Avg McDonald's employee wage: $7.73. Ave hourly wage of McDonald's CEO: $9,274

Right? or better yet, been in line for any CEO interviews lately says the sixteen year old burger flipper still in school under mommy and daddy's healthcare.

 

Oh, so it upsets you when someone who earns more than you criticzes you?

I joined the military at 17 , and obtained multiple degrees, then took over and expanded the family business. So, why are you so lazy that you haven't done the same, and why can't I insult you for that , and why can't I assume those facts about you, since that is exactly what you are doing to those who make less than you?

In fact, what is your profession, whatever it is, I'm sure you are overpaid and that the market value is FAR less than whatever amount you make.

Oh, this post was asinine and didn't make sense? That's right it didn't, and neither do yours.

 

Why does a minimum wage worker work under 30 hours a week?

And what is the average age of a minimum wage worker?

 

At this point, I'm beginning to question your literacy. I NEVER said give them more. I said let their EMPLOYERS give them more while the taxpayers give them NONE.

An extra $2 an hour would equate to $4160 a year for a full time worker (less for less than full time of course) That amount would make them INELIGIBLE for welfare. Meaning in actuality they aren't "getting a raise" they are merely collecting money from their employers only rather than from their employers and the tax payers.

Now it COULD make some difference in their lives because of say getting $200 a month in food stamps or whatever they will be getting $200 in cash, etc etc etc, but frankly I don't care if it makes a difference in their lives one bit, ALL I care about it, does it save the tax payers money? The answer is yes, all else is irrelevant to me.

- - - Updated - - -

Your question was answered in the very post you quoted.

 

I honestly think that a lot of these people want to create a permanent lower class, where they have never had an incentive to improve themselves, so they spend their entire life in low-skilled dead end jobs. Just give them enough to get by, and no reason to ever try to improve their lot in life.

Kind of like panem et circenses, give the plebes just enough so they do not riot, nor do they threaten their own jobs.

Myself, I want the exact opposite. Let that low pay be their incentive to work harder and gain the skills so they can leave that "burger flipping" job forever, and never look back.

Raising the wages to what most of these people suggest would simply reward those who want to do nothing but the absolute minimum. And then others would be stuck, kind of like the Welfare Trap. You get on welfare because of need, then you find out if you dare to actually get a job and try to get off of it you get punished by loosing everything and actually making less then when you were on the dole. So you quit working and just live on that minimal stipend.

Some people simply enjoy seeing people get by on the absolute minimum, I don't. I want them to rise as high as possible, according to their own initiative and merits.

 

Oh you're right, some people only want to do the minimum, and some companies only want to hire the minimum.

You know what I say to those folks? (*)(*)(*)(*) you, I'm tired of my tax dollars subsidizing your laziness. Likewise I'm tired of companies taking advantage of people who only want to do the minimum to get jobs done. It's cheaper and easier to hire 3 pieces of (*)(*)(*)(*) to serve Big Macs half assed than it is to hire 2 quality employees and pay them fairly. That's a fact. A further fact is that these companies KNOW that their predatory policies aren't going to hurt their profit margin one bit, IOW very few people avoid McD because of their (*)(*)(*)(*)ty service. Sure we (*)(*)(*)(*)(*), then we go right back.

I say raise the min wage to $9.25 an hour and then cut off ALL welfare to any able bodied person, if you can work and you won't too bad starve. But i you DO work, you better make damned sure you're worth $9.25 an hour to your employer because if you are not, well they will get rid of you.

I predict that most people would figure it out and not starve. I say that most companies would realize that customers actually appreciate the improvement in service and quality.

And I say all this wold be done with a very limited if any increase in either unemployment or price increases. Oh sure at first there might be a spike where losers who aren't even honestly worth $7.25 an hour get fired, but after a month or so they'd get hungry and figure out how to make themselves worth more.

For the ones who don't? Too bad

 

And I'd tell them the same thing I'd tell businesses who don't want it raised.

Tough (*)(*)(*)(*)

Laws are supposed to help ALL of us, not just a select few. It's guys like you and I are who are subsidizing the racket they are playing on both ends. I say we say (*)(*)(*)(*) you to both of them.

And I'm 100% serious. I would tie the minimum wage to inflation beginning with a value of $9.25 an hour , I would mandate that any employee MUST be scheduled for 30 hours a week and then I would get rid of welfare for able bodied persons PERIOD.

I could probably even be convinced that a second minimum wage should be utilized , one for kids, or people who just want to work a few hours a week, etc etc, but with the stipulation that they could only make up say 50% of any employers work force or something like that.

 

Look dude, I'm not going back and read all your posts. I saw this and sent you a post. You can be an ass like you already are, or you could answer the question. Well this tells me a lot about you. Enjoy your minimum wage job. And for the record, most minimum wage jobs are under the age of 20 years old. No career through college yet or still in high school. So go cry me a river of fries.

 

What are you talking about? You quoted me then asked a question that I answered in the very post you quoted. Is it MY fault that you can't read?

By the way, I retired as a Major in the Arkansas National Guard and now run the family business which did $8M in gross sales last year. I hardly qualify as a min wage worker simply b/c YOU disagree with me on this topic.

