Wage Strikes Planned at Fast Food Outlets in 100 US Cities on Thursday (12/5/13)

Bisman

webedoomed
The system itself is corrupt. Economics is THEORY, not universal law.

so unless we take the conspiracy theory side of the debate, we are wrong. gotcha.

Conspiracy is the big-picture. Not taking in the big picture, shows either ignorance or incompetence.

of course there is mass corruption in business. but this is about raising the bottom line skill level, bottom line job, bottom line pay.
that by definition, is breaking the hierarchy of employment.
why even get a 2 year degree, when every 8 years or so, minimum wage will be raised to meet what you were making with your skills anyways.

Then we're talking about two different things. Anyone who thinks that someone who provides less to society should be able to secure equal resources as someone who provides more, is a fool.

I'm not trying to argue for that. I'm pointing out that a single variable, like USD/hr itself is incapable of addressing the true issue. The issue is that there are too many people out there who are losing their standards of living while a few phat kats are buying private islands, ever larger yhats, and whatever else.

You can't hide behind the wage issue in itself. If we look at the purchasing power of the USD over the last 30 years, then we can assess the real wage for various jobs. You would see nearly all positions are earning less. So no, I'm not saying that you need to have X position make more than Y, or double this, or halve that, I'm saying that you need to get at the root of the issues, and oust the parasites who are being paid disproportionately when considering their contributions to society.

everyone would need to get paid more. its not about the cost of goods and services, they will raise regardless of wages and supply and commodities.
its about how much money you have vs another person.
the system will never allow a less deserving person to have more. with or without freemarket or corruption.

That's complete garbage. There ARE individuals who are "less deserving" that have more. The corruption is at the root of the problem. The only way your reasoning holds true, is if you are Machiavellian in ethics, or if you admit that your "free market" GOD doesn't really exist.

ethics has nothing to do with it. neither does fairness.
we arent communists. (why which definition i dont know)

we live in a world where we require money. and the more money we have the safer we are.
working hard is irrelevant when you know that real goal. a person who gets more money in efficient ways, is more deserving to have it.
the only limit is what is legal. and as long as you are doing it legally, its none of anyones (especially those with less money's) business how much you have.

the corruption is that there are more and more ways to legally make this money are available. however those ways are only available to the already rich.

if we are going to talk about ethics and fairness, then we must remove the need for currencies altogether.
a discussion unrelated.
if you take part in earning a wage, and spending it on goods and services, your point on ethics is already moot.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Those that strike should be fired. Very simple really.

This whole stupid idea that those working the low rung of the work force should be compensated at such high rates is moronic at best.

can anyone of you that are against raising the minimum wage show that when it happened in the past, it hurt employers???....I'll give you the answer...NO!!...all the fear-mongering about lost jobs, rampant inflation of goods, stagnation of the economy is simply a fantasy. it's been used for decades by the business establishment and the wealthy to scare people......they can't show ANY EVIDENCE!!
here's another maxim....if a company can cut employees and still remain profitable...THEY WILL...no matter how good or bad their company is doing...it doesn't matter what kind of PR crap comes out of their corporate mouths. they will ALWAYS try and find ways to cut employees jobs. they are not FOR people, they are not FOR the environment, they are not FOR free markets. they want a monopoly on their product, and pay the lowest amount of money possible to their employees, just enough to get them to come to work the next day. you just have to go and do some research on how corporations treat their employees in third world countries, to know what they ultimately want to do in the US, and other first world countries. quit buying into their crap...go by what the do, not by what they say.

reply to post by jimmyx

you just have to go and do some research on how corporations treat their employees in third world countries, to know what they ultimately want to do in the US, and other first world countries.

They are already doing it under an administration that you so devoutly support!!!

So what are you trying to say?

I love how those of you whom adore this current POTUS in a "cultist manner" say a lot of what you just said in your post! Has Obama NOT welcomed people of Goldman Sachs into his administration? Did he NOT appoint Jeffrey Immelt the CEO of GE to head his economic panel??? Oh wait!!! GE doesn't pay taxes do they? OH wait! GE gets to keep it's coal fired electric plants while every one else whom owns one is terrorized by the EPA!!!

Let's face it Jimmy, you seem to support a POTUS whom does everything you come on ATS to preach against.......

General Electric Avoids Taxes By Keeping $108 Billion Overseas

reply to post by jimmyx


It cuts into the overhead costs of any and all businesses associated with such.
This is basic economics and common sense.

reply to post by jimmyx

can anyone of you that are against raising the minimum wage show that when it happened in the past, it hurt employers???

That's a trick question that can never be answered in a long term example. The markets are not static objects that remain unchanged by the interaction of other forces. They adapt and by themselves, if not deliberately made to.

The minimum wage will, if passed suddenly, hurt employers AT FIRST. Then, as 101 economics teaches, the employer or merchant will raise store prices across the board to offset the new overhead costs of labor. It's not mean spirited or vicious. It's simple math for survival. The business owner isn't going to eat the cost out of personal profit. Shareholders (or ownership) won't allow the business to eat the cost out of company profit.

