Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I cannot remark on whether or not you hate the minimum wage due to it's small amount or on principle against the idea of price fixing in a free market. So I will say nothing on this.
Nonetheless, I'm sure you must be right about the protesting. After all, the protests during the Civil Rights Movement, Independence of India, and the Boston Tea Party (not the current movement) had no effect nor ushered any changes whatsoever.
The reason why we have days off and holidays, as well as benefits and retirement benefits are due to the labor movement. The reason why we have environmental laws and regulations is due to the environmental movement. Protests can and do work, big time.
It's amazing how much Reagan and the radical right wing completely changed the mindset of the American people. They really did help foster the idea that the Americans should see themselves as a nation of consumers and entrepreneurs and not workers with actual interests.
The top responses I get from people on this issue tend to be libertarian jabberwocky:
1.) A hike in wages will mean a hike in prices
2.) If they don't like the wages they can find another job
3.) If wages rose to a livable standard, no one would want to be doctors
There are plenty more but it's the same rhetoric that assumes the logic of the market before workers asking for a higher standard of living. Apparently it's only when workers demand for higher wages is when right wingers think it's a distortion of the market, but the people at the top collecting all the gains from the rise in productivity over the decades is just ECON 101! How convenient!
Saying that these workers have all the right to leave and find another job if they don't like it is about as serious an argument as "if ya don't like this country, yer free to git out"
ok, here is my view and I have said it many times before: 1-most of the employees are part time and are not sole supporters of the family. 2-most do not work for min wage, they make a couple dollars over min wage. WHere do so many people get the idea they are hired at min wage. 3-they knew when the accepted the job what the salary was and 4-many of the workers are like ducks in a row, they are following mommy. Mommy in this case, happens to be the union leaders who have convinced them, regardless of their lack of skills and education they have a right to more money, a lot more and last, but not least, how many of you realize the number of people WalMart hires that would not be hired by many companies, for varies reasons.
As for the government subsiding these companies, some people believe or can spin anything to meet their agenda. Especially when you talk about fast food restaurants, these people are not hired or expected to earn a living wage. Any of them on any form or welfare should be ashamed. It is time for them to get off their butts and get some training so they can make a living wage. Those jobs are desired for kids getting their first job, a mom, who wants to work a few hours a day or week to have spending money or the person who wants to pick up a few hours to help pay bills. How many realize, McDonald's, for instance is the name of the corporation, they do not control how much a employee makes. That is determined by the franchise owner and the profit margin is very low. Of course the franchise owners are making money, but not as much as you might think and do any of you have a clue how much they invested to buy the franchise?
Should the min wage be raised a little? maybe, it has been several years since we have seen an increase, but not anywhere near what these unskilled workers have been told they deserve. They are been so brain washed, I almost feel sorry for them.
ok, here is my view and I have said it many times before: 1-most of the employees are part time and are not sole supporters of the family. 2-most do not work for min wage, they make a couple dollars over min wage. WHere do so many people get the idea they are hired at min wage. 3-they knew when the accepted the job what the salary was and 4-many of the workers are like ducks in a row, they are following mommy. Mommy in this case, happens to be the union leaders who have convinced them, regardless of their lack of skills and education they have a right to more money, a lot more and last, but not least, how many of you realize the number of people WalMart hires that would not be hired by many companies, for varies reasons.
Your points are largely a mesh of myth and rhetoric. Most employees at places like McDonald's and Wal-Mart are not part time employees like teens and old people without families. The majority are supporting families or themselves with those jobs.
Secondly, every job takes skill. I hate this notion that these jobs are un-skilled. It's not highly or specialized skilled labor like mechanics, engineering or something technical related but it does takes skill; customer service, register experience, stocking, logistics, inventory, etc. Those burgers do not flip or sell themselves. These companies need those workers more than those workers need the big whigs at the top. The only major thing that seperates the two is that the top owns the means and the bottom don't.
The only reason why you insist upon repeating those myths is because service sector low wage work has been stripped of any semblance of dignity. The profits of these companies are in the billions yet the actual workers who make and sell their services and products get the smallest cut. After a portion of it is put back into the stores, the rest of the proceeds (the surplus) go straight into the pocket of the top honchos.
I do not get why it's become utterly blasphemous to support workers who want an increase in wages. Why is that so offensive to people? I feel like in this day and age it's like telling an ancient Greek that the concept of democracy should be extended to their slaves. That would've rocked the Greek's notion of the 'polis' , the status quo. Just shook him up with him thinking that to do such a thing would literally cause chaos.
That is what I feel like people today think like. That they've bought into the line that even the smallest re-distribution of wealth is going to utterly destroy civilization as we know it.
Well I can tell you what, it sure as heck didn't back when working conditions were WORSE and people raised hell about it. Do we have to do back to that era in order to get at least one anti-union conservative nut to admit that yeah things are pretty bad for workers.
