Fast Food Workers Strikes = Win for better health

smittybuilt19

Why does my boss need $75k when all I have is $29K?


My point, which was missed by my lack of sarcastic font, is that it's nobody's place to say how much is enough. A poster above asked what anyone could possibly need a billion dollars for.


If I want what he has I should maybe consider going back to school for a BS then quite possibly a masters since that's what he did.

stevencloser

I have to say this thread is very interesting and has reveled a lot. Many people are very jealous of others success. They don't feel they deserve it. They want to take from one group and give it to another just based on what they perceive to be fair. I wonder how the same people would feel If I thought it would be fair to give some of their salary to other employees in the company ... to be fair you are making more then so and so and he /deserves more money.

Sad but this thread is just a microcosm of what is going on in our society today.

A lot of pitting one group against another in the name of fairness.

I agree with this. I had a response pages back about what it takes to start a business, the money time and money, the years of no profit because you're putting everything back into what you're starting and got scoffed at. Obviously there aren't a lot of business owners that are responding to this topic. If there were then there would be a lot more understanding instead of outrage and the "It's not FAAAAIIIIIIR!"

Not every entrepreneur came from money.

You are right on the money...
People don't realize what it takes to start and run your own biz. If they did they wouldn't be so quick to give other peoples money away.

And that applies to this thread how? Is there a great concern over the number of startup, mom & pop, fast food restaurants out there?

Ray Kroc has been dead a long time people. You don't need to worry about him. For the most part we're discussing billion dollar a year, multi-national corporations. Mom & pop joints barely even hire minimum wage employees, they do those jobs themselves to save money.

Who's talking about a Mom & Pop joint? You really don't think it takes a lot of time and effort to create a business that is worth billions of dollars? Do you think these multi billion dollar companies were magically created?

ETA: Have you ever watched the show The Shark Tank where every day people who have a business or an ideago to investors with their ideas because they need money to grow and expand. They're every day people who have a dream of making billions of dollars. Is that wrong of them? Should they not seek additional funding because they want to expand?

A lot of these people have sunk their time and hard earned money into their idea and their business and have no funds left to expand. THAT is how a multi-billion dollar company is created.

Back when those multi billion dollar companies became multi billion dollar companies, minimum wage was proportionally higher than now when adjusted for inflation.

365andstillalive

I have to say this thread is very interesting and has reveled a lot. Many people are very jealous of others success. They don't feel they deserve it. They want to take from one group and give it to another just based on what they perceive to be fair. I wonder how the same people would feel If I thought it would be fair to give some of their salary to other employees in the company ... to be fair you are making more then so and so and he /deserves more money.

Sad but this thread is just a microcosm of what is going on in our society today.

A lot of pitting one group against another in the name of fairness.

There's actually a word for what you're describing; it's called "charitable contributions".

I've worked hard to get where I am; I did a four year degree while working 2-3 part time jobs at a time (in the summers 1 full time, 2 part time) and basically didn't sleep to finance that. I've got experience in my field, I'm fantastic at my job, and I've built a skill set that is hard to come by, so I'm well compensated for it.

I do think that those who make more than enough to take care of themselves and whoever may be dependent on them should be helping those who are struggling, because quite frankly, if you're middle to upper class and you can pay your bills, you live in a country where you have access to clean water, food, etc it's not a crazy concept to think that you should be willing to help others who didn't happen to win the birth lottery (whether in your own country or abroad).

I put 10% (sometimes more) of my income towards charitable contributions and I've never made more than 12k a year (and don't worry, I've got student debt, I pay rent and utilities, I own a car which I have insurance on, buy my own food etc). If everyone in the world who could afford to put 10%, hell, 1% of the money they made towards helping others we would be significantly better off as a global society.

There is a big difference between deciding to donate a percentage of ones money to their charity of choice and taking what you earned and distributing it evenly out among the masses. THAT is what people are talking about.

Like the first person said if everyone feels that higher ups should take the profits and distribute it to the employees to make it "fair" then those who make a bit more than someone else in their department should share their paycheck too so that everyone's earnings are the same.

