McDonald's workers descend on headquarters to protest 'poverty wages'

We're not going to reach that point any time soon.

 

A generally unhealthy luxury item prepared and served by large organizations of people typically without any better prospects at the time, who are themselves paid the bare minimum possible because the law mandates it, enriching a small handful of people at the corporate top who are paid very disproportionally to their subordinates.
And this is okay? This is ethical?

 

You need to go back in time and tell the creator of Minimum wage what it's for because your vision and reality are completely different places.

 

Not gonna happen, we are screwing ourselves out of jobs either way. The entry level position will be a thing of the past and getting a true full time job that is stable enough to support you and a family will be even harder to come by. We are turning ourselves into a 3rd world country because everyone here is demanding they get rich for mopping the floor.

 

We never will because we don't need technology. Technology needs us.

The idea that sometime in the future there will come a time when rice will be able to harvest itself, and computers will be able to make computers without any human intervention so we aren't necessary forgets one important point. We don't need technology that is self-serving, and neither does technology.

Let's say that there is some future where technology can do everything we can do. Robots will be able to do everything from weeding lawns to flipping burgers to tying shoes to washing our dishes. Will we suddenly become so useless that we starve on the street while robots run around not doing anything except creating more robots? No.

If you're driving the latest and fastest ferrari and using the latest and greatest computer, and suddenly find that those things are too expensive to buy, do these things suddenly make your life irrelevant? Or does your inability to make use of these things make them irrelevant?

 

So you would prefer nobody worked at fast food places or other menial jobs?

 

Aren't like 90% if these franchised? Why protest the headquarters when they don't set wages for the mass.

 

When your job can be taught to a 5 year old, you don't deserve to be paid more to do it. F@ck I'm tired of this topic. No, you should not be paid based on what it costs to live somewhere, it should be based on what you are doing. Minimum wage is something fantastic for lazy idlers. Work harder and earn more.

 

For every available job in this country there are two people needing that job. That includes the low value jobs you are referring to. With millions needing jobs, while at the same time those jobs do not exist, are those same folks to blame for not improving their lives in this country where the job they seek doesn't exist? And if your answer is yes, explain how a person acquires a job when that job doesn't exist.

 

It takes more than energy to get an education.

 

We'll, in the meantime for every job available there are two looking to get that job. Those new jobs you are talking about aren't being created fast enough. And, in the mean time do we continue demonizing those where no job exists and continue the conspiracy of using the excuse about these folks being lazy, while ignoring the real problem of opportunity in this country?

 

With what money? Are the banks going to lend the money to a guy who's lived a clean life who was born and raised in the projects of Baltimore?

 

Those jobs, are not meant to be become a career. They are meant to be used as a stepping stone to something else.

 

If we had kept pace with today's cost of living, minimum wage would be $21 dollars an hour. You see, that is the whole problem. You have to be able to understand that an auto mechanic should be starting off way higher than that. The only folks who have gotten a raise since 1979 are the rich. They have given themselves a 270% raise while the average worker has stayed essentially the same; https://www.google.com/search?q=ima...-show%2Fintroducing-eds-vulture-chart;607;478 So, to answer your question, it isn't that the cook should be paid the same as someone with actual knowkledge, it's just that the rich have taken the cook out of the game by awarding themselves a 270% pay raise, while the cook stays the same, and just can't keep up with the cost of living.

 

No, but they might give a loan to a guy who has been a crack addict since the 80s, but he owns his own house, and that loan isn't more than the value of his house.

Simply being raised in the projects of Baltimore isn't something that a bank can put a lien on.

 

man, there are a lot of problems with this.

First off, you talk about "if WE had kept pace with today's cost of living" as if WE decide the value of each others work. WE do, but only as it pertains to the law of supply and demand. WE don't value certain skill-sets, while others we do.

If every mcdonalds in the country was looking at lines around the block, the value of mcburger flippers would be increased. But this isn't the case so WE have decided that the people working in mcdonalds aren't worth what you seem to feel WE should pay them.

Notice the discrepancy there? When the first star wars movie was released, there were lines around the block. And now George Lucas is a rich man. WE decided that he should be extremely wealthy.

If there were lines of motorists with cars that needed fixing around the block at mechanics shops, the mechanics would be able to demand a higher wage. But there aren't lines like that because the demand for their services is not warranted.

Yes, WE do determine the price of things, and that includes labor. And sometimes the value of a particular form of labor just isn't enough to cover the costs of living. And that is why people employed in the soap bubble blowing profession aren't able to live a lifestyle they might feel their efforts warrant.

 

No, those are jobs for people currently being educated...duh???? Do you want people to work those jobs till the day they die ??

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, effort. Like I said.

 

You're neglecting that the purpose of the minimum wage. Minimum wage was enacted so that the LOWEST form of employment will pay enough for someone to live a decent living.

 

Not only that, but higher education is also not doing it's job. I have been in advertising for the last 20 years. I used to be in the creative side of the business, but switched to the more technical production side. Now, I'm 48 years old. I've been in the business a long time. What is disturbing to me is the lack of technical ability young people trying to get into the business possess, which is close to none. Logic would dictate that kids growing up in a society with advanced technology would know how to use that tech and improve on it. They should be better at it than I am-way better. They're not. This was a trend I started noticing ten years ago.

We have been trying to bring younger people into our department, but it's next to impossible. We need them at my company, none of us are going to live forever. We've tried interns, freelancers and mentoring. It's like they just don't get it. They know how to use the tech, but not how it works. It's damn frustrating. And I definitely blame higher ed for not teaching them these things. Any kid coming out of college with a degree should know how to use all the relevant applications.

The big problem is, it's going to get worse as the web goes Hi Def, which it will very soon, and already is starting to happen.

 

I disagree with the concept of a minimum wage to begin with, so you're going to have to do better than that. All you end up with are kids that can't get a job selling lemonade at a lemonade stand.

What people are worth is not something that can be legislated. They're worth what they are worth, and that's it. There is no legislation that can make any of us worth more than what we are worth.

 

I can attest that far to many people go into fields like Poli Sci (I am guilty of this as its one of my majors alongside economics) and journalism or getting teaching certification. All three of those fields are easier than going for something like engineering which is probably the most difficult. At the national level 75% of post graduate engineer students are from other countries.

 

Here's the thing, we have openings in my company, and no one to fill them. My boss keeps saying, "If any of you can recommend anyone, please do" The problem is, everyone I could recommend has a job already. There are jobs in this country waiting to be filled. We've got them at my company, but there are no young people who even come close to the skill level we need. That is ridiculous. We're failing our young people in a big way. They should have the tech skills they need when they get out of school.

 

So what is the solution? Some technology develops faster than schools can implement programs to train folks.

- - - Updated - - -

There was a time when these jobs were done by high school kids who still lived at home. It is a sad state of affairs when there are folks who actually depend on these types of jobs to earn a living.

 

Yes, but I am talking about basic tech that anyone in advertising should know. It's hard it describe without showing you. This may not make sense to you, but anyone in advertising should be familiar with Adobe Creative Suite (Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign). It's the basis of what we do in advertising. It's essential knowledge. It's not hard for a school to teach it, as a matter of fact, it's pretty easy. But yet, schools are not teaching these basic skills. That's not OK, and that's what bothers me.

I'm not kidding you. Just today, I requested a logo file from an art director (around 26 years old), I told her I needed a vector file and she had no idea what I was talking about. That's pathetic. She sent me me a jpeg, twice. She had no idea what a vector file was.

 

Do you really need a class to learn Photoshop? I practically taught myself AutoCad.