McDonald's is helping their employees
Replies
-
I happen to feel that one should be paid based on the value of the work they do and not based on their personal need. Should corporations be held to a higher standard and pay based on a person's need rather then the value of the work they do?
So do I.
The culture of entitlement that has developed is driving this. I "need" an iphone, I "need" designer sneakers, I "need" jewelry and cars and a huge mansion to live in. Problem is, I haven't EARNED any of that if all I am capable of is running the register at McD's.0 -
From the article:The health insurance expense should have actually said 'health care expenses' and that figure was based on a co-payment for a doctor's visit," she wrote in an email to CNBC.
Um...so where's the health insurance line-item?
And yeah, their budget thing is kind of laughable and shows the disconnect between the people the made it and the people that actually need it - http://www.practicalmoneyskills.com/mcdonalds/documents/McD_Journal2.pdf
What I can tell is missing (+ minimum costs):
Health insurance (assuming the above quote) +$40/mo
Gas for the car (since the only cars I know of that don't need gas don't cost $150/mo) +$120/mo (10 gallon tank, weekly fillup)
Food +$200/mo (depending on number of people)
Child care (there goes that $750/mo "spending money") +$500/mo
Credit cards (technically; it's easy to argue that credit cards aren't mandatory, but they're generally a fact of life in a poor household, because you can't really choose whether the fix the car (or put gas in it) so you can get to work, or feed your family)
Bills from education (remember, not everyone who's poor was always like that, and maybe they've tried to better themselves, but haven't yet had that big payoff everyone promises comes with an education)
What I can tell is underfunded:
Health Insurance (for most people)
Rent (in some places; even in my city, which has some of the lowest cost of living in the country, the cheapest I've ever seen is $400 for an efficiency)
Electric (if the everything but heat are electric, consider yourself lucky if it's not three digits, that's stove, water heater, a/c, fridge, etc)
"Cable/Phone" doesn't appear to include Internet, if it's cable, phone, and Internet, make that closer to $150 depending on the options available to you ($20 for phone, $75 for cable, $55 for Internet, or thereabouts).
I applaud the fact that they attempt, but it, frankly, seems rather unrealistic. According to the article, they took the "average of minimum wage workers," which, also from the article, evidently means that not all minimum wage workers have a full plate of expenses (they're teens, live at home, live with roommates, etc). So, instead of making it a thing of "here's an example of living on your own with a minimum wage job," it's more of a "here's what you can do when you only have half of the expenses that are actually required."0 -
I happen to feel that one should be paid based on the value of the work they do and not based on their personal need. Should corporations be held to a higher standard and pay based on a person's need rather then the value of the work they do?
So do I.
The culture of entitlement that has developed is driving this. I "need" an iphone, I "need" designer sneakers, I "need" jewelry and cars and a huge mansion to live in. Problem is, I haven't EARNED any of that if all I am capable of is running the register at McD's.
Except in most places, minimum wage doesn't even pay for things that truly are necessities. By your logic, one doesn't "need" food on the table, even a basic roof over their head (preferably in a neighborhood that doesn't require bulletproof glass on the windows), or transportation to the job in question. The cities that have the jobs that would allow people to move up also only have housing that is well beyond a minimum wage budget.
The problem I see with responses like these is that it reeks of the crap spewed between the different generations. The Baby Boomers love telling the Millennials to just go an get a job, even flipping burgers, and to go get an education to "better themselves." The problem is, when the economy tanks, even the burger joints aren't hiring, and even if they are, they're not going to hire someone with a higher education background, because they'll move on to greener pastures at the first chance they get.
"I can't get a job."
"Well, you're not too good to flip burgers."
"Hey, a burger joint actually hired me, but I still don't make enough and can't get enough hours to afford rent, food, and transportation."
"So go get a degree."
"I have a Bachelor's in Computer Science, but the economy has tanked, so I can't get a job."
"Well, you're not too good to flip burgers."
"The burger joints seem to think otherwise. Thanks to having a degree, they say I'm 'overqualified' and refuse to hire me."0 -
Is that really capitalism? I would think in its purest form there simply wouldn't be any government support for the poor and the unemployed.
Nothing is ever in it's purest form. As Homer J Simpson once said, "In theory, communism works."0 -
they're not going to hire someone with a higher education background, because they'll move on to greener pastures at the first chance they get.
Except that the thing... minimum wage jobs are typically high turn over anyway, regardless of education level. Even manual labor jobs that require some skill are typically high turn over. Mostly because a decent portion of people working in those are doing so as they were designed to be worked... as a temporary job, not a career. Having worked in fast food before the majority of us had no intention of staying there for any longer than we needed and as soon as we found better jobs and opportunities we got the hell out of there. The only people that had an intent on staying there were those that were just working to supplement household income or the family that owned the business... Hell, even my manager (who was the son of the owner) got the hell out of that business as fast as he could... but that was a family thing.0 -
I happen to feel that one should be paid based on the value of the work they do and not based on their personal need. Should corporations be held to a higher standard and pay based on a person's need rather then the value of the work they do?