I said it once when I started this thread, and once again, no one is holding a gun to their heads to work at Walmart.
If these people demonstrating in the streets of Los Angeles aren't happy at Walmart, then they do have recourse, and that is go to work somewhere else.
If Walmart execs don't want to give their employees higher raises, that is their fundamental right as a business owner.
If jobs aren't that easy to find, then instead of moving on into the street in some stupid civil act, suck it up and put up with it.
Obviously the policy of Walmart is not going to change.
I know for sure if I were not happy at my place of employment, I would leave for greener pastures.
To those of you who say these people are in a catch 22 position (dammed if they do, dammed if they don't) if they aren't getting what they want from Walmart, then as I said, they have but two choices, leave, or put up with it.
Only a complete fool would think one of the strongest companies in the world would bow to union pressure.
That just isn't going to happen.
Bob.
ok, here is my view and I have said it many times before: 1-most of the employees are part time and are not sole supporters of the family. 2-most do not work for min wage, they make a couple dollars over min wage. WHere do so many people get the idea they are hired at min wage. 3-they knew when the accepted the job what the salary was and 4-many of the workers are like ducks in a row, they are following mommy. Mommy in this case, happens to be the union leaders who have convinced them, regardless of their lack of skills and education they have a right to more money, a lot more and last, but not least, how many of you realize the number of people WalMart hires that would not be hired by many companies, for varies reasons.
Actually, many of the employees are parents and have children. If they are not the sole supporters of the family, its often at least partially because of welfare payments from the state.
I said it once when I started this thread, and once again, no one is holding a gun to their heads to work at Walmart.
If these people demonstrating in the streets of Los Angeles aren't happy at Walmart, then they do have recourse, and that is go to work somewhere else.
If Walmart execs don't want to give their employees higher raises, that is their fundamental right as a business owner.
If jobs aren't that easy to find, then instead of moving on into the street in some stupid civil act, suck it up and put up with it.
Obviously the policy of Walmart is not going to change.
I know for sure if I were not happy at my place of employment, I would leave for greener pastures.
To those of you who say these people are in a catch 22 position (dammed if they do, dammed if they don't) if they aren't getting what they want from Walmart, then as I said, they have but two choices, leave, or put up with it.
Only a complete fool would think one of the strongest companies in the world would bow to union pressure.
That just isn't going to happen.
Bob.
Spoken like a true right wing extremist. Those burgers don't flip themselves, those Chinese made products don't sell themselves. You need workers and those workers are getting the shaft as wages remain stagnant, profits high and prices rise. The only people netting any gains are those at the top. The only thing you have to say about that is tough nuggies? Put up or shut up? That's an argument in your opinion?
You talk about the rights of business owners? Well what about worker rights? I guess that is such a foreign concept in your mind that you think that workers have no rights except the right to leave or accept the wage. That is a product of an extreme fundamentalist belief in the sanctity of private property rights. The basis for which you presuppose all liberty stands on. It's silly. The government could come in and nationalize it or the citizens take it over and collectivize it and take out the top brass, and I assure you the companies would still run. That's not to say that I agree with doing that but that is to say that this notion that owners are benevolent masters of industry with the right to do as they please is more of a product of a extreme free market rhetoric rather than a concrete outlook of the reality of things. Not everything they do is a fundamental right. They pollute, cheat, steal and underpay their workers. This last problem is one area where workers have to collectively demand higher wages in order to solve.
Thank God our great grandfathers back in the thirties didn't think like you otherwise there would not have been a "Golden Age".
Spoken like a true right wing extremist. Those burgers don't flip themselves, those Chinese made products don't sell themselves. You need workers and those workers are getting the shaft as wages remain stagnant, profits high and prices rise. The only people netting any gains are those at the top. The only thing you have to say about that is tough nuggies? Put up or shut up? That's an argument in your opinion?
You talk about the rights of business owners? Well what about worker rights? I guess that is such a foreign concept in your mind that you think that workers have no rights except the right to leave or accept the wage. That is a product of an extreme fundamentalist belief in the sanctity of private property rights. The basis for which you presuppose all liberty stands on. It's silly. The government could come in and nationalize it or the citizens take it over and collectivize it and take out the top brass, and I assure you the companies would still run. That's not to say that I agree with doing that but that is to say that this notion that owners are benevolent masters of industry with the right to do as they please is more of a product of a extreme free market rhetoric rather than a concrete outlook of the reality of things. Not everything they do is a fundamental right. They pollute, cheat, steal and underpay their workers. This last problem is one area where workers have to collectively demand higher wages in order to solve.
Thank God our great grandfathers back in the thirties didn't think like you otherwise there would not have been a "Golden Age".
I think an important part is that these fast food companies are franchised. I don't believe that the top brass has any say about what the employees that work for franchisees pay.
