4 ms·

#1 is flat out wrong. THERE IS NO SECURITY! Is mcdonalds right? paying people so little that they need another job to not be out on the street? How is that TAKI

by hnnnnng 13y ago

#1 is flat out wrong. THERE IS NO SECURITY! Is mcdonalds right? paying people so little that they need another job to not be out on the street? How is that TAKING CARE of employees? Before you say mcdonalds is an exception, theres so many others so dont give me the bullshit about wealth exists because blah.

nhangen 13y ago
In capitalism, pay is a result of supply and demand. The truth is that working at McDonald's requires very little skill, and because of that, offers very little pay. I thought they paid a great wage when I worked there during high school. And you're right, there is no security, so what is your solution other than whining about it?
- Loughla 13y ago
  Those positions require very little skill, and provide very little pay. Correct. The next part is where most people today get the argument wrong; it isn't that those jobs should pay more for the arbitrary sake of paying more. Those type of jobs are the step for many people that not just have no more steps to take, but have never had any walkway to stand on. Their entire lives have been spent just trying to make it to the next day. The argument is that those positions are part of a larger, predatory economy or society seemingly designed to keep a certain subset of the country/world subjugated to another. When you see protests about a higher wage at entry level positions such as fast-food and retail, what you're really seeing is the confused, leaderless argument that life sucks for many people and shows no signs of relenting. It's a first world suck, but suck nonetheless. Source: research into lower-socioeconomic lifestyles while attaining advanced degrees (and living that life when young; thank God for scholarships).
  - nhangen 13y ago
    You're right. Been there done that. During a period in my twenties, I had lost my job, had a negative bank balance, and two kids to feed. I was on foodstamps while I worked at the Olive Garden making very little while spending far too long in college subsidized by grants and student loans. I finally graduated, got another job, and was let go within a year. I now had tons of debt and a degree that was almost worthless. So I joined the Army and left my kids for 16 weeks to attend bootcamp and AIT. Spent 5 years, including a stint in Afghanistan. Needless to say, I recovered, taught myself how to program, and now run a software company. Life sucks. For many, it sucks hard. But there are ways out. Most people just don't want to make the sacrifices necessary to do so. Btw, I'm speaking of 1st world. 3rd world is obviously a different story.
    - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
      The fact that "make the sacrifices necessary" is a useful attitude for you does not mean the cost-benefit/risk structure is actually adequate for everyone else.
      - nhangen 13y ago
        Which proves my point exactly.
        eli_gottlieb 13y ago
        Not at all. I'm referring to many people in the First World. There's also the structural issue: not everyone can be an entrepreneur, because companies need worker bees to run. You can't run such a strongly hierarchical system as capitalism without some level of social-democratic concessions to enforce that, outside the workplace, my boss and I really are equal human beings.
      - gh322 13y ago
        Natural selection then takes hold.
        eli_gottlieb 13y ago
        Care to elaborate? I can't glean your meaning.
    - mkr-hn 13y ago
      "I did, therefore everyone can" is my favorite fallacy.
- hnnnnng 13y ago
  The solution? How about increasing the wage so that these guys dont have to work more than 20 hours a day? How about taking a loss of a billion dollars to reduce profit from 7 billion to 6 billion but in return provide for a better life for the thousands of less fortunate people? If some shareholder makes a few million dollars less, hes not going to die. But the people that are living on food stamps, might very well. How does costco manage to do this without going into the red? Im not whining that theres no security, i'm stating that making the claim that there is security is WRONG. How about you read with your eyes open? thanks. Edit: clarification. Edit2: another proof that you can make a profit while actually caring for employees: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/the-trader-joes-lesson-how-to-pay-a-living-wage-and-still-make-money-in-retail/274322/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/the-trad... Edit3: The supply and demand crap you spew is total garbage. Nothing is 'just supply and demand'. There is much more including profit creation as a result of fulfilling demand with supply. All I suggest is reduce the profit slightly so you pay your low level workers more. They already make less than a third of what people with education do. How about making it equal to or slightly more than a THIRD?
  - nhangen 13y ago
    Increase wages why? Corporations are not charities, and they have never purported that they are. How is a corporation responsible for someone else's lack of education or skillset?
    - hnnnnng 13y ago
      How? Because of a vicious cycle that begins with the low wages. You pay someone low wages so: 1) their kids can't pay for college => they can't get a proper education => lack of education/skillset in the kids 2) their kids have to work at these 'corporations' because of lack of education so they can put food on the table 3) their kids resort to stealing or some other illegal activity because they didnt have much of a choice => go to juvenile detention => no college => no skillset that you claim is not your fault Is that enough or do you want me to go out and get some case studies as well?
      - 13y ago

by hnnnnng 13y ago

nhangen 13y ago

In capitalism, pay is a result of supply and demand. The truth is that working at McDonald's requires very little skill, and because of that, offers very little pay. I thought they paid a great wage when I worked there during high school. And you're right, there is no security, so what is your solution other than whining about it?

