Burger flippers demanding $15/hr

yes he does if you dont pay him

 

Really? So you are actually saying that if a person owns a widget and a gizmo, and he hires someone to attach the gizmo to the widget, the person he hires acquires ownership of those items? Please confirm that this is your stance, because it seems too ludicrous to even entertain such a notion.

 

From what I can find that's around the average revenue, not profit.

Where did you get those numbers in case I'm wrong?

 

You'll have to explain this to me. The profits belong to the company.

If they don't open the store there will be less opportunity for employment for everybody looking seeking it. That doesn't help anybody.

 

The goofiest thing about this entire situation is that the very job that is ridiculed the most for being filled with losers and morons is the one demanding the big pay raise. This might have gotten more sympathy if it was people working in landscaping, or a warehouse or some manufacturing job that they pay minimum wage to their workers. But fast food workers? These are the workers that by definition no one else will higher because they are pot heads or lazy dumbasses. There is a reason that the fast food industry has one of the highest employee turn over rates and its because the workforce just sucks. And these losers are the people demanding they they should be paid more........for being dumbass losers?

 

Yeah well... a loser / dumbass shouldn't be living under the poverty line when working 40 honest hours.
They might as well live on your taxes / handouts and not work if it doesn't matter.

 

What is the income for someone officially living poverty? I'll bet it's less than someone working full time for minimum wage. Besides, the minimum wage was established for unskilled people entering the workforce for the first time. People on minimum wage typically don't stay there very long.

You left wingers act as though people stay in minimum wage forever. They must have a very pessimistic outlook on life.

Liberal think there's a class of people who can not move up economically unless they get assistance from government. The only thing government does is ensure a particular group of people remain in the dependent class.

 

evidently, you have no idea what middle class means.

 

No I'm going to tell you some jobs are entry level jobs. That's all. Paid for knowledge and task. Low knowledge and low labor jobs pay less. It's not that hard to flip burgers and pull the fries up when the fryer beeps. I done it when I was young.
It's not fast foods fault there isn't more jobs out there. Maybe you should look at Obama and ask him. Like his shovel ready jobs we are still waiting for.
Again fast food is low entry level jobs meant for teen and young adults. There is only one clown to blame that there isn't higher wage jobs out there and it's not Ronald's.

 

Well 16% of Americans / 1 in 5 American children live in poverty.
I doubt they do this because it suits their way of living.

Indeed. Because if we leave it up to conservatives 1 in 5 children wouldn't be able to go to a school paid by the government.

 

What are poverty thresholds and poverty guidelines?
What are poverty thresholds?
What are poverty guidelines?
What are the key differences between thresholds and guidelines?
What is the most recent "poverty line"?
Are there alternative models?
Related IRP Resources
Back to FAQs Home | next FAQ >>
Each fall, typically in September, the U.S. Census Bureau issues a public report on the level of poverty in the previous year and trends in the level and composition of the poor from year to year. The "poverty report" receives widespread media attention because it provides the nation's latest official statistics on income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States. It indicates how many people are poor; the poverty rate, or percentage of people who are below the poverty threshold; and how poverty is distributed by age, by race or ethnicity, by region, and by family type.

Individuals or families are "poor" if their annual pretax cash income falls below a dollar amount, or poverty threshold, that the Census Bureau determines using a federal measure of poverty that is recalculated each year. The Bureau's most recent report covers 2012 and was issued in September 2013 as Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012, drawing from the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplements. In addition to this national report, the Census Bureau also releases information on poverty for states, counties, and other geographic divisions. In recent years this second release of poverty data, drawing from the American Community Survey, has been within days of the release of the national estimates. [1]

Since 1965, there have been two slightly different versions of the federal poverty measure:

poverty thresholds, which are more detailed and primarily used for statistical purposes; and
poverty guidelines, which are a simplified version of the thresholds, primarily used for administrative purposes.
What are poverty thresholds?
The poverty thresholds are the original version of the federal poverty measure, which was developed by Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration in the 1960s. [2] Updated each year by the Census Bureau, the thresholds are used mainly for statistical purposes–for example, preparing the estimates of the number of Americans in poverty for each year's poverty report. The measure was devised to define and quantify poverty in America, and thereby provide a yardstick for progress or regress in antipoverty efforts, and in that sense has served the nation well.

Values of the poverty thresholds for the years since 1980 for families of different sizes are available on the Census Bureau's website. The most recent values of the poverty thresholds are provided in the table below. For example, a four-person family with two adults and two children is poor with annual cash income below $23,283; the threshold for a four-person family with a single parent and three children is $23,364.

U.S. Census Bureau Poverty Thresholds, 2012
Size of Family Unit Poverty Threshold
One person (unrelated individual) $11,720
Under age 65 11,945
Age 65 or older 11,011
Two people 14,937
Householder under age 65 15,450
Householder age 65 or older 13,892
Three people 18,284
Four people 23,492
Five people 27,827
Six people 31,471
Seven people 35,743
Eight people 39,688
Nine people or more 47,297
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Weighted Average Poverty Thresholds, 2012, released in September 2013.

