Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    8:29 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: The unions are nuts! Back to Topics
flyboyUT

Champion Author
Utah

Posts:28,793
Points:1,595,825
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 5:24:30 PM

Just saw on Cavuto that the unions are demonstrating in front of McDonalds and demanding $15.00 per hour starting wages from them. I didnt know you could spell Hostess as McDonalds?

Anyone want to bet if they do 'unionize McDonalds and get the $15.00 per hour that McDonalds will fold up?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,793
Points:1,595,825
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 8:55:35 PM

Check this out Steve.
.
>>>During the peak of what has been dubbed the Great Recession, the unemployment rate for young adults (16 to 24 years of age) as a whole rose to above 27 percent. The unemployment rate for black young adults was almost 50 percent, but for young black males, it was 55 percent.


Even and Macpherson say that it would be easy to say this tragedy is an unfortunate byproduct of the recession, but if you said so, you'd be wrong. Their study demonstrates that increases in the minimum wage at both the state and federal level are partially to blame for the crisis in employment for minority young adults.

Their study focuses on 16-to-24-year-old male high school dropouts, understandably a relatively inexperienced group of labor market participants. Since minimum wage laws discriminate against the employment of the least-skilled worker, it shouldn't be surprising to find 16-to-24-year-old male high school dropouts its primary victims.


Among the white males, the authors find that "each 10 percent increase in a state or federal minimum wage has decreased employment by 2.5 percent; for Hispanic males, the figure is 1.2 percent.

"But among black males in this group, each 10 percent increase in the minimum wage decreased employment by 6.5 percent."

The authors go on to say, "The effect is similar for hours worked: each 10 percent increase reduces hours worked by 3 percent among white males, 1.7 percent for Hispanic males, and 6.6 percent for black males."

Even and Macpherson compare the job loss caused by higher minimum wages with that caused by the recession and find between 2007 and 2010, employment for 16-to-24-year-old black males fell by approximately 34,300 as a result of the recession; over the same time period, approximately 26,400 lost their jobs as a result of increases in the minimum wage across the 50 states and at the federal level.

Why do young black males suffer unequal harm from minimum wage increases? Even and Macpherson say that they're more likely to be employed in low-skilled jobs in eating and drinking establishments. These are businesses with narrow profit margins and are more adversely affected by increases in minimum wage increases. For 16-to-24-year-old men without a high school diploma, 25 percent of whites and 31 percent of blacks work at an eating and drinking establishment. Compounding the discriminatory burden of minimum wages, not discussed by the authors, are the significant educational achievement differences between blacks and whites.

The best way to sabotage chances for upward mobility of a youngster from a single-parent household, who resides in a violent slum and has attended poor-quality schools is to make it unprofitable for any employer to hire him. The way to accomplish that is to mandate an employer to pay such a person a wage that exceeds his skill level.

Imagine that a worker's skill level is such that he can only contribute $5 worth of value per hour to the employer's output, but the employer must pay him a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, plus mandated fringes such as Social Security, unemployment compensation and health insurance. To hire such a worker would be a losing economic proposition. If the employer could pay that low-skilled worker the value of his skills, he would at least have a job and a chance to upgrade his skill and earn more in the future.<<<

Steve you can get statistics to show anything you wish if you play with them enough. The unemployment in 67 was strongly affected by this little thing called the Vietnam War. It had multiple effects but believe what you wish. The folks who make a living trying to make sense out of this stuff all seem to say that raising the minimum wage has bad effects on the lower tier of workers. But go ahead and beleive what you want because you dont wish to see anything but your vision of reality.

But once more for the record - raising the minimum wage has effects - be real sure you attempt to understand all the effects adn be willing to accept them before you raise the wages.

Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,819
Points:456,985
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 6:35:32 PM

What was unemployment back in '67 when the adjusted min wage was $10.50?

Hint: It was very low.

So what makes you want to ignore history and claim that unemployment would rise if min wage is increased?

Kudos to those who are ready to risk their jobs to show the power of protesting; in hopes of getting better pay for a lousy job that few want to do. What could be more American than that? Hint: you might say seeking a better job. That would be a smarter, more ambitious thing to do, yes. But does that really make it more American? We'd like to think that America is represented well by the smart and ambitious but we'd be fooling ourselves if we didn't recognize that America also includes many others as well. And some just want to work an easy monotonous job. Those jobs have to be done. We don't want illegals doing them so it has to be Americans, right? OK, then. These low-wage protestors are simply being American.

Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,793
Points:1,595,825
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 6:15:32 PM

Hell no I wasnt doing better in 1967 - I was running through places people kept shooting at me.

Steve disabuse yourself that the minimum wage is designed to be a 'living wage'. There is no way you can make one wage fit for all areas of he country much less the different family situations or bills that one may have.

But have you looked at the results on employment by age group and racial background as minimum wages are raised? Are you willing to increase unemployment just to raise it?
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,627
Points:153,375
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 5:42:46 PM

Here is the bottom line my friends there are 3.2 million defense workers employed by the government.

They wont be supported without a middle class with wages to collect taxes off of.

Say good by to your gov teet.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,627
Points:2,395,435
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 3:02:16 PM

Steve states: <<<The rich benefit when the economy is healthy and their products sell well.>>>

As does the rest of the population, as when products are selling and the economy is healthy, there aren't record numbers of people on food stamps, receiving unemployment, loosing their homes after being unemployed for years.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,819
Points:456,985
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 2:59:40 PM

Look at history? Good idea. Hey. Weren't we doing better in 1967 than we were today? What was the min wage then? Oh my! The 1967 min wage adjusted for inflation was OVER $10 in 2012 dollars.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,793
Points:1,595,825
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 2:53:05 PM

Steve go ahead and raise the minimum wage. But you also have to be willing to accept the results of it. Like increasing the out of work kids - especially those that desperately need work experience the most.

If your objective is to foster more unemployment, higher rates of criminal activity, increased drug use, more underage single mothers, force companies to automate more, increase outsourcing and increase the poverty of minorities - go ahead.





Just make real sure that is what you really want - because those are some of the effects of making unskilled, uneducated inexperienced workers more costly to hire, train and bother with.


For once Steve please look at the historical record of the effects of your proposals.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,819
Points:456,985
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 2:40:59 PM

Disagree about the min wage part. It needs to be raised to $10 immediately and tied to inflation thereafter.

But the old trickle-down vs bottom up argument is so soft for conservatives. It is just too hard to believe that the best way to help the poor is by first taking care of those who do not need any help, the rich. INSTEAD of simply helping the poor in the first place. It is actually the other way around from your reasoning. By getting more money into the hands of the poor, (hopefully by paying them more for their toils) they will spend it; and thus the rich who own the companies, whose products the poor spend on, will also benefit.

The rich benefit when the economy is healthy and their products sell well. Instead of just giving the rich more money in the form of tax-breaks (and thus starving the govt, causing fed debt) it is better to make sure that the workers can afford to spend more and buy things. This has the same because either way the rich end up with more money. And that increased business is healthy. It is real economic activity, not false riches of tax underpayment.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,938
Points:1,886,560
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 1:35:17 PM

Actually semisteve that is not very astute because it has always been true and will always continue to be true. Fact remains that the middle class has always driven the economy and focusing your efforts to build an economy on people in poverty is an effort in failure...

BTW, it is a known fact that under the New Deal many of the policies were bad for the economy. Setting prices and wages above the going rate by the National Recovery Administration caused inflation and actually made it more difficult for people to find work because employers could not afford to hire anyone else (like today calling for the minimum wage to be increased it would have the exact same affect...but liberals have a hard time interpreting history so they like to make repeated mistakes). I can go on and on but it won't work because none of you will ever get it.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,819
Points:456,985
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 1:09:20 PM

Riiiight. Stalin used terms like New Deal, trickle-down and offshore tax shelters. OK then.

Dream on.

Whoever said it made a very astute observation of our situation.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,938
Points:1,886,560
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 12:52:03 PM

Sounds like something Stalin said...
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,819
Points:456,985
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 12:20:56 PM

"The thing that the right wingers are missing is that there are a lot of people below the poverty line, living hand to mouth and just barely surviving, those people won't spend anything unless they absolutely have to. They just can't afford any luxuries.

So the companies that make things that people can postpone or maybe do without altogether, go out of business in a recession.

But if everybody has enough money to live on plus a little bit extra, then they buy things, and that boosts the economy. That's why the 'New Deal' started to drag the country out of the Depression, because it injected money into the economy.

What the 'trickle down' people don't understand is that the people at the top don't trickle down their money. They already have more than they know what to do with, so giving them a tax break just lets them sock more money away in offshore tax shelters. They can't spend all they've got as it is.

