Great quote from the fast food workers strike in Chicago (Washington: wage, tax)

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

Very true, but you have to have the "admittance fee" or golden key to get in the door of funding capital-intensive projects.

Another recent foible on how average workers get screwed in current American-style capitalism:

Twinkie CEO Admits Company Took Employees Pensions and Put It Toward Executive Pay | Alternet

This one is just sick. If this *isn't* illegal, well I reckon that's the problem right there.

That's awful. Not too surprising though. In this country, virtually every law favors employers. For white collar jobs there is not even a 'maximum' amount of hours one can be asked to work--if your employer tells you to sit there and write the encyclopedia backwards in two days, you have to try.

I'm wading through David Stockman's recent book. It's depressing as all get out but pretty much tells all of the dirty details of how our policy has been formed since World War II--primarily through crony capitalism and corruption.

Which is one reason why the corporate tax code makes no sense to anyone, anywhere, but no one ever tries to change it... except where their specific interests are concerned.

Like I said, pretty cynical stuff.

[yoyoniner]

Originally Posted by lenniel

Digging ditches may be more physically demanding than someone sitting in air conditioning analyzing spreadsheets, but they're both 'working hard'. But, the guy analyzing spreadsheets provides more 'value' for his work because not as many people can do what he does where as lots of people can dig a ditch (or flip a burger, or push a broom).

This is college Economics 101. You have to understand that for many people this "living wage" argument is an emotional one though. An emotion that I agree with, but you can't get away from simple economics of the above post, which is just plain reality as long as you have a monetary system. Specifically, wages' underlying foundation is supply and demand. There are of course outliers. But there is a greater supply of people that have the ability to work fast food, for instance, than there people who have the ability to transplant a heart, hence why one is paid so much more than the other. Both can be working EQUALLY hard, but one person is much more rare relative to the demand of that skill.

Unless you decrease the supply of people that have the ability to work fast food you won't get an increase in wages. Or you increase demand for them. You can force certain situations (like with strikes) but it doesn't change supply or demand long term. It doesn't change how rare the person is who has the ability to do that certain task. If you just inflate the wage this will literally eventually work its way through the system to everyone, including managers, CEO's, etc., and everyone's wage will eventually be inflated. This is because money is worth something in a relative nature--the prime example being an ounce of gold versus one hundred trillion Zimbabwe dollars. Inflating starting wages does "feel good" though but it actually only fixes the problem for a short while (i.e., perhaps a few years), and eventually you have to have this argument again because "Why is milk now $8.99 a gallon?"

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by NARFALICIOUS

Most people don't want to better themselves. If they did, it'd be happening.

If they get what they are asking for, $15.00 for entry level, then $17.00 for shift leader, $19.00 for assistant manager? Where does it end? higher end restaurants and retail don't pay these wages. Hell, skilled positions like CNA, Automotive, EMS don't even pay these wages.
More people are unwilling to fend for themselves and are looking for someone to blame for their problems. It has to stop.

The problem is this country only needs so many financial pros, engineers, college professors etc.

You can't just say to an entire populace, 'Go to med school or you deserve what you get.'

We already have far too many lawyers because the writing is on the wall that it is one of the few professions left with fairly predictable upward mobility... and I've heard that is even on the wane fairly dramatically, unless you go to a really good school.

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by yoyoniner

This is college Economics 101. You have to understand that for many people this "living wage" argument is an emotional one though. An emotion that I agree with, but you can't get away from simple economics of the above post, which is just plain reality as long as you have a monetary system. Specifically, wages underlying foundation is supply and demand. There are of course outliers. But there is a greater supply of people that have the ability to work fast food, for instance, than there people who have the ability to transplant a heart, hence why one is paid so much more than the other. Both can be working EQUALLY hard, but one person is much more rare relative to the demand of that skill.

Unless you decrease the supply of people that have the ability to work fast food you won't get an increase in wages. Or you increase demand for them. You can force certain situations (like with strikes) but it doesn't change supply or demand long term. It doesn't change how rare the person is who has the ability to do that certain task. If you just inflate the wages this will literally eventually work its way through the system to everyone, including managers, CEO's, etc. Money is worth something in a relative nature--the prime example being an ounce of gold versus one hundred trillion Zimbabwe dollars. Inflating starting wages does "feel good" though but it actually only fixes the problem for a short while (i.e., perhaps a few years).

That would be relevant if anyone was arguing that fast food workers should be compensated like heart surgeons.

[yoyoniner]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

That would be relevant if anyone was arguing that fast food workers should be compensated like heart surgeons.

It's just a stark example of supply and demand. No one is arguing this, yes.

[ERS-One]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

A couple of years ago, I had the distinct displeasure of working alongside a product of the "educational" system similar to the subject of the original post; age 25, with an 11-year-old son at risk of following in Trayvon Martin's footsteps.

She was, however, well-suited to the job, which was just opening and repacking grocery items; she turned it into a dance and I would have to endure Michael Jackson's "Can We Chill" (if you're not familiar with it, consider yourself lucky) over and over again. She had the fastest rate of all of us, and got incentive pay -- all of 75 cents an hour.

Is this what the last phase of the culture which invented the term "baby daddy" has reduced itself to???

Just like there is "Godwin's Law" for invoking Hitler when it doesn't belong, there now has to be a some sort of equivalent for mentioning Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman. Congratulations on being that person to this thread.

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by ERS-One

Just like there is "Godwin's Law" for invoking Hitler when it doesn't belong, there now has to be a some sort of equivalent for mentioning Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman. Congratulations on being that person to this thread.

And my congratulations to you for refining the Fascism called Political Correctness to a new level of self-righteousness,

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by yoyoniner

This is college Economics 101.

Generally anyone referencing "Econ 101" in an explanation on economics will subsequently show they either:

a) never took Econ 101
b) if they did take it, never advanced past 101
or
c) failed econ 101

[Vlajos]

Unfortunately we are all witnessing the slow decline of the USofA.

[NARFALICIOUS]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

The problem is this country only needs so many financial pros, engineers, college professors etc.

You can't just say to an entire populace, 'Go to med school or you deserve what you get.'

We already have far too many lawyers because the writing is on the wall that it is one of the few professions left with fairly predictable upward mobility... and I've heard that is even on the wane fairly dramatically, unless you go to a really good school.

College professors? Engineers? What? Not once did I mention go to med school. Nor did I make mention that everyone should be a 75k a year earner. Very unlikely. Though that shouldn't stop someone who wants to be.


I was thinking more like get a promotion to assistant manager of McDonalds and make somewhere in the 25k range. Or get a better job like a secretary or receptionist and make 30k. Or go to a 2 year school and make 30k, 35k, 40k or more. All of these are within reach for anyone who currently works at McDonalds.
Yes, we need McDonalds workers. We need the minimum wage employees to fill those positions.
But nobody went to the single mom's house and begged her to work there for minimum wage. She applied.