Fast Food workers declare minimum wage "unlivable"

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by AndrogynousMale, Jul 30, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JoeSixpack

    JoeSixpack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    10,940
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    0
    At the moment they do not have the leverage to make the rich/elites or their government, the best government corporate money can buy, change.
     
  2. bomac

    bomac New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2013
    Messages:
    6,901
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But striking for better wages is a start. Before unions came into being, there were strikes, some very violent because of strike breakers. I hope that doesn't happen again but the only way to break this 30 year cycle is for workers to push back. It will not happen over night but you have to start somewhere. Publicity and public support are the workers' only tool.

    Don't be so pessimistic. It could be the rolling snowball.
     
  3. JoeSixpack

    JoeSixpack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    10,940
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Realistic. How many people are willing to lose their job (even if it is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ty one), have their credit destroyed, lose their home, become homeless, eat out of dumpsters until the rich/elites understand that they are serious?

    It's just like the old, "if everybody would stop buying gas for one week..." analogy. You could stop buying gas for a a year or two and it wouldn't matter to the oil industry, there are other countries supporting their filthy rich butts.

    Those people who did that 100 years ago, had the ability to make it difficult for the company owners, shutting down their operation hit them where it hurt. Standing in front of a fast food place until you lose your job and the slot is filled by somebody else isn't leverage it is financial suicide.

    Where are they now? Did they get their raise yet? Do they still have jobs?
     
  4. bomac

    bomac New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2013
    Messages:
    6,901
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Realistically, not many but the really desperate ones who have little to lose started the union build up before WW1 and unions were a force during and after the Depression. When enough people get upset about wealth distribution, they rise up. We are still in the New Depression and the last 30 years have been hard on workers. The times are similar to the last depression coming after the last Wall Street collapse. If workers don't push for better wages now, workers will be the new permanent slaves.

    Scabs were not allowed to replace striking workers (sometimes violently) 100 years ago. If workers do not unite now, they will be struggling the rest of their lives. I do not remember the figure (80%?) who are struggling paycheck to paycheck but the right certainly crowed about that. The times are desperate and the times call for desperate actions. It happened before and it can happen again. Certainly not overnight but, if we don't start, it will never happen. Oh, and the public back then did support the strikers by not crossing picket lines.
     
  5. Wake_Up

    Wake_Up New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, times are getting bad, but let's be realistic as to why instead of supporting ridiculous strikes that aren't going to amount to anything except people losing their jobs.
     
  6. JoeSixpack

    JoeSixpack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    10,940
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You still have a leverage problem. They can and will hire employees who will undercut the wages already being received and if that isn't enough the trespassers from the south will fill the void with little to no interference from the best government corporate money can buy.

    No leverage means no influence/no power. Until enough people are going under, any movement will fall on deaf ears, or become a distorted mess just like the OWS lost it's way, and the Tea Party was hijacked by the neocons, without actual leverage/power a movement doesn't create change, it just becomes a toy for the rich/elites (people with power) to (*)(*)(*)(*) with.
     
  7. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    27,905
    Likes Received:
    10,504
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The boogey man complex. Everybody is out to get you. It makes you look paranoid, and lack objectivity.


    It serves no purpose to speak in absolutes. I don't think you will see hardly anybody, even libertarians who support laissez faire capitalism.

    That doesn't however mean that the concepts and principles of a free market shouldn't be sought within the confines of regulation, such as monopoly prevention.

    Claiming in absolute terms that the concepts of "free market capitalism" has never existed is true. Then again, nobody is advocating for that.



    Are you capable of discussing your perspective without these little jabs? This is how a child attempts to defend their opinion. Grow up.



    The market doesn't need human interaction and manipulation to exist. Meaning, you don't have to apply human driven desire into the market to make it feasible. Somebody else said that collective bargining IS the free market, which is false. The simple concepts of supply/demand need no human interaction to establish value. It is what it is.


    No... human interaction is demand and supply. The market is and should be separate.




    Sure it would. The value of gold would be the same as the value of sand if no humans DEMANDED it. The market doesn't need people to artificially set gold values. The market is pure.




    Well you are an arrogant putz anyway, aren't you. A true internet rebel.

    We are basically saying the same thing.