Seriously how would you feel if you had to do that?

I actually haven't seen a lot of posts asking for things to be distributed evenly; what people are asking for is a liveable wage.

I have a bachelors, if someone else has a Ph.D, of course I expect them to make more than I do. In the same way that if I have 5 experience in a field (education or not), and someone else has 10, I still expect to make less.

But being able to feed yourself, to have the financial freedom to have a child, to know that you can pay rent; these aren't things that I think should be exclusive to those who have sought a post secondary education or were born into the middle and upper classes and found ways to use their connections and resources to find better than minimum wage positions.

I'm not even advocating that there shouldn't be a difference between minimum wage and a qualified wage, but when minimum wage is literally defined as being able to provide the basic necessities and it stops being able to do that on an agreed upon full time, 44 hour work week, that's a pretty significant issue.

This link speaks to Canada specifically (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/topics-sujets/minimumwage-salaireminimum/minimumwage-salaireminimum-2009-eng.htm) but you'll notice that in most provinces, there's at least a $10 difference between minimum wage and the average paid wage.

Why would you be so offended to only make lets say, $8 less than others so that they could afford the necessities to stay alive?

So I guess, yes, if the top guy in an organization let's say is making $100 an hour. If he took a paycut by let's say 10%, so $10 an hour and redistributed that among his lowest paid workers, he would still have enough to survive, but so would others.

There's a balance, if you understand what I'm trying to say. There's no reason that in such wealthy societies we should have families who can't afford to feed their children, a rising level of homelessness, etc.

**Editing to add that if my company asked me to take a $1-2 an hour pay decrease to pay someone at the bottom a little more so that they could continue to have a place to live and food to eat, I'd do it in a heartbeat. And I'd like to think that I'm not the exception to the rule, because if I am, that says some pretty terrible things about our society.

ninerbuff

If for some reason minimum wage does get raised, I'm betting that workers will end up with double the workload they have now. Not from an increase on time on the clock mind you (probably will get less hours if this happens), but increase in actually workload when at work.
Also I don't know of hardly any corporate establishments anymore that give 40 hour work weeks to minimum wage employees. This way having them a part time worker, relieves the company of any paid leave and/or benefits.

A.C.E. Certified Group Fitness and Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

DataSeven

And once again... I get to paraphrase yet another comedian in George Carlin... this thread is an illustration of what he said about the middle class and the poor.

What the ruling class do in this country is keep the middle class and the poor fighting with each other so that they, the wealthy, can run off with all the f*cking money.

You need a billion dollars so you can roll around in it, fine. But isn't the point of taxes to redistribute wealth? Taxes are the government taking from 'you' and giving to 'us'. If Rich Uncle Pennybags shouldn't have to give any of his money to those dirty, lazy poors, then that means you think he shouldn't have to pay any taxes at all.

If you want to question me about 'how much is too much wealth', then 'how much is enough' taxes? And who are YOU to decide what is 'too much'? Two can play at that game

bugaboo_sue

So I guess, yes, if the top guy in an organization let's say is making $100 an hour. If he took a paycut by let's say 10%, so $10 an hour and redistributed that among his lowest paid workers, he would still have enough to survive, but so would others.

There's a balance, if you understand what I'm trying to say. There's no reason that in such wealthy societies we should have families who can't afford to feed their children, a rising level of homelessness, etc.

Ok but if I'm working hard and I've earned that $100/hour by putting in the extra time, sacrificing my personal life and my family to rise in the organization so that I can make more money why should I give some of my paycheck to someone who isn't willing to work hard and go the extra mile to better themselves and make more? If someone who earns $7/hour knows that they're going to get part of a paycheck from someone who earns $100/hr and they don't have to do a damn thing for it where is the incentive to try and make more money?

365andstillalive

So I guess, yes, if the top guy in an organization let's say is making $100 an hour. If he took a paycut by let's say 10%, so $10 an hour and redistributed that among his lowest paid workers, he would still have enough to survive, but so would others.