 

In other words, you're in denial of the truth. Any moron can flip burgers, but it takes a particularly skilled and knowledgeable individual to manage one of the biggest corporations in the world. Clearly, then, the "gap" between their wages is totally justified.

 

Well it must be that you're getting too old to remember what you wrote. Please highlight for me the answers to the questions I asked?

Originally Posted by conhog
First of all, have you read the other threads on this topic? I have and people have said "let them live 10 to an apt if they have to" or "let them eat ramen noodles every night" or "let them walk everywhere" and numerous other things. I could if you can't admit that that is likely go find examples of each. do NOT call me a liar sir, I don't lie. If I post a fact, it's a fact. There ARE people who have said such things.

Second of all, I've been nothing but honest about what I "want" out of this topic, and I've been consistent in EVERY thread. I don't care about their lifestyle. I care that we aren't going to let them fall below a certain level, even if we have to supplement that with tax payer money. I don't want a better minimum wage lifestyle, I want a minimum wage lifestyle that is NOT aided by tax dollars. PERIOD

And your examples of people who are earning minimum wage and working 40-50 hours a week are noted, and rejected because that is not the norm. You know this is true, most of these jobs work 30 hours a week or less so that there is no chance of either overtime or benefits. That's just fact right there.

It is YOU who should try being honest for a change.

 

I read that same article, or perhaps just snippets of it online. And it does sorta make sense. But the reason is makes sense is because we are too soft on crime.

Prisons should not include a/c , tv, libraries, etc etc. Prison should be 8 hours of hard labor every day and 3 sparse but nutritional meals and nothing more.

 

More evidence that the resident novices will ignore.

 

LOL you asked why these workers weren't getting 40 hours a week, when in the VERY post you quoted I wrote

most of these jobs work 30 hours a week or less so that there is no chance of either overtime or benefits.

I answered the question before you had even asked it , and then you even quoted the post and asked the question. LOL

 

I think the CEO earned the 9,000 dollars an hour, while the Mcdonald's cashier didn't. I reached this conclusion because maybe the CEO was born with parents who took personal responsibility so he could have access to good schooling, and even then he worked and went to school to get his Business degree.

The cashier may have been from parents who didn't take personal responsibility, and they may have been raised not to value work ethic so they did not go to college while working at Mcdonalds.

So these may be things to justify why there is a difference in wage, that CEO earned it through hard work, while the cashier was lazy and did the least amount of work to survive.

 

Historical evidence shows that in the US , since 1990 there is a 2% average increase the year after a minimum wage increase , but that corrects itself within 1 year and the unemployment rate returns to its previous level.

So, 1.5M out of 79M, ASSUMING that all those job losses are minimum wage jobs, probably a safe assumption, but an assumption nonetheless.

 

no one is denying that flipping burgers is an easy job - which is why they deserve to be paid minimum wage.
but minimum wage should keep a full time employee above poverty line, nothing more.

 

What about single mothers?

 

Silliness is thinking you're living in the 1950's where a person in the US with no skills *could* just go where unskilled labor is required.

Where are they supposed to go now? China? What if China won't let them in?

 

I just gave you a scholarly review of the evidence on the minimum wage. If your company did eight million in sales, there's no excuse for you not to purchase the full paper and read it for yourself. Of course, you could just use the laws of supply and demand to understand the effect that minimum wages have on employment...



Apparently, some here believe that the "laws" of economics cease to apply when it comes to labor.

 

That's not the issue you raised. You're complaining about the "gap" between them, saying it is not justified. The only way it's not justified is if you don't value things like skill and knowledge.

 

The obvious mainstream solution is to enact a Friedman-type rule for monetary policy so that there is zero percent inflation rate. The money supply still expands, but only in response to organic economic growth, not as a means of inducing or sustaining it. By maintaining a zero percent inflation rate, you eliminate the need for constant increases to the minimum wage and other cost of living indexes. Why don't you populist crusaders ever look at that end of the equation? the monetary end? That is where the perpetual increases in our cost of living come from. That is why I keep saying that increasing the minimum wage is like putting a band-aid (a crappy one) on a gun shot wound. Even if you succeed in getting the minimum wage raised, you will not have solved the problem, which is increases in our cost of living...

 

Most of the time when you hear of somebody "struggling on minimum wage jobs", it is in a big city. We hear that whine all the time here in Baghdad by the Bay. Some mother whining on TV about how she works 3 jobs to be able to afford to put a roof over her head.

And her and the bleeding hearts failing to realize that the problem is not her pay, it is that she is trying to live in San Francisco! Where the housing costs are so freaking insane that she could give up that $4,000 a month studio, move 60 miles away to Vallejo, buy a monthly ferry pass, and still save over $2,000 a month leftover.

The problem is when it comes to adults who are working those kinds of jobs, I generally see them as "damaged goods". Most lack the kind of logic and common sense that tells them they are in a failing paradigm, and they need to break it and find one that works.

And most do not even have to move that far. Minimum Wage job not hacking it in SF with $4,000 a month apartments? Then why not move to freaking Stockton, 60 miles away where you can rent a 2 bedroom house for $1,000 (or a studio apartment for $750). Yes, the minimum wage is fractionally lower, but the expenses are exponentially lower.