can afford it.

[/quote]

Of course they can afford it. But unfortunately, if some bloated CEO does decide that his employees deserve some dignity and shouldn’t be in the pathetic position in which they have to go to the government for food and housing, he might not be able to build that new wing on his mansion or buy that new McLaren. A pity.

But wait, “companies exist to make a profit”. And, here comes my favorites: “No one owes anyone anything,” and, “What are you, a communist?” And can’t forget, “But if they get that increased wage, they thereby won’t be motivated to do something ‘better’”. AS IF someone initially aiming for med school, or perhaps even a mid-skilled position such as nursing or teaching, would not follow through because they can make fifteen bucks per hour buttering bagels.

Lovely.

I don’t believe every expense should be paid for simply because it can be afforded, but when it comes to keeping a human being alive I believe it should be so because a human being in America can’t remain alive on seven to eight bucks per hour without help from someone else.

But hey, I am letting my feelings get involved in this, feelings for people who need food and housing to stay alive, not just treating them as economic units to be overworked, used, and exploited, and who in turn have to rely on others and the government.

I personally have never faced poverty, have a decent profession, and am working on developing a spare time business, but I have a heart for those less fortunate than me and can empathize with their situations. The first time I saw a homeless man at age about seven years old, I could not get over the sight of him and needed my mom to calm me down later in the night.

This does not mean I condone people not pulling their own weight in nearly all cases. In my profession I am exposed on a daily basis to the blood suckers and parasites of this country, people who will never lift a foot or hand for anything! However, I am also exposed to many poor and unfortunate people who wound up in their situations to no fault of their own.

No one in their right mind believes fast food workers and dish washers should be paid the same as tradesmen, and mid to high skilled professionals, but it would be nice to see people not facing poverty–DANGEROUS poverty that is–because they do an honest job, whether that’s serving my cup of coffee, buttering bagels, flipping burgers, stacking shelves, or holding my table at a restaurant.

And the economic landscape in which thousands of qualified, upright, decent–albeit perhaps not the brightest or most talented but not stupid–American adults are now working in fast food and hospitality because of the lack of jobs in this country at the present time. So fast food and other hospitality jobs are generally not just entry level positions being filled by high school and college students on spring or summer break or in between or after classes, people who indeed naturally might not be independent because of their age and spot in life.

I’d also like to see how people who are worried about their next meal are going to “up their skill set”. Show me a person working two to three minimum wage or low paying jobs working twelve to sixteen hours a day are going to increase their skill set.
[/quote]

Very well said.

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
They turn a 5 billion dollar profit using government subsidized labor. And probably subsidized beef. And probably subsidized electric generation now that I think about it. McDonald’s: Your tax dollars at work. I’m lovin it.

http://www.nelp.org/page/-/rtmw/uploads/NELP-Super-Sizing-Public-Costs-Fast-Food-Report.pdf?nocdn=1

[/quote]

Couple of things:
1.) McDonald’s doesn’t use government subsidized labor. They use what labor they need to get the job done. It just so happens a number of their employees are on government programs. It isn’t McDonald’s responsibility to ensure their employees aren’t on government assistance anymore than it is their job to employee these same people.

2.) Probably subsidized beef? Do you have proof?

3.) Probably subsidized electric? Do you have proof?

4.) http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/content/dam/AboutMcDonalds/Investors/McDs2013AnnualReport.pdf

*McDonald’s employees 440,000 world wide (2013).
*That $5 Billion profit is a Global number not U.S. profits. It is also a mixture between Corporate and Franchise financial information.

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
Forget the last page where they try to throw management under the bus implying they make too much. Simply put they could pay their workers a living wage (whatever they dish out now, plus what the government covers), and still turn a 4 billion dollar profit. [/quote]

I’m a numbers guy. I’d like to see how the numbers shake out. Nothing personal, but I’m not going to just take your word for it.

[quote]
Responsible companies need to pay for their own sustainability. [/quote]

It seems to me like they’re already doing this.

[quote]
I don’t care if it’s labor, materials, or energy. We (the tax payers) should not tolerate anything less. Corporate welfare is the worst kind of welfare.[/quote]

Welp, I guess our government savior should just increase the minimum to $25/hour and force companies to employee their people full-time. I can’t think of a single negative repercussion…

[quote]CLUNK wrote:
Very well said.
[/quote]

Well said, but irrelevant.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]CLUNK wrote:
Very well said.
[/quote]

Well said, but irrelevant. [/quote]

It was a bunch of feelings. Could have been a young adult novel really.

That’s the problem with people on that side of the spectrum, they don’t (and often can’t) think about things because they feel about them.

People keep talking about “fair” and “equal distribution of wealth” and so on and so forth, and never put any numbers to match the feeling words they use to describe things. There is a reason for it.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]CLUNK wrote:
Very well said.
[/quote]

Well said, but irrelevant. [/quote]

It was a bunch of feelings. Could have been a young adult novel really.

That’s the problem with people on that side of the spectrum, they don’t (and often can’t) think about things because they feel about them.

