Fast-food walkout U.S. workers strike in several cities to call attention to low wages.

reply to post by Honor93

now, contrary to what you are promoting, such an increase during an economic downturn did enable purchases like cars, houses and toys, as well as savings.

The claim was that minimum wage earners could "own a house, go to college, and have some left over".

reply to post by filledcup

i had originally allocated 2 billion from the profits which could be allocated to employee salaries.

Actually you said 2 million.

theyve narrowed it down further by stating that management already gets paid well so none of the money needs to go to the management.

That isn't exactly what they said. They don't seem to have any idea how much management is paid.

Did you notice that something was left out of the calculations? Something called labor burden. Payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, workers compensation insurance, liability insurance, medical insurance. You can add about 30%-40% to the payroll to cover that.

Nice biased piece there. "Aw hell, McDonald's can afford to have the best paid burger flippers in the world! They should just do it!"

I'm sure the shareholders would be real happy with that kind of thinking.

reply to post by Phage


It is time to move away from that mentality...Wealth disparity is increasing and creating social and environmental disharmony... It is old school, greedy and destroying our planet. It really would not hurt to put the cost of a meal up a few percent and increase there wage.

You have to give it to McDonald’s they have no respect for the low end people working for them, the customers whom they feed tripe to the animals they kill.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by filledcup

 

i had originally allocated 2 billion from the profits which could be allocated to employee salaries.

Actually you said 2 million.

no that 2 million was imagined and not verified figures just used to convey an example of how funds could be allocated from profits to increase wages. hence why i decided to go and look up mcd's yearly profit margins to get the real figures and number of employees. based on the research on the real statistics which i just took a look at and hadnt looked at before i learned that it is 1.7-1.8 mill staff they employ and their yearly profit margin is between 5 and 8 bn. hence i worked around the figure of 2 billion which would provide an average $100 per month to each member of staff including management.

this report said we didnt have to raise management wages cuz theyre already well paid. i dont know the salaries paid on each level so ill give these guys the benefit of the doubt.

theyve narrowed it down further by stating that management already gets paid well so none of the money needs to go to the management.

That isn't exactly what they said. They don't seem to have any idea how much management is paid.

Did you notice that something was left out of the calculations? Something called labor burden. Payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, workers compensation insurance, liability insurance, medical insurance. You can add about 30%-40% to the payroll to cover that.

yes you are correct, they only presumed that management is paid well. but u yourself earlier claimed that "management was being paid the big bucks" do u have some information i dont?

that would be covered in the 27 billion in revenues. if the clear profit after paying all that is 8 Bn then yes, they could allocate an extra 3bn to supply their poorest employees with a living wage

Nice biased piece there. "Aw hell, McDonald's can afford to have the best paid burger flippers in the world! They should just do it!"

I'm sure the shareholders would be real happy with that kind of thinking.

according to the reports i read, the shareholders get 34% while the employees get 17%. pretty sure there are alot less shareholders than employees. so that's alot of money each shareholder gets for themselves. i cant view the report as biased because what it actually advocates is that the shareholders reduce their percentage to help the poorest reach living wage capacity. but it's a moral choice. not a business one. in the end it's still up to them if they want to share a bit more gains with those who are actually the lifeblood of the company. the ones making them rich.

the report also basically suggests the same thing i did. viewing and valuing employees as investors/shareholders in the company and not just owned slaves who must follow orders or be put on the bread line.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Honor93

 

now, contrary to what you are promoting, such an increase during an economic downturn did enable purchases like cars, houses and toys, as well as savings.

The claim was that minimum wage earners could "own a house, go to college, and have some left over".

Then I stood in the wrong line!! [according to the claim]

Owned a house [after we climbed way above min. wage]
Went to college on grants [because didn't like loan terms.]
Left over money.....not on minimum wage and then along came medical bills.

Santa Fe New Mexico min wage $10.29
just drive out of the city limits and your fast food is cheaper.
And you need not drive far for lower cost fast food.