Your new minimum wage will come directly out of the pockets of those who do business with every employer impacted by it. Money doesn't 'just appear' because the law demanded it be so. It HAS to come from somewhere...and the only place it *CAN* come from in general wage hikes by force of law, is pricing structure.

It's also called inflationary impact from wage increases. Inflation hurts and is usually a bad thing. It's a VERY bad thing in this economy. However, don't let that stop anyone from trying another bad idea so the point may be proven, yet again.

When the government has to give subsidies to people who are working full time then that company isn't paying their workers enough. Even burger flippers deserve to make a decent wage.

seeker1963

Let's face it Jimmy, you seem to support a POTUS whom does everything you come on ATS to preach against.......

The term you are looking for is sycophant. A hypocritical sycophant.

But, it is always different for Progressives. It is always different for 0bama and his supporters.

macman
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Those that strike should be fired. Very simple really.

This whole stupid idea that those working the low rung of the work force should be compensated at such high rates is moronic at best.

People exercising their rights? Then fire them because rights are only for those on the upper rung.

reply to post by buster2010


Yeah....so the Govt doesn't "have to". It wants to, to buy votes.

Nothing like forced compassion with other peoples money to make you feel all warm and fluffy inside.

reply to post by buster2010


Just checked and I don't seem to find the "right to have a job after you don't show up because you were striking" statement in any of the Countries Documents.

Is it in your copy of the Constitution???

buster2010
When the government has to give subsidies to people who are working full time then that company isn't paying their workers enough. Even burger flippers deserve to make a decent wage.

Burger flippers deserve a wage that pays them what the job is worth. And it's not worth $15 an hour for someone to flip burgers. It's a non-skill, non heavy lifting, job. Anyone off the street can do it. Therefore, it's not worth $15 an hour.

The companies are paying their workers fair wages for the job they are employed to do.

Not every job in the country is worthy of a 'living wage' and not all jobs are supposed to
be lifetime jobs, but instead are 'starter' jobs.

macman
reply to post by buster2010

 

Just checked and I don't seem to find the "right to have a job after you don't show up because you were striking" statement in any of the Countries Documents.

Is it in your copy of the Constitution???

In fact, I believe it was a former President that made a very serious object lesson to illustrate how NO ONE has the "right" to a job if they want to walk out and strike. Remember the Air Traffic Controllers? Reagan was a great guy in some ways...and had a backbone. Something lacking in recent ones.

So what is an actual solution?

I can see one. How about we implement laws which level the playing field, so to speak. Nope, not talking about socialism, I'm talking about getting rid of insane wages, and under the table deals for all the sharks out there.

Look at what the swiss are trying to do:

one to twelve

Just think of how large the banking and financial sectors have become over the last generation, as a percentage of GDP. It's ridiculous. What are the real benefits here? Doesn't this just potentially increase wealth for the investment class, and reduce the slice of the pie for everyone else? Is that ideal?

Look, if you could wipe out some of the shennanigans going on at the top, and proportionately increase working-class wages, you'd balance out the equation. It would be non-inflationary, yet increase the standards of living for everyone else.

It's a complete win for society.

I don't have all the solutions, or know all the details, but I can tell when something works, and when people are missing the big-picture.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I agree.

And the idea that Govt workers are allowed to unionize is ridiculous at best.

reply to post by webedoomed


So, remove the rights of some to give to others.

Yeah, sounds fantastic all right..

reply to post by macman


No. I have not said that in the least.

Please stop lying. It's easy to see through them

Wow. Four pages of posts and nobody has come up with the real reason for this.

The SEIU and other unions are pushing this. That's it plain and simple. The reason that they are pushing this is because their member's contracts are tied to the "minimum", "living" or "prevailing" wage in the area. If it goes up, their members get an automatic raise, without having to negotiate for it.

I worked for Eastern Airlines when it went under. Everybody blames Lorenzo for destroying Eastern, but, it was the unions who did the major damage. The Machinist Union merged with the Baggage Handlers Union and combined pay scales. ThIs meant that a Baggage Handler with 10 years of seniority was paid the same as an Aircraft Mechanic with 10 years.

reply to post by webedoomed

I can see one. How about we implement laws which level the playing field, so to speak. Nope, not talking about socialism, I'm talking about getting rid of insane wages, and under the table deals for all the sharks out there.

Star for at least looking for a solution versus bitching over which party is responsible for the mess! (Both are!)

One thing I see that is being left out is the "STOCK HOLDERS"!

I know, I know, they invested the money so yes they are deserving of a return. But is that also not part of the problem????? STOCKS??? WallStreet???? People whom make money off of gambling??? Government induced loopholes? Derivatives?

Hell these folks make money off of nothing! Yet, when they lose their bets, it is us measly serfs whom sacrifice our pay in taxes that our government officials pay them back for their government sanctioned mistakes!

EDIT: How about instead of greedy stock holder raking in the dough, we allow local banks to fund and give loans to growing companies so that they can make interest off of the loans???? After all, if a company is selling product to the point they need to get a loan to grow, why not the bank?