Loughla 13y ago
Those positions require very little skill, and provide very little pay. Correct. The next part is where most people today get the argument wrong; it isn't that those jobs should pay more for the arbitrary sake of paying more. Those type of jobs are the step for many people that not just have no more steps to take, but have never had any walkway to stand on. Their entire lives have been spent just trying to make it to the next day. The argument is that those positions are part of a larger, predatory economy or society seemingly designed to keep a certain subset of the country/world subjugated to another. When you see protests about a higher wage at entry level positions such as fast-food and retail, what you're really seeing is the confused, leaderless argument that life sucks for many people and shows no signs of relenting. It's a first world suck, but suck nonetheless. Source: research into lower-socioeconomic lifestyles while attaining advanced degrees (and living that life when young; thank God for scholarships).
- nhangen 13y ago
  You're right. Been there done that. During a period in my twenties, I had lost my job, had a negative bank balance, and two kids to feed. I was on foodstamps while I worked at the Olive Garden making very little while spending far too long in college subsidized by grants and student loans. I finally graduated, got another job, and was let go within a year. I now had tons of debt and a degree that was almost worthless. So I joined the Army and left my kids for 16 weeks to attend bootcamp and AIT. Spent 5 years, including a stint in Afghanistan. Needless to say, I recovered, taught myself how to program, and now run a software company. Life sucks. For many, it sucks hard. But there are ways out. Most people just don't want to make the sacrifices necessary to do so. Btw, I'm speaking of 1st world. 3rd world is obviously a different story.
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    The fact that "make the sacrifices necessary" is a useful attitude for you does not mean the cost-benefit/risk structure is actually adequate for everyone else.
    - nhangen 13y ago
      Which proves my point exactly.
      - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
        Not at all. I'm referring to many people in the First World. There's also the structural issue: not everyone can be an entrepreneur, because companies need worker bees to run. You can't run such a strongly hierarchical system as capitalism without some level of social-democratic concessions to enforce that, outside the workplace, my boss and I really are equal human beings.
    - gh322 13y ago
      Natural selection then takes hold.
      - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
        Care to elaborate? I can't glean your meaning.
  - mkr-hn 13y ago
    "I did, therefore everyone can" is my favorite fallacy.
hnnnnng 13y ago
The solution? How about increasing the wage so that these guys dont have to work more than 20 hours a day? How about taking a loss of a billion dollars to reduce profit from 7 billion to 6 billion but in return provide for a better life for the thousands of less fortunate people? If some shareholder makes a few million dollars less, hes not going to die. But the people that are living on food stamps, might very well. How does costco manage to do this without going into the red? Im not whining that theres no security, i'm stating that making the claim that there is security is WRONG. How about you read with your eyes open? thanks. Edit: clarification. Edit2: another proof that you can make a profit while actually caring for employees: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/the-trader-joes-lesson-how-to-pay-a-living-wage-and-still-make-money-in-retail/274322/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/the-trad... Edit3: The supply and demand crap you spew is total garbage. Nothing is 'just supply and demand'. There is much more including profit creation as a result of fulfilling demand with supply. All I suggest is reduce the profit slightly so you pay your low level workers more. They already make less than a third of what people with education do. How about making it equal to or slightly more than a THIRD?
- nhangen 13y ago
  Increase wages why? Corporations are not charities, and they have never purported that they are. How is a corporation responsible for someone else's lack of education or skillset?
  - hnnnnng 13y ago
    How? Because of a vicious cycle that begins with the low wages. You pay someone low wages so: 1) their kids can't pay for college => they can't get a proper education => lack of education/skillset in the kids 2) their kids have to work at these 'corporations' because of lack of education so they can put food on the table 3) their kids resort to stealing or some other illegal activity because they didnt have much of a choice => go to juvenile detention => no college => no skillset that you claim is not your fault Is that enough or do you want me to go out and get some case studies as well?
    - 13y ago