The secret to getting the economy going is the middle and lower economic class. If they don't have jobs, they don't have money. If they don't have money, they don't spend. If they don't spend, the companies that supply them go broke, because they make up the vast majority of citizens.

But greedy right wingers only think of how much they can put into their own bank account. Never what effect it has on the economy."

-source unknown, but I couldn't have said it better myself.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,633
Points:3,506,895
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 11:25:47 AM

Jeskibuff - I agree. And further, I think we ought not to dignify it by calling it "Occupy". Call it for what it is - a disgruntled group of college aged kids and younger adults who consider themselves disaffected. I think a more appropriate name, in light of their incoherent message is the "We're Pissed Off!" movement. WPO had little to say, other than they were angry that the economy was such that they couldn't get jobs. They also had a strong anti-semitic undertone, in that those supporting the Palestinians used the movement and it's liberal sheep-like followers to trash Israel and American Jews.

I also found it funny that SemiSteve, some time ago, started a topic that was titled: "The Occupy Movement Will Never Die!" (or something similar). Great? Where are the WPO movement today? (instead of "occupiers", should we call them "pishers" - another word for young folks who urninate in their pants? Seems appropriate?)
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,656
Points:1,562,870
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 9:36:55 AM

There goes the Dollar Menu....

Can you say $3 Menu now???
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,766
Points:47,040
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 8:11:46 AM

Hours are much more of a problem than wages.

Many local jobs pay much more than minimum wage, but the jobs are part-time, temporary or seasonal/

Many part-time workers work less than 20 hours per week.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,766
Points:47,040
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 8:07:42 AM

Regarding the living wage, according to the self sufficiency standard for our region, many of our relatives - single mothers with young children that work part time low paying jobs would have to make $30 Plus Per Hour - 40 Hours Per Week to be self sufficient.

Many are lucky to get 1 or 2 4-hour shifts some weeks and often have weeks when they don't receive, or can't work scheduled/non scheduled hours.

Self Sufficiency Standard for Saratoga County
Profile Pic
Tru2psu2
Champion Author Winston-Salem

Posts:17,954
Points:2,189,825
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 8:03:06 AM

Unions stink!
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:10,953
Points:2,114,925
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 7:06:48 AM

SemiSteve said: "And conservatives believe Occupy did nothing. Look how people are starting to stand up for themselves."

Yeah, we're seeing how well that's working out. Over 18,000 people are now out of work because some idiots in a Baker's union foolishly thought that their bravado could overrule the basic principles of market economics.

The Occupy movement did nothing but inject a massive dose of stupidity into an already stupid group of people.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,627
Points:153,375
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 12:25:26 AM

FlyboyUt

Maybe you dont think at 70 years of age it is unique for you to know how to use a computer but it is. I watched the computerization of equipment, the replacement of relays with ladder logic.

People that spent their whole life in electronics even ones that were trained by uncle sam had to lean basic.
I dont discount you learned it is still rare at your age to be efficient at operating a computer, all though the first computer is the abacus that didn't use electronics at all.

Also nobody had to teach us how to work, you do not have the market cornered on working as a child after school.

I collected tin cans with my wagon to take to the scrape yard 25cents a wagon full 10cents at the pop machine for a coke.

Oh yes my other job was gathering coal from the abandoned strip mine, I did have to be taught how to tell the difference between slate and coal.

Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,633
Points:3,506,895
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 12:12:22 AM

nst said: "OK, so what is a "living wage"? Does it depend on the family size?"

--Your point is very well taken. Will it also depend on what the cost of living is in your particular area? Minneapolis is a heck of a lot cheaper place to live than LaLa land. New York is also a very expensive place to live. If I had to guess, (and this is just a guess), the Times Square McDonald's is probably already paying better than ten bucks, probably more like twelve, to hazard a guess. Here in LaLa land, our minimum wage, I believe is a bit over $9/h. Is it enough to really live well off of? I doubt it. But if you had a couple both making minimum, they'd be making $36K/y before taxes. I just clipped this fact off of the Census website: "median household income 2006-2010, $51,914"

So it's less than average, but it's also a job that requires no skills going in. It seems to me jobs like this aren't intended to be careers. They're intended to be stepping stones, first jobs, places to gain skills, etc. etc.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,938
Points:1,886,560
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 12:01:57 AM

Kansas...my dad picked tomatoes when he was young...he is about as white as the come.
Profile Pic
KansasGunman
Champion Author Kansas

Posts:22,106
Points:2,117,980
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 11:52:46 PM

"my question about the way tomato pickers were paid 60 years ago"

.....

