Burger flippers demanding $15/hr

http://www.computerworld.com/articl...ants-but-dont-blame-rising-minimum-wages.html
I guess they would prefer to not work at all. Keep asking for more and watch the robots take your jobs. And do it better.

 

It's not.

 

I guess theirs no problem then because we can just tax the CEO's that run the future mcdonalds robots and pay their former employees too do something more worthwhile like building a bridge or working to cure aids

 

But you wouldn't get a nice smile from a robot and you couldn't give a robot your phone number.

 

Not sure where you go. I just hope they can get my order close to being right. 7 out of 10 it's wrong. I bet the automations will have a better record and be nicer and more polite.

 

And who will do this taxing? So far the only taxes raised was on the middle class by Obama. I heard a lot of talk but never took any steps to raise taxes on the rich. Like Hillary and Obama.

 

okay so if im following you correctly, your main problem is that the government is not taxing enough of the rich to pay for more government programs? maybe your more left wing than the democrats?

 

And you wouldn't have to tip them.

 

My point is that certain jobs are only worth so much till you are replaceable with a machine. Automation will soon make this even a bigger problem. If you don't like the wages you make find another job. Sweat a little. Try roofing or bricking or Sheetrock work or go offshore.

 

are you seriously asking me why a single mother of three with 2 other jobs in grease kitchens just doesn't "sweat" a little more and become a bricklayer?

 

Are you telling me a mother will have three kids without the thought of how they will support them.? Choices made where hers. Not mine or the fast food restaurant. These jobs are for young just starting out in the world people.

 

how very christ-like of you, okay ignoring your hinting at euthanizing the poor, let's say she's a widow and her husband died fighting in Iraq after they just had triplets (alright does that satisfy your need for complete innocence?) And the only way she can make ends meet is too work 12 hours a day 7 days a week with no overtime because she works at 3 different grease kitchens and depending on where you live barely making over 40,000 a year before taxes. Don't you think if she could find a "better" job she would've done it a long time ago?

 

Whatever his expenses, he has no right to the property of anyone else.

 

Wages must be enough to enter the consumer economy... so more than just be able to pay for your own basic needs. There otherwise is no point between that and getting some handout to keep yourself alive. And there is plenty of money going around for it. It is just divided obscenely,.. to the point that a bunch of CEO's get to be billionaires for crashing the world's economy. Or are you going to tell me that there is not enough money around?

 

I agree. Nobody has the right to prevent an employee from negotiating for his employment.

 

The workers are the ones who actually produce the product, they grow the lettuce, they grind the beef ,they greet the customer, they clean the bathrooms, the owner does little or in some cases no work and merely reaps the profits from simply "owning" (and this goes for stockholders as well) the McDonald's. But the workers are the ones actually doing the work. You said profits made by the workers are the property of the owners, which is incorrect.

If the workers don't show up, you don't get your hamburgers. If the owners don't show up, you still get your hamburger. Understand?

 

According to the Franchise Business Review, the average franchisee makes $66,000 per year in profit.

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/228698

On top of that many franchise fees are $1 million or more.

How do those advocating for them being paid a "living wage" think these increases in wage expenses will affect franchised fast food restaurants?

 

The owner put up the starting capital in the first place. If they hadn't done that there would be no jobs for the employees. On top of that they are the ones taking the risk. If the company goes under the owner is the one responsible for paying back the debt, not the employees. The owners should be rewarded for taking the risk in the first place.

If the profits that the workers help to produce aren't the property of the owners, then who are they the property of?

While it's true if the workers don't show up we won't get our hamburgers, it's also true that they will be replaced by someone else. The less skills required for a job the less bargaining power an employee has. That is one reason why fast food employees make less than a doctor. Less people are capable of being doctors than working in a fast food kitchen. To be fair, there's also various other reasons they make more.

 

Not much at all. Labor costs are a small factor in costs. Other costs are driving the price inflation. Wages have fallen off significantly for decades now. Employers have always sniveled about paying their help; they never snivel about their poor management and personal shortcomings, even as the latter is the primary reasons for business failures.

 

that number reflects every franchise owner including hot dog carts. The average mickey d's however rakes in 2.4 million a year in profits

 

Labor costs are a big factor in costs.

I am curious though why you feel it won't have much of an effect.

Wages have fallen off even though we're more productive now as a whole than we ever have been before. But this is due to technological innovation increasing productivity. People aren't dropping items in a fryer or flipping burgers faster than in the past. I have nothing against fast food employees. Many of them are extremely hard working and good people. But being hard working and a good person shouldn't mean one makes more. Productivity and creating profits for their owner/management should be why.

I agree with you about poor management being the primary cause for business failures. But then again that's why they get paid more as well.

A lot of people are trying to turn this into multimillionaires keeping the little guy down, but many fast food restaurants are owned by franchisees who are much closer to being the little guy than the rich CEO.

 

you sound irrational, 80k a year would be ridiculous, $15 an hour is keeping up with the cost of living....

 

the profits are the property of the workers, as they created them.

if the owner does not want too invest his capital into a restaurant, because the new $15 wages are too high, for him too make a quick profit. Then he can take his money and invest in something else like McDonald's stock perhaps?

 

I agree. Nobody has the right to prevent an employee from negotiating for his employment.

I'm not sure I said what you said I said. However, my contention is that people own the things they own.

Yes, I understand.

 

No, not really. The workers' wages are their property. A worker doesn't acquire ownership simply by performing a particular action. If I own a widget and a gizmo and I hire someone to attach the widget to the gizmo, I still continue to fully own my widget and my gizmo. The guy who I hired to do the attaching doesn't suddenly acquire ownership.