So do I.
The culture of entitlement that has developed is driving this. I "need" an iphone, I "need" designer sneakers, I "need" jewelry and cars and a huge mansion to live in. Problem is, I haven't EARNED any of that if all I am capable of is running the register at McD's.
Except in most places, minimum wage doesn't even pay for things that truly are necessities. By your logic, one doesn't "need" food on the table, even a basic roof over their head (preferably in a neighborhood that doesn't require bulletproof glass on the windows), or transportation to the job in question. The cities that have the jobs that would allow people to move up also only have housing that is well beyond a minimum wage budget.
The problem I see with responses like these is that it reeks of the crap spewed between the different generations. The Baby Boomers love telling the Millennials to just go an get a job, even flipping burgers, and to go get an education to "better themselves." The problem is, when the economy tanks, even the burger joints aren't hiring, and even if they are, they're not going to hire someone with a higher education background, because they'll move on to greener pastures at the first chance they get.
"I can't get a job."
"Well, you're not too good to flip burgers."
"Hey, a burger joint actually hired me, but I still don't make enough and can't get enough hours to afford rent, food, and transportation."
"So go get a degree."
"I have a Bachelor's in Computer Science, but the economy has tanked, so I can't get a job."
"Well, you're not too good to flip burgers."
"The burger joints seem to think otherwise. Thanks to having a degree, they say I'm 'overqualified' and refuse to hire me."
You just described what was once my situation. Electrical mechanical engineer major living in NYC. Thank God for mom. I couldn't find a job in my field. I had no problems finding jobs at McDonalds, or Dunkin Donuts or many other retail chains. Now I'm in the financial sector. So It's my experience, doesn't mean it's everyones. But you have to admit, kids are very prideful. They will tell you themselves, "I ain't flippin' no burgers!", or "I'm nobody's servant."0 -
I happen to feel that one should be paid based on the value of the work they do and not based on their personal need. Should corporations be held to a higher standard and pay based on a person's need rather then the value of the work they do?
So do I.
The culture of entitlement that has developed is driving this. I "need" an iphone, I "need" designer sneakers, I "need" jewelry and cars and a huge mansion to live in. Problem is, I haven't EARNED any of that if all I am capable of is running the register at McD's.
Except in most places, minimum wage doesn't even pay for things that truly are necessities. By your logic, one doesn't "need" food on the table, even a basic roof over their head (preferably in a neighborhood that doesn't require bulletproof glass on the windows), or transportation to the job in question. The cities that have the jobs that would allow people to move up also only have housing that is well beyond a minimum wage budget.
The problem I see with responses like these is that it reeks of the crap spewed between the different generations. The Baby Boomers love telling the Millennials to just go an get a job, even flipping burgers, and to go get an education to "better themselves." The problem is, when the economy tanks, even the burger joints aren't hiring, and even if they are, they're not going to hire someone with a higher education background, because they'll move on to greener pastures at the first chance they get.
"I can't get a job."
"Well, you're not too good to flip burgers."
"Hey, a burger joint actually hired me, but I still don't make enough and can't get enough hours to afford rent, food, and transportation."
"So go get a degree."
"I have a Bachelor's in Computer Science, but the economy has tanked, so I can't get a job."
"Well, you're not too good to flip burgers."
"The burger joints seem to think otherwise. Thanks to having a degree, they say I'm 'overqualified' and refuse to hire me."
Just to be clear... You are saying that a person should be paid based on their need and not based on the work?
Also... I know you probably just used this as an example but I think it is a bad one. Can you introduce me to the person with a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science that can't get a job? I have that degree and get daily unsolicited recruitment emails/calls. My office has been trying to fill 7 IT jobs for 6 months unsuccessfully.0 -
Just to be clear... You are saying that a person should be paid based on their need and not based on the work?
Also... I know you probably just used this as an example but I think it is a bad one. Can you introduce me to the person with a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science that can't get a job? I have that degree and get daily unsolicited recruitment emails/calls. My office has been trying to fill 7 IT jobs for 6 months unsuccessfully.
I think the problem here is people don't want to move... There was a big news story in the area of this guy, who used to work for Texas Instruments... He is an engineer (I can't remember which field though). Well he was laid off and can't find a job... Hell, even the POTUS couldn't find him a job... why? It wasn't because there aren't jobs available for him... it's because he is divorced and his children from a previous marriage are here... while I get the not wanting to leave your children... surely there has to be some way you can make arrangements with your ex in order for you to move to where a job is.0 -
I happen to feel that one should be paid based on the value of the work they do and not based on their personal need. Should corporations be held to a higher standard and pay based on a person's need rather then the value of the work they do?