I know that articles like this could upset people. They are struggling while the CEOs of the brand make millions. But, most likely the owner of the particular location they work at isn't making millions McDonald
Do you think that the owner of a local McDonald's could afford to keep the stock open if they are paying employees $15+ an hour? I really doubt it.
I personally think CEO pay has gotten out of hand, I also think the pay for sports players and actors has gotten out of hand. The article above mentions that a worker making $8.25 would have to work over one millions hours in order to make as much as the CEO does in 1 single year.
The issue though is that this can't be regulated by the government. If people want to change things they'd probably have to do massive boycotts of these companies and sell the stock. If you have a 401k or invest in the S&P index or stockmarket at all you most likely own stock in these companies where the CEOS are getting paid a lot.
Personally I'd rather see that pay go back into R&D or investment rather than to a single CEO as a salary/bonus. If they make $40million for example...they can't get by on $10million? It seems like a waste, but I'm not the one making the decisions and because we live in a capitalist "free market" we can't regulate that.
That being said I'm sure the guy/girl making $8.25 wouldn't be happy hearing the CEO of McDonalds "only makes $1million a year"
It's a tricky situation...who decides what is reasonable?..
If workers , by their efforts directly bring in more revenue into the store , then I could see them being justified .
Another idea for workers , if they see the company is doing so well. Invest in the stock themselves with any spare money at all. The dividend on McDonalds is 3.30%...much better than any savings account..and if they bought in 2009 their stock would of gone up nearly 100% today.
In 2003, the stock was $14 , it's $96 now.. not too bad of a return..
With Chipotle stock ,if you bought in 2009 you would of made about 800%, 8x your money.
Do you think that the owner of a local McDonald's could afford to keep the stock open if they are paying employees $15+ an hour? I really doubt it.
Accepting the argument at face value, I don't know why the smaller business is always put on a pedestal too? Maybe they weren't meant to be in business if they couldn't afford the labor costs. I know a record just scratched and I angered the crowd that believes small businesses are off limits because they've been given reverent status, but a lot of these smaller businesses (my fathers included) got their start because of the low cost of labor and materials (as a result of cheaper labor abroad).
Every argument people throw out at the premise that the problem in this country is a re-distribution of the wealth/the gain in this country is simply the logic of the owner of business.
Boycotts are silly things that sophomores in college due, what this nation needs is just full on strikes until demands are met. And I agree reforms are not needed either because the government already presupposes the same market logic as the owner of business and would simply add itself as a mediator to get the two to compromise.
I just think that workers need to assert their interests as much as the owners of these companies do too without hesitation or reservation. People on the right see it as a matter of "whining" or "complaining" because all workers are not living in tin shacks or dilapidated housing like they do in the third world, so we should be grateful according to them, but that doesn't mean that if you we're still not getting screwed over the gains of this economy if you look straight at the numbers .
Spoken like a true right wing extremist. Those burgers don't flip themselves, those Chinese made products don't sell themselves. You need workers and those workers are getting the shaft as wages remain stagnant, profits high and prices rise. The only people netting any gains are those at the top. The only thing you have to say about that is tough nuggies? Put up or shut up? That's an argument in your opinion?
You talk about the rights of business owners? Well what about worker rights? I guess that is such a foreign concept in your mind that you think that workers have no rights except the right to leave or accept the wage. That is a product of an extreme fundamentalist belief in the sanctity of private property rights. The basis for which you presuppose all liberty stands on. It's silly. The government could come in and nationalize it or the citizens take it over and collectivize it and take out the top brass, and I assure you the companies would still run. That's not to say that I agree with doing that but that is to say that this notion that owners are benevolent masters of industry with the right to do as they please is more of a product of a extreme free market rhetoric rather than a concrete outlook of the reality of things. Not everything they do is a fundamental right. They pollute, cheat, steal and underpay their workers. This last problem is one area where workers have to collectively demand higher wages in order to solve.
Thank God our great grandfathers back in the thirties didn't think like you otherwise there would not have been a "Golden Age".
So now you want the government to step in and "take over" Walmart.
Fat chance of that happening.
That smells a whole lot like a communist state if you ask me.
Your ultra liberal view is get the government involved in everything that doesn't suit you.
I have news for you, the government can't even keep it's own house in order, how the hell would they do any better at "taking over" Walmart?
The one alternative for you, and the rest who don't like what Walmart is doing, is to not shop there.
However, the true and realistic point is, Walmart saves shoppers money, and that is why we who are looking to save money, shop there often.
For all those unhappy workers, they can work at Target, K mart, Khols, Sears, JC Penny,, Ross, Marshalls, Lowes, Home Depot, and the list goes on and on.
Instead of demonstrating in the streets, they should be filling out job applications at these other places.
Bob.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