They were virtually unskilled, ignorant and mostly illegal back then and for the most part the same holds true today so what's changed other than their paid more while remaining virtually unskilled, ignorant and here illegally?

[Edited by: KansasGunman at 12/2/2012 11:55:29 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,793
Points:1,595,825
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 11:39:31 PM

In case any of you are interested - the minimum wage back then was $0.75 per hour - we worked for less than minimum wage. It was not intended to be a "living wage". It was intended to be a job where kids could make a little money and learn what it meant to hold a job. In fact I didnt work at a job that paid minimum wage until I was in High School. Since then I have never worked at a job that didnt pay well over 'minimum wage'.

There were real advantages to having jobs available for kids where they developed working skills and developed a work history.

That held true then and still holds true today - ask MarkJames - he seems to have some idea of what I am trying to get across.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,793
Points:1,595,825
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 11:12:37 PM

Streetrider - I said almost. I was 10 years old at the time I think. We worked after school for a couple of hours and saturdays for about 3-4 hours. Thats all the farmer would let kids work. So we probably got in 10-14 hours per week maybe for a month or so. We all wanted those jobs and your parents had to approve it and the farmer had to be willing to teach you how to do the job. We were not allowed anywhere near any machinery or anything else that might injure us. Because there was so much competition for the jobs if you got one you hustled and worked hard.

But funny thing was - none of us had to be told how to work. We had already learned that from previous jobs (mowing lawns, shoveling snow etc) and our parents.

But the point was that we were willing to work at a job that almost everyone thinks is beneath them today and we didnt quibble over the wages as the uions are asking to do here.

By the way gas was 15.9 during a gas war and usually 17.9 regular price.

Why is that unique to knowing how to use a computer????? I was an Electronics Technician in the service and used computers at work from the getgo. I am sure there are many older than I on these boards who use 'puters.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,663
Points:327,945
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 10:11:48 PM

"Marty - the point you missed is sometimes they are paid by the hour sometimes by what is picked"

I didn't miss the point; the impetus for this aspect of the conversation was my question about the way tomato pickers were paid 60 years ago. Perhaps you missed that.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,627
Points:153,375
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 9:52:44 PM

flyboyUt
If you made .35cents per hour 60 years ago you made a living,or better put gas .20 a gallon aloaf of bread .20, Hen Turkeys .53lb, 6pk of bran muffins .21. At those wages you were not rich but well able to have a decent life.
but then if you were working in 1952 you are unique to be that old and know how to work a computer.
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,528
Points:692,630
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 9:25:33 PM

Marty - the point you missed is sometimes they are paid by the hour sometimes by what is picked
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,663
Points:327,945
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 7:27:46 PM

"Hey Marty - maybe if the democrats cut off the gravy train americans are on they would be willing to work. "

Read the link.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,793
Points:1,595,825
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 7:22:57 PM

Hey Marty - maybe if the democrats cut off the gravy train americans are on they would be willing to work.

[Edited by: flyboyUT at 12/2/2012 7:23:58 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,663
Points:327,945
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 6:55:35 PM

Why Americans Won't Do Dirty Jobs (Bloomberg Businessweek)


This article discusses the ramifications of a law in Alabama similar to the one Bell mentioned in his post. It also indicates the workers earn $2 for each 25 pound basket of tomatoes they fill, meaning they'll take home $60 at the end of the day.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,663
Points:327,945
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 6:30:17 PM

FWIW, in 2007 the tomato pickers in southwest Florida were paid $0.40 for every 32 pounds of produce they picked. So, pickers would make $50 a day if they could manage to pick 4,000 pounds of tomatoes.

I don't think your anecdote about Georgia farmers is representative of the going wage. Georgia law made crop pickers harder to get, so naturally the price rose. Supply and demand I suppose.
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,528
Points:692,630
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 6:24:43 PM

Marty - sometimes crop jobs pay by the hour sometimes by what is produced. Here in GA a couple years ago we passed laws that made it illegal to hire illegal aliens, Go Figure. The Mexicans fled the state because they couldn't get work. The farmers were paying by the bucket but were guaranteeing $13 - $15 per hour minimum.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,663
Points:327,945
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 6:14:32 PM

Wouldn't crop pickers have been paid according to the weight of the produce they picked, and not by the hour?
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,793
Points:1,595,825
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 4:29:33 PM

streetrider - "Shame on those unions demanding living wages, and benefits, let them eat cake."