- - - Updated - - -

Sometimes I find it very difficult to resist the urge to tell some people how stupid they are.

 

An entry job is still no excuse for economical exploitation in such a way that even their CEO doesn't know how they can make a living on such a crap wage. And IMHO everybody that works a full job must be able to make a living on it. While I don't see why the head burger flipper gets almost 9 million a year for bossing around highschool drop out losers, ex convicts, the occasional vet with drug issues etc.

 

Au Contraire

I am a child of the fifties and for me the definition will always be "the fifties".
Or "The Wonder Years" if you like.
Working people were secure in their continuing employment, and able to afford that Middle Class life style out of reach to the Middle Class defined by numbers, today. Such as "home ownership".

How is that Tahuyaman?
I define it by living standards, not numbers.

And I believe if you work 40 hours a week in America, you should be able to afford a Middle Class Life Style.
With the variable costs of housing between East Wolf's Ear, South Dakota and New York city, regional minimum wage is probably a fairer deal than a universal minimum wage.

Further, if you work 40 years 40 hours a week and pay into an optional extended Pension Program,
You should have a pension that maintains one's life style in retirement beyond mandatory Social Security.

Notice how America's workers have moved further from the 40 - 40 Dreams outlined above these last decades.
The American worker has steadily lost ground with each bipartisan tax cut begun by JFK.
The American worker would have been better off without those tax cuts. Little beyond dinner and a movie was realized by common working folks.

How is that Tahuyaman?​

Moi
The Progressiviest Member on Board
Support Progressive Taxation!


r > g

View attachment 34807 ​

 

How is that? It's just meaningless mumbo-jumbo. Liberal yammering. Nothing substantive.

 

Liberals can't convey their ideas in any way that doesn't involve cliches or emotionally based platitudes.

 

Every time someone presents a way for people to work their way to a better life, the liberal comes along and says that all the conservative wants is to starve children and bury more people in poverty.

When in fact that's exactly what liberal politicians have been doing for decades. They have built a dependent class which has done nothing but grow generation after generation.

Liberal policies are absolutely immoral and destructive to a society. They create a sub culture of dependency. In our inner cities we have multiple generations raised through welfare and government programs. It's immoral.

These people weren't born wanting to be dependent upon government, but liberals have told them that they are inferior and can't survive on their own merit.

Liberalism is a stain on our culture.

 

Name calling.
The last defense of the intellectually defeated.

I say again, Middle Class is a Life Style. Not numbers.

Moi
Take the last word, Please.


r > g

View attachment 34808
54'40" with interest
​

 

When the liberals make the accusations of wanting to starve children and keep people in poverty they do that for a couple if reasons. First, it's an easy emotional way out. Just demand that others do something to correct this situation. They can then feel good about themselves because they have demonstrated that they care.

Second, they don't have a grasp of the issues. They don't take the time to dissect the issues and develop viable solutions. They think the easy fix is to just take from the haves and give to the have nots. That hasn't worked and it never will. They don't believe the underclasses have the ability to earn thei way to a better life.

- - - Updated - - -

And I say again, you are just spouting more liberal mambo jumbo and ineffective platitudes.


J

 

Any high school economics course shows that a company must make a profit to exist. Labor is as much an expense as equipment and supplies. If labor or another input becomes too expensive, the company will spend less on it by reducing the number of people working or supplies purchased. These jobs are intended to be stepping stones to better jobs or as part time employment to supplement a family income. Already some companies are experimenting with automated restaurants.

 

With America being one of the richest countries on the planet, where 16% liver under the poverty line / 1 in 5 children are raised in poverty..... than yeah... there is something wrong with that. Obviously. But leave it up to conservatives to demand that more money must be squeezed out of them so 1 or 2 can get a couple of more millions a year.

 

You seem to be clueless.

Crew costs account on average 18-22% of sales! On average franchisees only make between 4-7%. How do I know? I do taxes for many.
Since you're so good at math, I probably don't have to show you what happens to the bottom line when you double the crew cost....
So, if they want $15/h, the owner has two choices:
1. He/she takes an operating loss
2. He/she is forced to cut crew in half
Hmmm....I wonder what the owner will do.

So now you have people lining up for unemployment, good idea, right?

BTW, all this info is available for anyone, just do a google search.

 

As a whole, the US makes plenty of money. But 16% still lives under the poverty line.
High school economics course shows that such people need more money.

getting almost 9 million to boss around a company that is almost full with highschool dropouts etc... is too expensive.

WTF
Fastfood joints don't make these jobs with some intention that this is a stepping stone to somewhere else. It's not even a stepping stone without the intention. It's a dead end job.

 

See what I mean? These liberals never embrace a real solution

- - - Updated - - -

I feel fortunate that I don't have to go through life thinking like you.

 

old rathole homes in S. Illinois go for $500 per month, or more, so your story is not correct. and I mean in small towns, like 5000 people, too.

 

If you care so much about jobs, why do you want to outlaw any that pay less than a certain amount? Do you feel smug when someone has to live on welfare because they can't produce enough to overcome the minimum level of wage that you deem to be moral?