Bitcoin Forum

In Chicago, IL fast food workers are striking, protesting and demanding $15/hr where the state minimum wage is $8.25/hr.

The average profit margin for a company is about 5-10% and these idiots want their salaries nearly doubled, arguing that they're not receiving a livable wage.

Um, no.  I'm getting a bit sick of this attitude of entitlement floating around the USA, and keep in mind I work in the field of social services.

When I graduated and began work as a counselor in the adult psychiatric unit of a Chicago hospital, I made $15/hr with a post-graduate degree and was sent to the emergency room twice for being assaulted on the job within a period of 6 months.

So, what did I do?  Did I bitch and complain and protest about my salary or my work conditions?  No.  Instead,  I updated and revised my résumé and began sending it directly to the email addresses of the hiring managers at a variety of agencies.  Within 2 months I secured a new job where I am under-qualified and overpaid, and I love my new job.  I'm proud of it, and proud of myself for doing what I needed to do to adapt and thrive.

Thoughts?

I am familiar with the situation, since one of my acquaintance is one of the owners of a start up food place in Chicago. These people can strike, we cannot forbid them not to. If enough people refuse to work then the labor is too cheap and the companies need to raise their salaries. Of course I am against a government participation in this negotiation.

From top of my head, in my acquaintance's company there are ways of increasing your salary to ~$11 by taking appropriate certifications.


I feel that I'm entitled to a certain salary too, I do ask for promotions once in awhile! So am I entitled? :-)

If they can strike, more power to them. Maybe it will weed out the fast food restaurants that aren't popular due to crummy food. In-n-Out pays well above minimum wage to start, and they do quite well, because they offer a superior product.

Maybe you shouldn't be bitching about what other workers seek in the world, but instead about the idea that any business should succeed, even if they produce a lousy product.

And don't pull the line about how it's going to make lunch prices go up. In-n-Out offers a soda, a delicious cheeseburger and delicious fries (all from fresh ingredients trucked to the store daily) for about $5.00.

It's not the workers' fault here. It's businesses which choose not to streamline their process and offer a superior product and service that are at fault.

Essentially, it sounds like you're advocating a sloppy and lazy business plan. Quit your whining, enjoy your job, and instead of complaining about workers seek in this world, why don't you go enjoy a nice lunch somewhere?

Different people whine/brag in different ways.  Some choose bitcointalk.org forum for example.

I am 'entitled' to social security because I've put in probably at least several hundred large.  In the unlikely event that the system does not collapse completely, I only really expect to get back what I need.  If I don't need my full 'investment' back it means that I've been lucky enough to remain healthy.  If I genuinely need more than I put in it means that I have had some mis-fortune and am probably living in misery.  I'd much prefer the former.

Would I prefer to not be forced into this insurance policy but be free to make my own choice?  Obviously yes, but human nature is such that it is simply not a workable scheme.  I cannot force myself to take up residence in Libertarian la-la-land, though it seems like a cozy area if I could.

Alas, what we have (I strongly believe) is a situation where well connected insiders have managed to abscond with my SS contributions and it is entirely unlikely that I will see anything near a 'fair' return whether I have a true need or not.  Sucks, but it makes no sense for me to 'go postal' about it.  It would just make my life less pleasant and would not solve the problem.  At this point I am comfortable making alternate plans to protect my own ass (like Bitcoin for instance) and trying to support the minority of decent politicians with the wisdom to set up for the best possible outcome (for us plebs) when the shit does finally hit the fan.

In the mean time, my strategy is to arrange my life such that I can go through periods of not making a lot of money and thus not paying a lot into an 'entitlement' system which I strongly believe will ultimately fail me (and the rest of us who are not in the higher echelons of the modern financial capital system.)  Doing that now.  It's great!

Agreed.


I'm struggling to find the relevance here.  Maybe it will, maybe it won't.  In-n-Out is tasty though :)


My issue is more with the idea that my intuition tells me that this is an inefficient use of the strikers' time.  I don't have a problem with people striking, but consider the following: the last time this happened, McDonald's workers in the area got a 10 cent raise.  This means that if a worker was to go on strike for a single day, it would take >500 hours or about 3 months of working for that 10 cent raise to earn them back their lost wages.  I wonder what percentage of those workers receiving that 10 cent raise remained employed for at least three months after the fact.