So do I.
The culture of entitlement that has developed is driving this. I "need" an iphone, I "need" designer sneakers, I "need" jewelry and cars and a huge mansion to live in. Problem is, I haven't EARNED any of that if all I am capable of is running the register at McD's.
Except in most places, minimum wage doesn't even pay for things that truly are necessities. By your logic, one doesn't "need" food on the table, even a basic roof over their head (preferably in a neighborhood that doesn't require bulletproof glass on the windows), or transportation to the job in question. The cities that have the jobs that would allow people to move up also only have housing that is well beyond a minimum wage budget.
The problem I see with responses like these is that it reeks of the crap spewed between the different generations. The Baby Boomers love telling the Millennials to just go an get a job, even flipping burgers, and to go get an education to "better themselves." The problem is, when the economy tanks, even the burger joints aren't hiring, and even if they are, they're not going to hire someone with a higher education background, because they'll move on to greener pastures at the first chance they get.
"I can't get a job."
"Well, you're not too good to flip burgers."
"Hey, a burger joint actually hired me, but I still don't make enough and can't get enough hours to afford rent, food, and transportation."
"So go get a degree."
"I have a Bachelor's in Computer Science, but the economy has tanked, so I can't get a job."
"Well, you're not too good to flip burgers."
"The burger joints seem to think otherwise. Thanks to having a degree, they say I'm 'overqualified' and refuse to hire me."
Just to be clear... You are saying that a person should be paid based on their need and not based on the work?
Also... I know you probably just used this as an example but I think it is a bad one. Can you introduce me to the person with a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science that can't get a job? I have that degree and get daily unsolicited recruitment emails/calls. My office has been trying to fill 7 IT jobs for 6 months unsuccessfully.
I'm saying that wages (based on a typical 40-hour week) should be enough to cover basic needs, such as food and shelter, for the area the establishment serves. I'm not talking a McMansion and a BMW, but in many places, minimum wage can't even get an efficiency apartment and bus fare. A person shouldn't have to spend every waking hour working, just to have a place to stay and food on the table.
Regarding my example - it may be a bad one now, but (at least in my area) the IT sector got hit just as hard in 2009ish as most other industries. I, personally, spent nearly a year unemployed, with a Computer Information Systems Bachelor in hand, because I had the misfortune of having just shy of a year's worth of experience on top of my education when I got laid off, and everyone around me was looking for "entry level" people with 2+ years of experience (so the job postings said).0 -
Just to be clear... You are saying that a person should be paid based on their need and not based on the work?
Also... I know you probably just used this as an example but I think it is a bad one. Can you introduce me to the person with a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science that can't get a job? I have that degree and get daily unsolicited recruitment emails/calls. My office has been trying to fill 7 IT jobs for 6 months unsuccessfully.
I think the problem here is people don't want to move... There was a big news story in the area of this guy, who used to work for Texas Instruments... He is an engineer (I can't remember which field though). Well he was laid off and can't find a job... Hell, even the POTUS couldn't find him a job... why? It wasn't because there aren't jobs available for him... it's because he is divorced and his children from a previous marriage are here... while I get the not wanting to leave your children... surely there has to be some way you can make arrangements with your ex in order for you to move to where a job is.
In most cases, it's not because someone doesn't want to move, but because they can't. Moving is expensive. Even in the best of circumstances, you'll likely to have to double up on rent (finish the old place, start the new). Then, there's also the matter of getting a job. Only a small number of places offer decent moving assistance, and most places bias their search to people who are already local. So, if you don't get lucky with a job offer, you're stuck trying to move outright, or "soft move", to the new city, with no income, until you find a new job. People who are already poor can't afford to do that.
In regard to your example - it's very likely not that he doesn't want to move, but that the terms of his divorce are such that moving is impossible, for any of a number of reasons, not the least of which being financially. Sure, there's a job three states away that will take him, but he'll end up spending extraordinary amounts in transportation to hold up his end of the joint custody agreement. Unfortunately, not all divorces are civil in any way, shape, or form. The parent with primary custody may fight to get some high amount of child support if the other parent moves out of state. I don't know about you, but I've seen some crazy "exes", and even what I've mentioned here is on the very tame side.0 -
at what point are individuals going to decide to try and do better for themselves rather than relegate themselves to working jobs that are better suited for high school and college students?