San Francisco min wage $10.25

reply to post by filledcup

basically viewing and valuing employees as investors/shareholders in the company and not just owned slaves who must follow orders or be put on the bread line.

Nice bit of hyperbole there. Yes, if they don't follow company rules that they agreed to when they were hired they will be fired. That's the way it works most places.

Slaves...right.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by filledcup

 

basically viewing and valuing employees as investors/shareholders in the company and not just owned slaves who must follow orders or be put on the bread line.

Nice bit of hyperbole there. Yes, if they don't follow company rules that they agreed to when they were hired they will be fired. That's the way it works most places.

Slaves...right.

edit on 8/31/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

but where do you draw the line between following terms of employment and downright plain exploitation?

reply to post by filledcup

Certainly not with both parties fulfilling the terms of the employment contract.

The employees knew what they were signing up for. Now they want to have their pay doubled.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by filledcup

 

Certainly not with both parties fulfilling the terms of the employment contract.

The employees knew what they were signing up for. Now they want to have their pay doubled.

well they are risking their jobs. they obviously feel like there's nothing to lose to take such drastic measures. so if mcd's is justified they can replace all of them. the question is.. will they? or will they keel and offer them at least an 11 or $12 per hr to get them back out to work?

they might try to replace them all. but if they realize it's futile for whatever reason.. then and only then will they make a reasonable proposition. it's a heartless business model man. ud think by now we figured out that money isnt worth more than a human life.

reply to post by filledcup

well they are risking their jobs. so if mcd's is justified they can replace all of them. the question is.. will they? or will they keel and offer them at least an 11 or $12 per hr to get them back out to work?

Yup. They are risking their jobs, with very little chance of success.

I thought it was a one day walkout. If it goes on longer I'm pretty sure they're going to find themselves out of work. It's not hard to train people to work at McDonald's.

ud think by now we figured out that money isnt worth more than a human life.

More hyperbole, huh?

Originally posted by Phage
That gives a monthly payment of $48. That's 38% of your income. You aren't going to qualify for a mortgage so you're going to be renting.

So shift it a bit. Graduate HS then save 20% of income for 2 years (600 in savings) or better yet just save from a HS job and spend it when you graduate. Either way we come to $600 in savings for a down payment and a 25 year mortgage. That's $6400 at 25 years, even using your 4.75% rate and you have a monthly payment of $43.78.

You've left income taxes out of your calculations. In 1955 you would have paid 20%, that's $300
www.irs.gov...

OASDI, 2%. That's $30
www.econdataus.com...

Easily offset by not attending school full time. That additional $300 you added is offset entirely by attending school part time. If one went with a 6 year plan rather than a 4 year plan they would only be spending 2/3 as much on school.

We've gotta eat, right? Are we a family? $12/week enough? It better be because that's all you have left. Gas was cheap but you can't afford a car anyway.

Just a single person. You could support a family and own a home on that income... just not while paying tuition. When it comes to what's enough we have this handy little site of food prices:
www.thepeoplehistory.com...

Lets make a shopping list.
3 pounds cheese $1.35
3 pounds turkey $1.47
3 loaves of bread $.36
1 jar peanut butter $.29
1 jar jelly $.19
8 cans of soup $.80
12 eggs .49
6 cans pork & beans $.50
6 frozen chicken pie $1.14
5 pounds potatoes $.35
1 box of crackers $.32
1 pound pork roast $.39
1 pound frozen vegetables $.48

That's actually not too far off from my monthly groceries these days, it allows for a sandwich a day, and various dinners like stew, baked potatoes, chicken pie, and the rest. There's even eggs for an occasional breakfast. Add that up and we get $8.13. It looks like your proposed $12 food budget is affordable. Mine even comes in a little high since it's not all 1950's prices, they're from all over the decade. I bet you would even be getting a free meal too if you worked in a restaurant, fast food place, etc though I can't say for certain so I didn't list groceries accounting for that.