Would you mind explaining to me just how a part time, entry level job of 'flipping hamburgers' is supposed to somehow be a so called living wage?

I feel robbed I tell ya. When I was picking green onions and tomatoes on a 'truck garden' farm almost 60 years ago for 35 cents an hour I guess I shoulda demanded a 'living wage'? After all we worked a couple of hours after school and a half day on Saturday. Heck I shoulda been able to support a family and buy a house on that job I guess - well at least according to some here anyway.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,627
Points:153,375
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 3:58:42 PM

nstrdnvstr

Reading from the original post topic flyboyUT jaw saw on cavuto demonstrations demanding $15.00 per hour.

Drawing from that info i would say its $15.00 per hour.
Profile Pic
Snowchoux
Champion Author Missouri

Posts:1,003
Points:145,635
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 12:09:32 PM

Unions will say one thing, but then do the opposite.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,148
Points:4,666,200
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 12:04:21 PM

streetrider, "Shame on those unions demanding living wages, and benefits, let them eat cake."

OK, so what is a "living wage"? Does it depend on the family size?
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,633
Points:3,506,895
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 11:22:26 AM

Not sure if that would be true today. Most McDonald's restaurants are franchised. Not sure of the corporation owns the ground and the building, and the "franchisee" as operator is just renting it? I did work as a McDonald's crew member a whole lot of years ago. I can say when I worked there, I never had any management disputes that I couldn't resolve myself. I worked at company-owned stores, and I would say they NEVER gave raises on time.
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,528
Points:692,630
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 10:52:23 AM

Once many years ago, Ray Kroc said that he was not in the hamburger business. He was in the real estate business. If he had to quit selling hamburgers tomorrow he could sell all of the companies real estate for a tidy profit. Talk about having the end game planned out.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,633
Points:3,506,895
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2012 10:51:50 PM

SemiSteve said: "Workers demanding a better deal are simply exercising their American right to do so. Like I said, I don't think they'll get $15 but bully for them for asking and showing that they can cause bad publicity so they do have some power to wield."

--To my mind, THIS libertarian moderate finds so many things wrong with your post, it's hard to know where to begin.

First, were you aware that the unions that were picketing McDonald's did not even have ONE McD's worker present? NOT EVEN ONE. I think it's the AFL-CIO that's trying to grandstand to unionize McDonald's. McD's have a history of unions trying to get in, and the unions falling flat on their faces.

And your assertion that folks will go somewhere cheaper is correct - unless, of course, the unions are going to try to organize their competitors, like, say Burger King, Wendy's, Jack in the Box, Taco Hell (oops, sorry, Taco BELL), Kentucky F. Chicken (can't say "fried" anymore, "fried" is a bad word in this day and age). But do you see my point? I think the kind of food that McDonald's or any of these serve aren't going to bear raising the prices to compensate for a ~3X wage boost AND paying for health care.

And as to your assertion of, in effect, "so put them out of business" - I take issue with that. McDonald's and other fast-food restaurants provide a product/service that people are willing to pay their money for. It's up to the individual to decide what they want to put in their body. Me? I only like to go to fast food every now and again, not more than about once a week. And don't get me wrong - I love burgers more than most. Once, some years ago when I was living out here alone, I spent time with my SIL and her husband. We were out and about. I ate 3 burgers in a day. She pointed out the fact that it was the 3rd one she'd seen me eat that day. I hadn't even thought about it. But again, that was my business what I put in my body. It's not your business. You're not paying for my insurance, I am. You've no right to tell me or anyone what to eat or when. You can put the info out there and tell folks what is in their best interest. But it seems that you are proposing is to boost wages, and therefore prices, to such a point where you FORCE folks to be price out of the market as a way to control their behavior. That's just wrong, Steve.