    The point of contention is whether humans need to artificially manipulate the market to keep it relevant. In my opinion, they don't and shouldn't. Because the market DOES make judgements. The market automatically adjusts to offset the manipulation. This is where you disagree with me. Leave all your snide comments aside and debate.

    If supply of people is strangled for any reason, then the value of labor increases. Yes. Once again, supply an demand. Unfortunately, anybody who is willing to do the job for less is the market at work. You labor is only worth what somebody else is willing to do the work for. That is the market.

    Exactly. The labor is what PEOPLE are willing to supply it for. That means, anybody that is willing to supply the labor for less IS the market at work. Explain to me again about collective bargining and the market, because it appears you are very good at tossing out insults, and terrible at actually taking a position and defending it.

    What you haven't done is defended the point that market manipulation has an equal and opposite reaction as the market self adjusts.


    Do keep tossing out these immature little snide comments. It makes you look more and more the fool.
     
  8. bomac

    bomac New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2013
    Messages:
    6,901
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you know who "scabs" are? They are the ones who take the jobs of the strikers. Yes, the working public has to be a part of this for anything to work. The best government corporate money was buying 100 years ago but they did buckle.
     
  9. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "...the Tea Party was hijacked by the neocons..."

    Taxcutter says:
    Wait! I thought the neo-cons were fighting the TEA Party.
     
  10. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    27,905
    Likes Received:
    10,504
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I disagree. The maximum manipulation would be those regulations necessary to create an environment that is fair for everybody to operate in. Minimum wages don't do that. All minimum wages do is cause inflation and artificially inflate the cost of labor.

    Did the USG spend less per capita on welfare 40 years ago?[/quote]

    Why 40 years? Why not 60? Why not 80? Lets not play the game where we find a period of time with an economic slow down and then try to use anecdotal evidence to prove a point.

    Um... 40 years ago would be 1973. The end of the post war boom.

    Kind of proves my point.

    LOL

    I think its more admirable to try and keep ones own money on both ends, than to try and take money that isn't yours on both ends.

    The poor pay far less in income tax than they did 50 years ago too. Why only the disdain for the rich paying less?


    "They don't want to pay".... they don't determine what wages are. The MARKET DOES.


    So let me get this straight. In your opinion, your 8 year old daughter has $40K in tax debt because the rich don't pay enough? Is that seriously your perspective?


    Oh come on... you have to demonize the oppositions perspective to partisan politics. What a cheap attempt. Seriously.



    Whats good for this country is the absolute destruction of the entitlement mentality. Squash it like a bug. The idea that anybody is OWED anything, utilizing the collective interest, is absolutely undermining the concept of individual sustainability through liberty. The perspective you have is precisely why we have a huge number of high school drop outs, who are capable only to flip burgers, DEMANDING better pay, and too stupid to see that paying them more just causes their cost of living to rise too.



    Its stupid to expect people to AT A MINIMUM be a contributing member of society who ADDS more value than they take from the collective? Got it.
     
  11. JoeSixpack

    JoeSixpack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    10,940
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    0

    People had a general respect for individuals who worked for a living back then even if they despised them on a personal level. The rich were not taken near as seriously by the average citizen, nor did they have such false admired by the people who worked for a living in those days, they knew for the most part they were not much better than the average Joe, if even that. And of course they owned some politicians in those days but not at the scale of ownership it is today. They have reestablished the two party system into a corporate owned scam, and for some reason people of today are oblivious to this obvious turn of events in the past 50 years or so.

    Yes I know what a scab is, do you know what a plutocracy is? Since Reagan squashed the air traffic controllers, unions and their power have been diminished immensely even though they have been walking the fine line for decades and still getting blamed for most everything that goes wrong because of management ineptitude, incompetence, and greedy/unethical tactics.

    The average person could give a (*)(*)(*)(*) if a fast food place is crying about their wages, as long as the crap they eat is ready at the window when they pull up to it, and they could give two squats as to who it is hashing the pig slop out. As long as the meat that cannot be defined as meat is on the $.99 menu who cares?
     
  12. eleison

    eleison New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    5,640
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hey now.. some people survive because of the $.99 menu..

    http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/21979/sf-mcdonalds-cuts-dollar-menu-homeless-fight-back-2/

    I personally like the $.99 menu.. No fancy $$$$ snotty food for me...
     