Add that all up and we have:

$525.36 rent
$330 taxes
$450 college
$8.13 food

That's $1313.49 which leaves the remaining 12.5% of income for bills. That looks plenty affordable to me. And even if it does go over that income slightly... look at the position of the argument. On minimum wage one could afford or nearly afford to goto college out of pocket while simultaneously paying a mortgage, as a single person (no dual income here). Minimum wage today, if you're lucky will pay for a small terrible apartment while not paying for any self improvement.

Originally posted by Phage
The claim was that minimum wage earners could "own a house, go to college, and have some left over".

I wasn't claiming one could both own a home and goto college at the same time on minimum wage, but as it turns out... it's quite doable (particularly if one gets a college loan to help out). These aren't poor homes either, the example I picked (which was on the lower end of the price scale) was advertised as 5 rooms, 2 bedrooms (so probably 2 bed, 1 bath, kitchen, living), yard, and garage. If you figure each room is 10'x12' that's 600 sqft, plus the garage. Not too bad really though certainly on the smaller side of things though that should be expected when talking about minimum wage.

Originally posted by palmalBlue2
Then I stood in the wrong line!! [according to the claim]

Owned a house [after we climbed way above min. wage]
Went to college on grants [because didn't like loan terms.]
Left over money.....not on minimum wage and then along came medical bills.

We're also using 1950 as the year as proof that all these things were possible. Companies still profited and even the lowest paid workers had a decent quality of life. Something that is claimed is impossible if minimum wage were a living wage today.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by filledcup

 

well they are risking their jobs. so if mcd's is justified they can replace all of them. the question is.. will they? or will they keel and offer them at least an 11 or $12 per hr to get them back out to work?

Yup. They are risking their jobs, with very little chance of success.

I thought it was a one day walkout. If it goes on longer I'm pretty sure they're going to find themselves out of work. It's not hard to train people to work at McDonald's.

ud think by now we figured out that money isnt worth more than a human life.

More hyperbole, huh?

edit on 8/31/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

well i guess we'll see how this turns out. im rooting for them. i personally hope that even the immigrants refuse to replace them for anything less than $15/hr. that'll send the message straight home.

reply to post by Aazadan

So shift it a bit. Graduate HS, save 20% of income for 2 years (600 in savings), then buy a house with a 25 year mortgage.

What part of "not qualify" don't you get? With a mortgage payment that is 35% of your gross income you will not qualify for a mortgage.

Easily offset by not attending school full time. That additional $300 you added is offset entirely by attending school part time.

What? You still have to pay the taxes.

That's $1313.49

No. That's $1,728.12 unless you want that grocery list to last a whole year (you wouldn't be worth that $1.00 an hour for long). You're now $228.12 in the hole each year.

it's quite doable

Except for the owning the house part. You don't qualify. College maybe, if you stretch it way out. But that's a good way to get yourself out of the minimum wage bracket.

We're also using 1950 as the year as proof that all these things were possible. Companies still profited and even the lowest paid workers had a decent quality of life.

Single people could survive on minimum wage but they were making half of poverty level income. If you want to call that decent, ok.

reply to post by Phage


here's another article from forbes which also shares the viewpoint.

amazing

www.forbes.com...

The Real Change In The Cost Of A Big Mac If McDonald's Workers Were Paid $15 An Hour: Nothing

lol

reply to post by filledcup

Did you read the article?

I agree. The cost of a burger would not go up. But it would make McDonald's come up with other ways to lower their costs. Fewer employees for example.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by filledcup

 

Did you read the article?

I agree. The cost of a burger would not go up. But it would make McDonald's come up with other ways to lower their costs. Fewer employees for example.

edit on 8/31/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

reducing employees in that case wouldnt be a result of necessity for the company to thrive, but more the immoral necessity to facilitate greed for having much more than they need.

remember again that it is these ppl that are making every one of the owners and shareholders rich. the fact that they dont portray any gratitude towards these people in the only manner that counts (money) demonstrates an utter disregard that is indeed comparable to the way slave-masters view their slaves.

meh.. maybe the franchises should just make regular burgers.. and screw the mcdonald's franchise name. noone cares about the name.. they just want to eat.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by filledcup

 

Did you read the article?

(no reason given)