There's a balance, if you understand what I'm trying to say. There's no reason that in such wealthy societies we should have families who can't afford to feed their children, a rising level of homelessness, etc.

Ok but if I'm working hard and I've earned that $100/hour by putting in the extra time, sacrificing my personal life and my family to rise in the organization so that I can make more money why should I give some of my paycheck to someone who isn't willing to work hard and go the extra mile to better themselves and make more? If someone who earns $7/hour knows that they're going to get part of a paycheck from someone who earns $100/hr and they don't have to do a damn thing for it where is the incentive to try and make more money?

Here's my confusion, where does your belief come from that people who work for minimum wage aren't working hard? Minimum wage jobs by and large are demeaning, fast food especially comes with constant safety risk from grease burns etc.
Money isn't the only incentive to work hard. In my company, we pay well because then we can hire the best people and expect the best from them, and by creating that circle of safety where they know financially we will help to take care of them, I get the best work from people that they will give to anyone. Fear is not the only way to drive success and results.

bugaboo_sue

Here's my confusion, where does your belief come from that people who work for minimum wage aren't working hard?

Probably from working with people who were lazy and sat back and rode the waves of those who worked hard. My last job I worked my butt off to get promotions and raises and bonus'. I took up the slack for a lot of people who just sat back and did the minimal amount of work and still got their raise and bonus and then complained that it wasn't "enough".

stevencloser

So I guess, yes, if the top guy in an organization let's say is making $100 an hour. If he took a paycut by let's say 10%, so $10 an hour and redistributed that among his lowest paid workers, he would still have enough to survive, but so would others.

There's a balance, if you understand what I'm trying to say. There's no reason that in such wealthy societies we should have families who can't afford to feed their children, a rising level of homelessness, etc.

Ok but if I'm working hard and I've earned that $100/hour by putting in the extra time, sacrificing my personal life and my family to rise in the organization so that I can make more money why should I give some of my paycheck to someone who isn't willing to work hard and go the extra mile to better themselves and make more? If someone who earns $7/hour knows that they're going to get part of a paycheck from someone who earns $100/hr and they don't have to do a damn thing for it where is the incentive to try and make more money?

Who decides that you earned that $100/hour more than the one getting $7 per hour? By the amount of work you did? Can you quantify that you're doing 14 times as much work as someone else and thus earned getting 14 times as much money? Especially if you're in the position to decide who gets how much, your view might be a tiny bit skewed.

Since people are quoting comedians here, let me do that too. Chris Rock. "Do you know what that means when someone pays you minimum wage? Your boss was trying to say 'Hey, if I could pay you less, I would. But it's against the law.'" Servers in restaurants can probably relate.

bugaboo_sue

So I guess, yes, if the top guy in an organization let's say is making $100 an hour. If he took a paycut by let's say 10%, so $10 an hour and redistributed that among his lowest paid workers, he would still have enough to survive, but so would others.

There's a balance, if you understand what I'm trying to say. There's no reason that in such wealthy societies we should have families who can't afford to feed their children, a rising level of homelessness, etc.

Ok but if I'm working hard and I've earned that $100/hour by putting in the extra time, sacrificing my personal life and my family to rise in the organization so that I can make more money why should I give some of my paycheck to someone who isn't willing to work hard and go the extra mile to better themselves and make more? If someone who earns $7/hour knows that they're going to get part of a paycheck from someone who earns $100/hr and they don't have to do a damn thing for it where is the incentive to try and make more money?

Who decides that you earned that $100/hour more than the one getting $7 per hour? By the amount of work you did? Can you quantify that you're doing 14 times as much work as someone else and thus earned getting 14 times as much money? Especially if you're in the position to decide who gets how much, your view might be a tiny bit skewed.

Since people are quoting comedians here, let me do that too. Chris Rock. "Do you know what that means when someone pays you minimum wage? Your boss was trying to say 'Hey, if I could pay you less, I would. But it's against the law.'" Servers in restaurants can probably relate.