On a side note, ever drive through bumper-to-bumper traffic and realize the only reason the traffic jam is there is because some group is protesting about something you don't care about?  When it starts affecting (objectively) the flow of my day, that's when I feel inclined to give my input.


I wasn't even thinking it.


To me, this isn't an issue about placing blame. Rather, I see it as a failure-to-adapt problem.  Let me be clear first off by stating that I would never even propose a dichotomy of "workers' fault vs. employers' fault."  Instead, to me, the situation appears as follows:

There are some fast food workers who are dissatisfied with either pay, working conditions, or both.  Three things are absolutely certain:  1) They applied for their current job on their own free will, 2) there were preexisting factors or conditions that led them to decide to apply for their current job, and 3) they currently have other options to choose from, and striking is at least one of those options.

I simply believe that out of the options available to them, striking is not an optimal one.  Of course this is all my opinion.



Holy non-sequitor.

This isn't a problem with entitlement, it's a problem with the economy and the people, if you want higher pay then you should get a different job, there's only so much you can pay a fast food worker, if you can't live comfortably on the amount you're being given, then that means it's either being inflated away and you don't have enough purchasing power or you need to adjust your lifestyle.

To me, this kind of thing screams inflation.

Looks like some people still assume that there are enough jobs available for everyone.
Many people can't find a different job. Or find one at all.

Not only are there jobs out there, there are DREAM jobs out there.  You know why most people don't get hired for those jobs?  They submit their credentials to monster.com or some agency website and get tossed into a stack with everyone else.  Accordingly, they don't stick out in any way and they fight for the same spot with dozens of other people.

I always get responses (and usually a job offer to boot) when i send a custom cover letter directly to a hiring manager's email address.  I skip ahead of all the uncreative ones and my assertiveness demonstrates to the employer that I'm a go-getter.  Demanding a better wage or position is an inferior approach to demonstrating why it is deserved.  

When was that? $15 was worth more ten years ago than it is now due to inflation.

Entitlement mentality.  
Entitlement to avoid backed up traffic caused by plebs striking for a living wage or, as you so eloquently put it, "protesting about something you don't care about"?  Next time you feel the need to share your views on cover letter optimisation, pull over and share with the picketers.  I'm sure they'll appreciate it more than i.

Last year.

Not at all. It's been demonstrated that fast food restaurants can afford higher wages. They just have to be a successful business, such as In-n-Out. Of course, if you're less successful, or let's just plain say, "unsuccessful", you can still get your business to survive if you pay below a living wage.

If your food is of low quality, and your service sucks, you can't pack your restaurant at lunch time. Ergo, you're not selling to capacity, and your bottom line is not so good, so you have to pay low wages. That just about sums it up for most fast food restaurants.

The comment about being backed up in traffic had to do with other protests, not this one specifically.  That's why I said it was a "side note."

I'm saying that it's the demanding nature of the protest and the context that makes me believe the attitude is one of collective entitlement that is undeserved.  When that entitlement carries so far as to disturb others going about their daily lives, it becomes just that -- a disturbance.

You're entitled to your opinion, though I'm not sure why you seem so offended by mine.

You're being arbitrary when you discuss entitlement. It's arbitrary for you to say that working all day, regardless of the skill, is worth less than a hundred dollars than more than a hundred dollars.

It's a non-sequitur because you're saying I'm implying something that absolutely doesn't follow from what I said.  My statements apply to those employed by both 'sloppy' and efficient businesses.   What you said would be like me suggesting that you're now implying that every business should only be allowed to profit a certain amount and the rest should necessarily be distributed to employees.  But that, of course, would be silly...

Incorrect. If I said that, In-n-Out's owner would have to distribute her billion dollar plus fortune to its workers. Ridiculous.

As for your statement - you admitted it. You advocate both 'sloppy' and efficient businesses. I advocate efficient and well run businesses myself.