  13. JoeSixpack

    JoeSixpack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    10,940
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You could of fooled me. Tea Party voters are electing big government republicans at an alarming rate are they not?
     
  14. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    27,905
    Likes Received:
    10,504
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You childish. you REAL childish.


    Really?

    Please explain to me how stock values work. How commodities are valued. How precious metals are worth different amounts.

    Our entire economy is based on free market principles. Labor is no exception.

    As a society, we attempt to maintain a FAIR economic environment for all participants, and install regulation to prevent certain things like monopolies, anti-trust, corruption, etc., but none of that means that our entire economic climate is anything but a free market.


    Liberals must operate in the world of absolutes to attempt to validate their perspective.

    There is no such thing as absolute freedom either. You are not free to go and kill somebody. That doesn't mean we aren't a free country.

    No, that is a distorted view of a free market, applied to a black and white world of absolutes, to attempt to invalidate a perspective.

    Ok great agree.

    The limits however of that exertion should be that which protects the OPPORTUNITY to partake in the market. Not choose winners and losers.

    My wifes family fled Korea because they were taxed at a higher rate than Koreans because of their Chinese decent. That would be an unfair market environment. Our government should be instituting laws and legislation related to the market that gives everybody the same shot.
     
  15. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Tea Party voters are electing big government republicans at an alarming rate are they not?"

    Taxcutter says:
    When the general election comes down to a big government Republican (RINO) vs a Democrat who is for MUCH BIGGER GOVERNMENT, the TEA Party does indeed vote for the lesser of two evils.

    That's why the TEA Party is purging out RINOs fast as they can.
     
  16. JoeSixpack

    JoeSixpack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    10,940
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Food is one of the basic pleasures in life, and a key essential part of being/remaining healthy and it is imperative for growth & developing in the appropriate manner in both young and old.

    $.99 mystery meat, with a side order of chemical preservatives in no way, does a body any good. You are probably better off eating the wrapper it comes in, if we are being honest here. :nod:
     
  17. bomac

    bomac New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2013
    Messages:
    6,901
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The tea party was hijacked by the Koch Brothers. Is that better?
     
  18. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Koch brothers are libertarians. As such, they are welcome in the TEA Party.
     
  19. bomac

    bomac New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2013
    Messages:
    6,901
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You have a very low opinion about 80% of the American public. Yes, today's situation is similar to the situation 100 years ago. If you want to stay pessimistic, that is your prerogative. I couldn't live that way.
     
  20. conhog

    conhog Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    5,126
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are aware that there is a government agency which regulates stocks and commodities, right?

    Of course we attempt to do so.


    Liberals must operate in the world of absolutes to attempt to validate their perspective.

    There is no such thing as absolute freedom either. You are not free to go and kill somebody. That doesn't mean we aren't a free country.

    [/QUOTE]

    First of all, I'm hardly a "liberal". Second of all, I at NO point contended that we don't live in a free market BASED on economy. What I DID contend is that we don't live in a market where people just do as they please simply because they have the ability to do so.



    Frankly your "perspective " is confusing. You admit that the government does and should have some control over markets but then turn right around and curse the names of those who wish the government to step in.

    As I said earlier, I firmly believe that if raising the minimum wage weren't perceived to be a liberal agenda, many so called conservatives would be on board.

    Correct, and we've already established that the government DOES have the right and even the responsibility to set a minimum wage. Only a few whack jobs suggest the minimum wage law should be repealed, roughly equivalent in number to the whack jobs who believe the minimum wage should be double.

    Most REASONABLE people are merely saying that let's see. Prices have went up, management salaries have went up, taxes have went up, and oh essentially everything BUT minimum wage has went up in the last 20-40 years.

    Only an unreasonable person would deny that the minimum wage losing 40% of its buying power effectively destroys and real assistance the law was supposed to provide to begin with.

    ANY economic system is going to choose winners and losers. Let's be honest here. Those who have money have a FAR better chance of taking advantage of opportunities than those who don't. And more importantly it is far easier for them to recover from bad decisions

    But even THAT is a false argument anyway because we have already conceded that we WILL help those who can't succeed on their own via welfare. So the argument of "if they don't like minimum wage, let them better themselves" is a moot point. I mean let's forget the fact that many people are forced into lower paying jobs even though they could qualify for better jobs if any were available and just concentrate on this.