Actually in my old job I could indeed have quantified that I was doing 14 times as much work as someone else.

jmt08c

http://www.cnet.com/news/mcdonalds-hires-7000-touch-screen-cashiers/

Mcdonald's answer.

365andstillalive

Here's my confusion, where does your belief come from that people who work for minimum wage aren't working hard?

Probably from working with people who were lazy and sat back and rode the waves of those who worked hard. My last job I worked my butt off to get promotions and raises and bonus'. I took up the slack for a lot of people who just sat back and did the minimal amount of work and still got their raise and bonus and then complained that it wasn't "enough".

I'm sorry that's been your experience, however I can assure you that hasn't been everyones.

Your experience isn't universal, and therefore doesn't apply to all minimum wage working people.

bennettinfinity

So I guess, yes, if the top guy in an organization let's say is making $100 an hour. If he took a paycut by let's say 10%, so $10 an hour and redistributed that among his lowest paid workers, he would still have enough to survive, but so would others.

There's a balance, if you understand what I'm trying to say. There's no reason that in such wealthy societies we should have families who can't afford to feed their children, a rising level of homelessness, etc.

Ok but if I'm working hard and I've earned that $100/hour by putting in the extra time, sacrificing my personal life and my family to rise in the organization so that I can make more money why should I give some of my paycheck to someone who isn't willing to work hard and go the extra mile to better themselves and make more? If someone who earns $7/hour knows that they're going to get part of a paycheck from someone who earns $100/hr and they don't have to do a damn thing for it where is the incentive to try and make more money?

Here's my confusion, where does your belief come from that people who work for minimum wage aren't working hard? Minimum wage jobs by and large are demeaning, fast food especially comes with constant safety risk from grease burns etc.
Money isn't the only incentive to work hard. In my company, we pay well because then we can hire the best people and expect the best from them, and by creating that circle of safety where they know financially we will help to take care of them, I get the best work from people that they will give to anyone. Fear is not the only way to drive success and results.

I don't know that anyone is saying that people aren't working hard on their JOBS, i think the contention is that they may not be working very HARD to develop some differentiating (aka SHOW ME THE MONEY) type skills.

shireeniebeanie

What's that famous quote about people needing to feel the discomfort of their current situation in order to aspire to a better one?

The fact is that many people earn more because they worked hard to do so (i.e., putting themselves through night school, sacrificing personal time and relationships for classes and homework, and taking out student loans).

While I do agree that CEO pay is out of control, esp. when compared to the rest of the world, it just doesn't make sense for unskilled labor to be paid what a new college graduate might make.

bennettinfinity

And once again... I get to paraphrase yet another comedian in George Carlin... this thread is an illustration of what he said about the middle class and the poor.

What the ruling class do in this country is keep the middle class and the poor fighting with each other so that they, the wealthy, can run off with all the f*cking money.

You need a billion dollars so you can roll around in it, fine. But isn't the point of taxes to redistribute wealth? Taxes are the government taking from 'you' and giving to 'us'. If Rich Uncle Pennybags shouldn't have to give any of his money to those dirty, lazy poors, then that means you think he shouldn't have to pay any taxes at all.

If you want to question me about 'how much is too much wealth', then 'how much is enough' taxes? And who are YOU to decide what is 'too much'? Two can play at that game

No.

belrowley

I don't understand why 15 dollars an hour. Why not 40 hours a week and benefits. It seems more logical to me to want ft work

parkscs

Who decides that you earned that $100/hour more than the one getting $7 per hour? By the amount of work you did? Can you quantify that you're doing 14 times as much work as someone else and thus earned getting 14 times as much money? Especially if you're in the position to decide who gets how much, your view might be a tiny bit skewed.

Since people are quoting comedians here, let me do that too. Chris Rock. "Do you know what that means when someone pays you minimum wage? Your boss was trying to say 'Hey, if I could pay you less, I would. But it's against the law.'" Servers in restaurants can probably relate.