People keep talking about “fair” and “equal distribution of wealth” and so on and so forth, and never put any numbers to match the feeling words they use to describe things. There is a reason for it. [/quote]

Pretty much this.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]CLUNK wrote:
Very well said.
[/quote]

Well said, but irrelevant. [/quote]

It was a bunch of feelings. Could have been a young adult novel really.

That’s the problem with people on that side of the spectrum, they don’t (and often can’t) think about things because they feel about them.

People keep talking about “fair” and “equal distribution of wealth” and so on and so forth, and never put any numbers to match the feeling words they use to describe things. There is a reason for it. [/quote]

FTR, I said “equitable” distribution of wealth, as in fair or just based on contributions. For instance my employer pays me roughly 30% of what he can bill my time for, as dictated by our clients. The rest is diverted to operating expenses, profitability etc.

If I want more money, I must figure out a way to accomplish a higher volume of work per unit of time or assume additional responsibilities. This, to me, is equitable. My employer had a financial advisor who at the very least was incompetent, if not outright dishonest. He lost a significant amount of my my employers money moving it around in some highly questionable transactions where he got paid win, lose or draw, and earned a very handsome living in the process. This is inequitable, IMO.

I did not say “equal”, as in let’s take all the money, put it in a big pile and distribute it evenly amongst the population.

[quote]batman730 wrote:
My employer had a financial advisor who at the very least was incompetent, if not outright dishonest. He lost a significant amount of my my employers money moving it around in some highly questionable transactions where he got paid win, lose or draw, and earned a very handsome living in the process. This is inequitable, IMO.
[/quote]

What people fail to recognize (not necessarily you) is that your employer (the CEO) is liable (depending on a number of factors) for his poor decision to hire a dishonest financial adviser. Had this decision bankrupt the business you would unfortunately be out of a job. He would be out of business and could possible lose everything he owns. This alone is reason enough for “management” to make significantly more money than low skill workers.

No one ever talks about sharing the risk equitably.

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]CLUNK wrote:
Very well said.
[/quote]

Well said, but irrelevant. [/quote]

It was a bunch of feelings. Could have been a young adult novel really.

That’s the problem with people on that side of the spectrum, they don’t (and often can’t) think about things because they feel about them.

People keep talking about “fair” and “equal distribution of wealth” and so on and so forth, and never put any numbers to match the feeling words they use to describe things. There is a reason for it. [/quote]

FTR, I said “equitable” distribution of wealth, as in fair or just based on contributions. For instance my employer pays me roughly 30% of what he can bill my time for, as dictated by our clients. The rest is diverted to operating expenses, profitability etc.

If I want more money, I must figure out a way to accomplish a higher volume of work per unit of time or assume additional responsibilities. This, to me, is equitable. My employer had a financial advisor who at the very least was incompetent, if not outright dishonest. He lost a significant amount of my my employers money moving it around in some highly questionable transactions where he got paid win, lose or draw, and earned a very handsome living in the process. This is inequitable, IMO.

I did not say “equal”, as in let’s take all the money, put it in a big pile and distribute it evenly amongst the population.[/quote]

Fair enough.

And what you describe in the first paragraph is, unfortunately for the “Wal MArt can afford to pay more, look at their profit” crowd, is the way the real world works.

Like Push said, if all the bleeding hearts started a business and paid people what they thought was “fair” one of two things would happen:

  1. They’d quickly realize what “market wages” means, and no longer hold their “feel good” opinions because they had facts and experience to back it up. The world would be a better place.

  2. It would work, they would be successful and the world would be a better place.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

No one ever talks about sharing the risk equitably. [/quote]

lmao, nope. Never.

It’s “society” that made you a success, but I don’t see Bam and Liz blaming “society” for all the bankruptcies.

Guess who gets paid first and foremost in 11 or 7? Employees and their owed wages. Second? The IRS. Third? The rest of the world, a long and distant third.

Also, someone mentioned divided payout as if it were a bad thing. Ownership (stock) of a public company is a pretty significant reason why public companies can employee the number of people they do. Dividend payout and rising stock prices are pretty damn important to the financial health and employment opportunities of a company like McDonald’s.

Further, the fast food industry, specifically public corporations, seems to always be the example used to show how unfair wages are for low skilled people. I would challenge each of you in this camp to consider the ramifications a forced wage increase has on all other industries and especially non-public companies. Raising wage are a significant hurdle for small business’ especially.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2013/07/19/how-she-lives-on-minimum-wage-one-mcdonalds-workers-budget/2/

Please someone explain to me why I should feel bad for this person??

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Further, the fast food industry, specifically public corporations, seems to always be the example used to show how unfair wages are for low skilled people. I would challenge each of you in this camp to consider the ramifications a forced wage increase has on all other industries and especially non-public companies. Raising wage are a significant hurdle for small business’ especially. [/quote]

Let’s also ignore the whole “franchise” thing, and the profit of your local chain store =/= the profit of the parent (publicly traded) company.