    People who fall below $X in income ARE eligible for welfare. Yes or no? Obviously the answer is yes. Just as obviously a person making the current minimum wage and working 40 hours a week WILL earn less than $X. That's just simple math. Now I suppose we could just adjust the welfare requirements. But again, that isn't reality since the poverty threshold is DIRECTLY indexed to inflation. Odd that, isn't it. Welfare and minimum wage were meant to work hand in hand so that the economy would provide for as many people as possible and welfare would help the remainder. At some point though in the last 30 years they were split though so now working a full time job is no longer a guarantee of remaining above the poverty threshold.

    Only a sick sum(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) would argue that a person who works 40 hours a week all year long isn''t worthy of a wage which keeps them off welfare.

    Good God man, think about it. I don't care if a guy is doing nothing but picking trash off the side of the road, or cleaning toilets, or what have you we as a society should be INSISTING that not just his labor but his efforts be rewarded with a wage that allows him to keep his dignity. Not to mention that we should be INSISTING that the people who are profiting off his labor should not be able to rely on the government to supplement their wages.

    LOL if you think a minimum wage which is worth 40% less than it was 20 years ago is giving everyone an equal opportunity than really this discussion is done because you are clearly just arguing to be arguing.

    That was a cute anecdote though. Now let me tell you one of my own. My friend that own the local McDonalds drives a 2010 GMC Denali, his wife drives a Porsche Cayenne Turbo, and his 16 year old daughter drives a brand new BMW convertible, meanwhile 75% of his employees are working for minimum wage and not even getting 35 hours a week.

    There is nothing fair or free about a market that encourages the haves to steal from the have nots. I can guarantee you that this guy's bottom line would not be affected in the least if his payroll were to go up by $80K a year. But his ego would be. I'm sorry but a poor man's welfare is more important to me than a rich man's ego, and I feel sorry for you that you don't feel the same way.
     
  21. JoeSixpack

    JoeSixpack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    10,940
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I keep telling you it's realistic. I am being realistic. And yes that is a good estimate about 80% of the population wouldn't go out of their way to help a stranger in need or do what is the right thing to do if it meant it would effect them negatively in "ANY" way in the process, or just don't care and don't want to be bothered with other peoples problems.

    We are a selfish populous, and I just calls em as I sees em.
     
  22. conhog

    conhog Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    5,126
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I 100% agree with you. I have ZERO doubt that most business owners would offer FAR below current minimum wage if they could get away with it, and MANY people would have NO choice but to accept those wages. At which point some would say "ha see some people are willing to work for that" which is about the stupidest argument in the world, it's akin to a guy holding a gun to the head of 10 women and telling them if they don't have sex with him, he will kill them, then when 5 of the women "choose" to have sex with the guy declaring that "some women CHOOSE to be raped"

    It just is beyond belief that some people don't get that. If businesses were all about being "fair" there are quite a few laws we wouldn't need.
     
  23. frodly

    frodly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    17,989
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83

    We disagree at a more fundamental level. You talk in abstractions about something that does not exist. Nor has it ever existed. You claim the free market works in a particular way, free from intervention, but that assertion is based on nothing but unsupportable assumptions. Seeing as there has never been a free market at work, speaking with certainty about how it would work doesn't make sense.

    While we agree on one major point, government intervention in the market is almost always a bad thing, we disagree about why intervention exists. Intervention is almost always to the benefit of the capitalist (meaning wealthy business interests and owners of vast amounts of capital).

    The very nature of capitalism will guarantee interventionism. Since intervention protects and promotes capital accumulation, capitalists will therefore always promote intervention. So I believe that capitalism guarantees a free market will never exist. Capitalism is unsustainable without government intervention.

    So our disagreement is at a far more fundamental level than you think.
     
  24. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    27,905
    Likes Received:
    10,504
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you saying government agencies establish values?

    Or just dodging my question?
     
  25. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    27,905
    Likes Received:
    10,504
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are right.

    I agree.

    The problem is... what standard of life is guaranteed at a minimum for honest full time labor.

    That is the point of contention I believe.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page