How about if that person can take their skill set to the competitor next door and earn $100 (if not $110) an hour? Doesn't that justify their salary? If you slash their salary to $80 so that you can bump up the $7 people to $10, you'll likely just see your upper-level people explore other opportunities. The same goes for the guy making $7. He's free to explore other opportunities and earn another wage. But if I can hire someone else to do that same job for the wage of $7/hour, why should I pay him more?

Honestly if you talk in squishy words like what wage people "deserve" and what they're "entitled to", you aren't going to get anywhere. Capitalism isn't based on your subjective belief of what's fair for people or what they inherently deserve. We have a floor set by law in the U.S., but then again we've also seen a lot of jobs move out of this country as a result of that floor and the fact we're dealing with a global economy these days. If you want to talk about a fair wage, it's a wage controlled by the market. If I can go next door and earn 25% more money for the same amount of work, then my wage is under market and I can make a convincing case that I need a raise. If my current wage is inline with the market, then it's a fair wage. And it doesn't matter if I'm struggling or if I think I deserve more; it's still fair if it's at market.

magerum

http://www.cnet.com/news/mcdonalds-hires-7000-touch-screen-cashiers/

Mcdonald's answer.

+1

stevencloser

Who decides that you earned that $100/hour more than the one getting $7 per hour? By the amount of work you did? Can you quantify that you're doing 14 times as much work as someone else and thus earned getting 14 times as much money? Especially if you're in the position to decide who gets how much, your view might be a tiny bit skewed.

Since people are quoting comedians here, let me do that too. Chris Rock. "Do you know what that means when someone pays you minimum wage? Your boss was trying to say 'Hey, if I could pay you less, I would. But it's against the law.'" Servers in restaurants can probably relate.

How about if that person can take their skill set to the competitor next door and earn $100 (if not $110) an hour? Doesn't that justify their salary? If you slash their salary to $80 so that you can bump up the $7 people to $10, you'll likely just see your upper-level people explore other opportunities. The same goes for the guy making $7. He's free to explore other opportunities and earn another wage. But if I can hire someone else to do that same job for the wage of $7/hour, why should I pay him more?

Honestly if you talk in squishy words like what wage people "deserve" and what they're "entitled to", you aren't going to get anywhere. Capitalism isn't based on your subjective belief of what's fair for people or what they inherently deserve. We have a floor set by law in the U.S., but then again we've also seen a lot of jobs move out of this country as a result of that floor and the fact we're dealing with a global economy these days. If you want to talk about a fair wage, it's a wage controlled by the market. If I can go next door and earn 25% more money for the same amount of work, then my wage is under market and I can make a convincing case that I need a raise. If my current wage is inline with the market, then it's a fair wage. And it doesn't matter if I'm struggling or if I think I deserve more; it's still fair if it's at market.

Let me repeat what I said already. Adjusted for inflation, minimum wage now is LESS than it was before mass outsourcing. It was companies thinking "hey, over there in the far east I can employ 100 people for the same amount no sane person would work for here." It was and is nothing more than to make more profits for the company, i.e. the people at the top of the company, i.e. the people who decide how much their employees get and how much they keep for themselves. If it wasn't obvious enough, these people would rather keep more to themselves than paying their employees more than they have to.

parkscs

Let me repeat what I said already. Adjusted for inflation, minimum wage now is LESS than it was before mass outsourcing. It was companies thinking "hey, over there in the far east I can employ 100 people for the same amount no sane person would work for here." It was and is nothing more than to make more profits for the company, i.e. the people at the top of the company, i.e. the people who decide how much their employees get and how much they keep for themselves. If it wasn't obvious enough, these people would rather keep more to themselves than paying their employees more than they have to.

You realize you're talking about corporations when it comes to fast food workers. More specifically, publicly traded corporations whose top level management which owe a fiduciary duty to their shareholders? As a shareholder, why should I invest in your business if you are not concerned with profit?

Also, this is a pretty enlightening statement when it comes to your thoughts on the subject.

I can employ 100 people for the same amount no sane person would work for here." It was and is nothing more than to make more profits for the company

Interesting that there are people who would happily take that job at a lower wage and use it to feed their families, but no sane person here would work for that because they deserve more money. Very telling.