I'd hardly call it being arbitrary when I defined the context as entitlement being equivalent to demanding something that is undeserved (and impracticality so).  I think you're calling it 'arbitrary' because you don't share the same opinion(i.e. that the demands are undeserved) and thus find it hard to resonate with.

Read it again.  I am indeed saying it would be ridiculous for me to suggest that is what you implied, just as its ridiculous that you're saying I'm implying anything about 'advocating' sloppy businesses.  

I will say that there simply ARE businesses that are sloppier than others, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the OP.

A year or two ago this guy was on this forum boo-hoo'ing about being a broke student as I remember things.  Maybe he was not whining about that, but there was something fairly trivial that he made a notable stink about.  Anyway, I remember how I felt when I had my first 'well paying' job.  It was like walking on air and a big confidence booster and a strode the earth like Goliath for a few weeks.  It is understandable now that the guy would be crowing about his success...albeit a little ugly that he would be berating an entire class of people who don't have the wherewithal to go get one of the countless 'dream jobs' that abound.

Everything I've said is indeed implicit in your OP.

Mediocre fast food restaurants fail (and thus need to pay lower wages) because they offer a substandard product and thus get less customers per store. These restaurants employ one half to one fourth the employees per store that In-n-Out employs, and serve one half to one fourth the customers at any given time. They fail precisely because they have bad service and bad food.

Note that they require two to four times as many stores to create the same revenue that one In-n-Out store creates. And so, because of their poor product, they pay their expenses out to real estate costs and building costs, instead of to the employees.

Is this an entitlement issue with regard to the employees? No, it isn't. If you want to look to why these crappy businesses exist, look to the minimum wage.

they are complaining that they cant earn a living wage with the skill of dunking fries in the oil then putting salt on them putting them in a box and handing the box to someone. idk about entitlement but to me its just weird that they believe that skill is worth 15 dollars per hour. there's really hardly any value at all in that "skill", 7 dollars already seems like way too much.

>$500 is not trivial.  When you win a skill-based contest fair and square then you lose out on the winnings that are owed to you according to the rules, making a "stink" is justified.  I don't regret defending my position whatsoever.

A far as the rest of your post goes, I'm not really sure how to respond.  If you're suggesting that either I shouldn't be proud of doing what I had to do to better my circumstances, or that this pride somehow makes me entitled and that undermines my original point (I.e I'm a hypocrite), or that I was being boastful and veering off topic, or that I'm berating a specific "class" of people at all, then I can only form one conclusion: you don't even know what the OP was even about so as to make a contextually relevant response.

All you're doing is talking about something that you 'think' is implied but is really so far off-topic that it warrants reporting to a moderator (I wouldn't do that, but I'm simply trying to tell you that whatever implications you think are present are a product of your imagination.)

To me it's not just about the amount they're asking for, it's about the lack of understanding about what it would actually mean for a fast food restaurant to virtually double the salaries of all if their employees.   

But my personal opinion is that $15 is way too high in comparison with other jobs that pay $15/he and require a higher skill set.

eh well so long as they arnt trying to use the government to twist anyone's arms than i say more power to them.

You make it a habit of accusing others of posting non-sequiturs, while UR entitled to veer off on irrelevant tangents & reveries in mid-thought?  K, Sport.


Your inconsequential aside obviously disturbed me enough to reply.  If your are sincerely unsure why your opinion offends me, i'm happy to answer: because it is offensive.

*Facepalm* I hope you know the difference between a non-sequitor as a direct counter argument vs. veering off-topic and clearly indicating that its not meant to support any argument at all.

Regarding the OP being 'offensive' to you, that's fine, that's why I asked for everyone's thoughts.  I just have the suspicion that you're being offended by something that you imagined existed in the OP.

Agreed.  I'm all for people being able to express their beliefs and stand up for them.

Though I'm in 100% agreement with you about American's sense of entitlement, as a gov't employee, you're the wrong person to be talking about it - the hypocrisy is almost painful to witness.

