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.
Lets hear you theories. The increased sales argument doesn't wrk either. If you've got a pizza chain and you have twice as many orders to fill, then obviously you have to hire twice as many delivery drivers to meet demand. According to Forbes, the average restaurant franchise makes a profit of 86k annually, at a place I worked they spent approximately 3k per week on labor, so how in the hell can a company afford to double that cost, adding an extra 156k in labor expenses when there isn't even 156k left over in profit? Even if sales doubles, the net profit comes out to about 20k even without hiring extra labor (which is obviously unrealistic). Who gets the shaft? The franchisee. Why should the guy running the place make less then his employees?
Wasn't that Forbes study based on 100 pizzas a day distributed over ten employees?
I saw that study it's flawed. I would expect the average pizziolo to make ten pies an hour.
On another thread someone said that gasoline would go to $5 a gallon. Assuming that the average gas jockey at a busy station pumps 500 gallons an hour that's still only ten cents a gallon.
Why do you people panic and let business leaders fill your heads with crap. Do the math.
You seem to want to argue without substantiating claims you make. A bit immature? Fact is no one is FORCED to work. You have to understand this. Even those in the worse conditions (too many kids, too much debt) have options. They may not be great, you may not have the nicest vehicle or any at all but there are ways. Families do it each day.
He wasn't making a claim that people are "forced" to work, he was simply pointing out that we are on a race to the bottom by trying to turn working conditions into 3rd world conditions for those at the bottom, so that the few at the top can benefit.
Nope. I was married in 1983. I bought a house in 12/85 and had a kid 3/86.
That sounds rough, you wouldn't have had much time to spend time with your spouse, enjoy your home, or see your own child working that many hours. Was your wife working?
That sounds rough, you wouldn't have had much time to spend time with your spouse, enjoy your home, or see your own child working that many hours. Was your wife working?
Nope. But it lead to a better job that then lead to an even better job.
I was laid off the 20 hour job and worked Saturdays in sales at the first job after that. (doing one of the worse kinds of sales imaginable) The sales experience lead to a better sales job. I sold something to the person who controlled the hiring process where I work now.
Nope. But it lead to a better job that then lead to an even better job.
I was laid off the 20 hour job and worked Saturdays in sales at the first job after that. (doing one of the worse kinds of sales imaginable) The sales experience lead to a better sales job. I sold something to the person who controlled the hiring process where I work now.
So you were the sole income earner for 3 people? If that is the case, then 60+ hours would make sense when working minimum wage. Though you could have easily gotten assistance at that time to help out, sounds like it would have been useful for you.
So you were the sole income earner for 3 people? If that is the case, then 60+ hours would make sense when working minimum wage. Though you could have easily gotten assistance at that time to help out, sounds like it would have been useful for you.
I've noted before that with the second sales job I did get food stamps for a time when the economy took a dump and things were slow. I was still working (paying taxes) and I've never been against "helping" people.
It's not Wal Marts place to take care of people. Read the insurance thread. I believe it's "ours".
I've noted before that with the second sales job I did get food stamps for a time when the economy took a dump and things were slow. I was still working (paying taxes) and I've never been against "helping" people.
It's not Wal Marts place to take care of people. Read the insurance thread. I believe it's "ours".
That is the point being made, if you are working 40+ hours a week, then you shouldn't need to be getting food stamps because your employer should be paying their employees so that the taxpayers don't have to pick up the slack. Either that, or we should increase taxes on the top earners to help pay for programs for those that need it the most at the bottom.
WHO'S FORCING THEM? If you make bad decisions early in life you must compensate. Please explain how anyone is being forced to work, and above all else forced to work for subsistence wages when they agree to said wages.
Prove that everyone on minimum wage has made poor decisions.
The capitalists who own everything are the ones forcing people to choose between working for too little money, and destitution. Maybe you'd have an argument in the 1700s when anyone willing to work could just walk Westward until they found unclaimed land (or got killed by Natives).
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
1985-87. $3.50 an hour I believe it was.
Good luck finding 60 hours a week nowadays. People nowadays are lucky to be scheduled for 20.
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.