I have a client that owns a couple dozen chain fast food joints… A lot of people just don’t get it. And it comes back to feeling rather than thinking. Thinking would involve actually looking into a situation to form an opinion. Don’t need to do that much work when you feel it out.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Let’s also ignore the whole “franchise” thing, and the profit of your local chain store =/= the profit of the parent (publicly traded) company.
[/quote]

Ya, I pointed that out earlier in reply to a link provided. I’m curious to see the response.

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2013/07/19/how-she-lives-on-minimum-wage-one-mcdonalds-workers-budget/2/

Please someone explain to me why I should feel bad for this person??[/quote]

I’ll say it’s a shame she’s made some poor choices that landed her in the position she’s in and I hope she finds a way to climb out of the hole she’s dug herself.

^ I like the update at the end…

"Update, July 20, 1:20pm: This post has been updated to reflect that the reporter found out in the course of the interview that Iverson has four children. "

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]CLUNK wrote:
Very well said.
[/quote]

Well said, but irrelevant. [/quote]

It was a bunch of feelings. Could have been a young adult novel really.

That’s the problem with people on that side of the spectrum, they don’t (and often can’t) think about things because they feel about them.

People keep talking about “fair” and “equal distribution of wealth” and so on and so forth, and never put any numbers to match the feeling words they use to describe things. There is a reason for it. [/quote]

If people don’t choose to take advantage of the ENORMOUS opportunity here in the USA, then I have NO sympathy whatsoever. No one is ENTITLED to SHIT. But it’s at ALL ends of the spectrum.

For example, I’m a couple of grand short of earning 250K for the year so far. There are other electricians in my company who are talking shit about me because I earned that much. They call me “big money”, and say things like, “must be nice!” in a passive aggressive way. Newsflash: I worked 3565 hours as of last paycheck so far this year… THAT’S how I earned that much! I certainly didn’t do it sitting on my ass…

Then they want to talk shit because I’m not a fat ass! When I tell them I get up at 3:45 AM, hit the gym between 5:00 and 5:45 before work and practice intermittent fasting to keep my body fat levels where I want them, they look at me like I’m crazy. It’s the same thing: they don’t want to WORK for it, they want it handed to them on a silver platter.

People are stupid.

People are lazy.

People want shit handed to them.

They don’t want to sacrifice their “want’s” to meet their goals. That’s IF they have any goals to begin with…

People WANT to make a lot of money. But the DON’T want to do what it takes to EARN a lot of money.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2013/07/19/how-she-lives-on-minimum-wage-one-mcdonalds-workers-budget/2/

Please someone explain to me why I should feel bad for this person??[/quote]

I’ll say it’s a shame she’s made some poor choices that landed her in the position she’s in and I hope she finds a way to climb out of the hole she’s dug herself. [/quote]

Yeah, she made some bad choices, but how is that McDonald’s problem that she had 4 kids while she was living in a homeless shelter. Big tip there is stop having kids. And the whole “I was late and they wouldn’t even let me get all my hours in. I am the best employee they got.” attitude really didn’t help her case there.

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2013/07/19/how-she-lives-on-minimum-wage-one-mcdonalds-workers-budget/2/

Please someone explain to me why I should feel bad for this person??[/quote]

I’ll say it’s a shame she’s made some poor choices that landed her in the position she’s in and I hope she finds a way to climb out of the hole she’s dug herself. [/quote]

Yeah, she made some bad choices, but how is that McDonald’s problem that she had 4 kids while she was living in a homeless shelter. Big tip there is stop having kids. And the whole “I was late and they wouldn’t even let me get all my hours in. I am the best employee they got.” attitude really didn’t help her case there.
[/quote]

Yup, I’m with you. It’s not McDonald’s problem to solve.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No I haven’t. All I know is that using the terms poverty and America in the same sentence is tough for me to swallow.
[/quote]

The issue is that the middle class that stays afloat and above are living better than any person in the history of the world.

But, in absolute numbers, are there are also more people in poverty today than ever in the history of the world.

Just because the country itself is immensely rich doesn’t mean that it applies to the actual people living in it.

As Countingbeans alluded to, there is always a problem when you try to look at the issue in a general manner. It becomes an emotional issue and you think the fix is simple or obvious or w.e. Reality is always quite different.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No I haven’t. All I know is that using the terms poverty and America in the same sentence is tough for me to swallow.
[/quote]

The issue is that the middle class that stays afloat and above are living better than any person in the history of the world.

But, in absolute numbers, are there are also more people in poverty today than ever in the history of the world.

Just because the country itself is immensely rich doesn’t mean that it applies to the actual people living in it.

As Countingbeans alluded to, there is always a problem when you try to look at the issue in a general manner. It becomes an emotional issue and you think the fix is simple or obvious or w.e. Reality is always quite different.[/quote]

But many of those “in poverty” are receiving enough govt assistance that they actually aren’t “living” in poverty. But it makes the numbers look better. If you actually made them live in poverty maybe they would be more likely to try to dig themselves out of their holes and less content to just sit back and freeload.