Apples vs. oranges.  The contexts are entirely different (I.e demanding what is owed according to defined rules vs. demanding nothing that is owed in the absence of defined rules).

Facepalm yourself a few more times, op -- make it worth your while.  Your inability to follow simple narrative is likely due to a cheap education, not FirstAscent's use of non-sequiturs.   Ockham's Razor.

If you'd like to devolve to ad hominems, by all means.  UC Santa Barbara is indeed cheap compared with Northwestern and the University of Chicago, but I thought I'd opt for the scenery over the prestige.  Maybe I'm materialistic after all.

You know Occam's razor is about removing as many assumptions as possible given a specific data set, and not adding them, right?  

Absolutely.  Not finding any lapses of logic or continuity in FirstAscent's post, i assumed substandard education was responsible for your blunder.  But you insist that's not the case.  Feel like sharing?

The 'lapse in logic' in FirstNascent's post is that he 'assumed' (which Occam's Razor doesn't like) that I said anything that implied I was advocating one way or another for a certain kind of business.  He missed that, and now so have you.

The only thing that would be relevant to share about my education (given that you are attacking my reasoning ability) is that I was offered a paid position as an undergrad to be a philosophy TA for my performances in my Philosophy of Logic and Philosophy of Ethics classes; my professor said I was the only student she's had in the past 10+ years that received 100% on all assignments and tests throughout the entire semester for both classes.

There's a saying: If you pay peanuts you'll get monkeys. Which applies to those joints. They are typified by unmotivated staff and a high turnover of staff.

Basically everyone who has brains quits working there as soon as they can find a better job. This must seem like communism to the bosses who run those places.

I didn't assume anything.

Here's what I saw:

1. OP believes fast food workers are losers.
2. OP believes fast food workers don't deserve a liveable wage.
3. OP believes he is entitled because he's got the right stuff.
4. OP believes employers know best.
5. OP believes employers are entitled to run a bad business model and still succeed.

1. No, I believe some fast food workers are losers, but that's off-topic.  I'm still not sure how you even equated "entitled" with "loser" or why you would assume I would.

2. No, you pulled all this class and living wage talk out of thin air.  Are you one of those sensitive PC types that thinks every opinion has a prejudiced undertone?

3. No, I believe I am entitled because I worked to change my circumstances instead of demanding that someone change them for me.  I wouldn't call it some huge accomplishment that I deserve a pat on the back for.  It's basically common sense, and I was giving myself a pat on the back in the OP because that type of attitude appears less common nowadays.  

Yes, believe it or not, I'm allowed to have a self-esteem and use a positive experience to help demonstrate a point.

4. Huh?  Seriously, where do get all this crap from?

5. Dude, stop.  Are you made of straw?  Btw, I have no idea what to make of that sentence since I don't see how a successful business model is a bad model, at least in terms of, well, business.

LOL. For what is supposedly a refutation, it sure sounds a lot like an endorsement.

You need glasses.

Then you'd be this guy:

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111019234123/muppet/images/5/59/Bunsen11.png

Congrats on the new job and all but with your attitude I'm not surprised you ended up in the emergency room twice for being assaulted on the (previous) job.

I wasn't the target of assault.  I was defending patients who were the targets of assault, and sometimes when you protect someone else, you get a dinner glass broken over your jaw.  Better my face than the patient's.  Some patients directly encouraged my manager to give me a raise because they felt I was the only counselor who actually saw the potential in them to be able to do better for themselves instead of assuming that they needed more Medicaid-funded meds, food stamps, and other poverty assistance.  I was typically labeled the "nice one."

The thread isn't about my job, or me.  I don't want congratulations.  But I will correct you.

Honestly, the responses in this thread are appalling.  You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.

If spreading the idea that it might actually be more beneficial if people do what's necessary to adapt to a bad situation rather than demanding someone to adapt the environment to fit them is a bad thing, then I really don't know what to say anymore.

The point of the OP is simple -- adapt or face consequences.  This is a realism.  Some choose to adapt by protesting.  Others choose to adapt by directly acting to better their circumstances.  You can decide which would be more beneficial to the fast food employees.  I've found the latter approach to work a whole lot better during my work with literally thousands of low-income, minority clients.