when ppl
:mad: have had their health, mind, and life completely ripped apart by incurable, untreatable, invisible illness and physical disability
:mad: have been unable to work due to physical disability and have received food stamps and SSDI
:mad: are living with CRUSHING DEBT thanks to the ATTEMPTED education which they had to abort due to said illness/disability
:mad: have lost jobs/opportunities/education due to illness/disability and subsequently have a completely FUHJACKED resume
:mad: have been judged and condemned by a world full of ppl who refuse to understand/accept that a person can BE sick without LOOKING sick
:mad: are stuck on the low-income treadmill and cannot afford any education or training to 'better' themselves (let alone health insurance)
:mad: have been FORCED to accept and live with umitigated pain (physical and emotional), limitation, and unfairness
:mad: have learned that sometimes life takes a big crap on you and there's nothing you can do about it
...then they tend to be happy with the fact that they even have a sh***y job to begin with and DNGAF about 'bettering themselves' in the eyes of judgy f***s like you.
just sayin.0 -
I'm saying that wages (based on a typical 40-hour week) should be enough to cover basic needs, such as food and shelter, for the area the establishment serves. I'm not talking a McMansion and a BMW, but in many places, minimum wage can't even get an efficiency apartment and bus fare. A person shouldn't have to spend every waking hour working, just to have a place to stay and food on the table.
When I was little and my dad wasn't making enough to put food on the table and cover his child support, he got a second job.
There is a reason many people who make good money work 60-70 hours a week.. I think it is ridiculous to think that someone should be able to support themselves on a 40 hour a week, minimum wage paying job. I am kind of stuck where I am now, I really need to make more money so I am studying and learning new things on my own time to move up or find something to do on the side.
Why should we punish others to make sure a person can live off of a minimum effort? You want to pay someone more then the product they are putting out is going to cost more. Period. They want to live more comfortably then they should be working for that kind of position.
Spoiled, give- me society we have become.0 -
I'm saying that wages (based on a typical 40-hour week) should be enough to cover basic needs, such as food and shelter, for the area the establishment serves. I'm not talking a McMansion and a BMW, but in many places, minimum wage can't even get an efficiency apartment and bus fare. A person shouldn't have to spend every waking hour working, just to have a place to stay and food on the table.
When I was little and my dad wasn't making enough to put food on the table and cover his child support, he got a second job.
There is a reason many people who make good money work 60-70 hours a week.. I think it is ridiculous to think that someone should be able to support themselves on a 40 hour a week, minimum wage paying job. I am kind of stuck where I am now, I really need to make more money so I am studying and learning new things on my own time to move up or find something to do on the side.
Why should we punish others to make sure a person can live off of a minimum effort? You want to pay someone more then the product they are putting out is going to cost more. Period. They want to live more comfortably then they should be working for that kind of position.
Spoiled, give- me society we have become.
Who says working "only" 40 hours equates to "minimum effort"? And who says that the minimum wage jobs are "minimum effort"? I don't know about you, but last time I worked in food service and retail, I busted my *kitten*.
Also, your "people who make good money work 60-70 hours a week" are nearly all salaried, executive level people. They work that long, because they feel, and want to look like, they're "more productive", despite the mounds of research that shows pretty clearly that working that many hours isn't more productive (and, in fact, can be detrimental, as fatigue builds up). And by being salaried, they'd get paid just the same if they worked a more sane schedule.
Also, if you have to work two jobs just to put food on the table, you very likely don't have any time left to study (not any meaningful amount to change your employment) or do something "on the side," because somewhere in there, you have other responsibilities to tend to, such as sleeping. (As an aside, retail often makes it very difficult to work a second job, due to the hours, and the unwritten caveat of "if you want hours, we need you when it's convenient for us, so don't bother blacking anything out").
As I said, I'm not saying that a full-time, minimum wage job should allow a person to have a giant house and a fancy car, but it should be enough that they don't have to choose between paying for the transportation to get to work and having a half-decent meal that day, because if you have to work every waking out just to get to that point, then there isn't really any realistic way for you to get out of that situation short of blind luck. By providing a livable (albeit minimally so) wage, a person can then spend the remainder of their time and effort doing things to better themselves.
It's Psych 101, really - Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - food, safety, and shelter come above all else, and only when you can obtain those can you achieve the others. If you can't obtain those basic needs, then you can never reach the higher needs. Paying enough to cover basic food and shelter needs provides the foundation that allows people to better themselves and actually "make something of themselves," because they don't have to work up to being able to eat and put gas in the car (or buy this month's bus fare).
If that's indicative of a "spoiled, give-me society" to you, then you and I will never see eye to eye. And yes, I busted my *kitten* to get to where I am today. I've worked the low-paying jobs, while going to school full-time, and it was a combination of luck and a generous family member that kept me from being homeless entirely and able to keep going. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have that, though.0
This discussion has been closed.