I was listening to Neil Cavuto talk on the very subject of unions protesting McD's in Times Square and elsewhere. He was saying that this is only about one thing and one thing only - collecting union dues. What can the unions REALLY do for McDonald's crew workers? Not much. And I suspect the average worker (immigrant who is new to America, teens, etc) are probably not going to be too sophisticated. Sure, they very well may "go for it" when they're told "Look, look fifteen bucks and hour for you!" But the reality is that a hefty portion of that will go to the unions. Those workers are ultimately going to be hoodwinked by the unions, mark my words. The unions will ultimately tyrannize the workers worse than the managers. I would be OK with the unions coming in - IF AND ONLY IF it were open shop and right to work. Let the unions PROVE their value to both the companies AND the workers. If they can do so, then companies will be BEGGING unions to come to them. Since they can't, the unions are losing their grip. That's why they're trying to organize illegals, hotel maids and other perceived underdogs. Heck, are you aware that the LAX protests on Wed before T'giving were because a union was DECERTIFIED by it's own workers because it was so bad? Other union fools were protesting over it.
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,528
Points:692,630
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2012 2:40:35 PM

Unions of today are about one thing; UNION DUES. Face it, the unions are picking companies like Walmart and McDonalds because they are very large companies with lots of employees. The upside for the union is that even if the company eventually folds, the workers will pay those union dues every pay period.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,938
Points:1,886,560
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2012 9:28:32 AM

"Like I said, I don't think they'll get $15 but bully for them for asking and showing that they can cause bad publicity so they do have some power to wield."

Yep...because we saw how that worked for Walmart. They suffered terribly from the bad publicity on Black Friday.

And it also was bad for Chick-Fil-A over the gay marriage thing. Bad publicity seems to work terribly for these corporations. At this rate we are going to bad publicity our way right out of these bad economic times.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,817
Points:334,830
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 9:24:07 PM

"We should hold President Obama to his '08 promise to raise the minimum wage to $10 and to tie it thereafter to inflation".

That would be a disaster.
I hope they do it.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,819
Points:456,985
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 7:06:39 PM

AFSNCO: "Steve, these jobs were not meant to "support" a family. There is a reason fastfood and other jobs are "part-time." They are meant to supplement an income."

--I don't know if they are 'meant' to do anything. It is a job. If workers feel they are underpaid it is their right to demand more. I agree with you that it is absurd to try to support a family on a fast food wage. But you can't tell that to young people who don't plan kids or make a life strategy.

"BTW, the idea that people will go somewhere else to eat is ridiculous. If fastfood employees start getting $15/hour how long do you think it is that the people at other places ask for the same thing?"

--There is nothing ridiculous about it. People are going to eat somewhere. If this causes them to start going to a grocery store and making their own meals at home that is 'somewhere' and then the grocery stores will see increased business and require more workers. Previous fast food customers are not going to simply stop eating. They will either find other non-franchised acceptably priced local fast food outlets or they will figure out how to eat as cheaply as possible. Maybe they will shop and prepare meals. And if they do they will need utensils, pots, pans, food, power, supplies, etc. And the demand for those things will increase and require the suppliers to do more work, prompting the need for more employees.

Workers demanding a better deal are simply exercising their American right to do so. Like I said, I don't think they'll get $15 but bully for them for asking and showing that they can cause bad publicity so they do have some power to wield.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,793
Points:1,595,825
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 6:13:45 PM

Steve I really wish yo would stop confusing tax rate with actual taxes paid. I can tax you at 150% of your income but if there are enough loopholes and deductions so that you only pay 2% what is your actual tax rate.

Do some research and dig out what quintile paid what % of taxes by year. If your honest you will find that gradually the highest quintile has taken on more of a tax burden -- both actual dollars and as a % of income than the lower ones over time.

Our tax syustem has in fact become more 'progressive' over the last 60 years.

[Edited by: flyboyUT at 11/30/2012 6:15:33 PM EST]
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,627
Points:153,375
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 4:39:51 PM

Tere goes the cake money.
Profile Pic
noseatbelt
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:8,133
Points:212,590
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 4:33:19 PM

I'm guessing that if 15.00 an hour at fast food places becomes the norm, and prices at those places go thru the roof, a lot more people will start brown bagging it. What will happen then? Many of the workers at those places will either lose their job, or take a drastic cut in hours. And as it always is the unions will say, it isn't our fault you lost your job.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,627
Points:153,375
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 4:27:08 PM

Shame on those unions demanding living wages, and benefits, let them eat cake.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,938
Points:1,886,560
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 4:15:39 PM

This is just as dumb as the socialist idea, that I have seen on these very boards, that people should be paid on their need. If they have children they should get paid more than someone that doesn't. Just dumb...
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,811
Points:840,390
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 3:50:23 PM

The criteria should be for that employee who is earning the wage.

It is up to the employee to determine if they can have a spouse who does not earn a wage or children. The plummeting U.S. birth rate may give an indication of the decisions people are making. The time for indiscriminate childbearing in the belief that the government will pay for them is past, and should have been long ago.
Post a reply Back to Topics