Is there no end to the awesomeness of OP?
The bestest phil scholar evar, upon graduation OP went out into the world to better it with his counsel, defending literally thousands of low-income minorities with his mighty chin!
Employers are astounded by his cover letters.
Batshit crazies love him for not plying them with food stamps & "Medicaid-funded meds."
Low-income, minority clients sing his graces, thrusting him up the ladder of success with their grubby & totally not white hands.
Traffic jams, a drag to lesser men, inspire OP to Randian rants on self-betterment & contract negotiation.
Philosopher King, the pinnacle of excelsior with climaxing acme on top, but bettar.  
I tremble and weep as i bask in his glory.
Thank you...  Thank you, OP, thank you...

Your ignore button is a funny color.  Why do you suppose that is?

All that fancy DeVri schoolin', and u can't figur'it out? 

Why is it that you don't get the fact that fast food businesses can prosper and pay better wages, and simultaneously offer a better product to boot, at a great price? Has it occurred to you that maybe the fast food industry is the one that needs to adapt? Maybe their free ride should be over. When I walk into most fast food restaurants, I see stupidity, and it's not the minimum wage earners. It's the menu, the training procedures, the wasted space (real estate), etc.

http://www.in-n-out.com/menu/food-quality.aspx

All you keep doing is trying to replace the context of the issue as I've defined it with a context that you've created.  For the love of god, If you're going to argue, make sure you know what the fuck you're arguing against.

Ill make it really simple for you.  The OP has absolutely nothing to do with advocating any type of business practice.  How do I know this?  Because I wrote the damn thread.

I've never even contended that many fast food chains are shitty.  It's totally beside the point.  For whatever reason you keep trying to change the issue to something it's not.

As I stated to you privately, if I suggested that mothers shouldn't date child molesters, I would somehow expect you to accuse me of advocating child molestation.  In this case, I'm suggesting that employees shouldn't continue to work for a company they aren't happy with, and you're saying that this somehow implies that I'm advocating for companies making their employees unhappy due to poor business practices.

Ill say it again, you have a serious comprehension problem.

You fail to understand that the shitty companies have saturated the market. That's where the jobs are. But it doesn't have to be that way. Imagine if everywhere you found four crummy fast food restaurants, you instead found one that employed four times as many employees and had four times the sales. Their real estate and building infrastructure costs would be reduced, allowing the employees to receive more compensation. The same number of customers would be serviced. As for variety, it would still exist in plenty per geographical square mile, as I currently don't see the need for one McDonald's every 3/4 of a mile.

But why don't we have that? Precisely because businesses are allowed to squander their money on inefficiencies, such as single restaurants with minimal staffing and minimal customers.

And regarding your personal message to me, you precisely stated that you don't believe businesses are required to be better. Instead, you stated directly to me that the onus is one hundred percent on the worker. So please quit your tirade about how you didn't implicitly state such beliefs in your OP.

Stop misquoting me.  I never said workers are 100% responsible.  Fucking learn to read.  Do you live in some alternate reality where every word has some alternate definition?  Do you always read between the lines so much that you actually don't read the actual lines?  Please quote where I stated employees are 100% responsible for their situation?  As far as businesses being allowed to suck, well, no shit.  That's not my opinion or belief, it's a fact that shitty businesses exist.  But none of that has anything to do with the OP. 

Learn.  To.  Fucking.  Read.

Here, ill give you the argument that you're supposed to be arguing against in case you'd like to try again to make a contextually relevant response.

Given that  situation 'x' exists and fast food employees don't want 'x' and instead prefer 'y', what is the best way to actualize 'y?'  It the best way to demand that 'y' be given to them?  Or is it best to go out and grab 'y for yourself?

Based upon what I've said here, if you respond with ANYthing about advocating for a business, sloppy business practices, responsibility, fault, or blame, then I ought to slap you for being an ignoramus.

Okay.


Why is their profit margin 5-10%, and are you sure of this, and you cannot think of any way this can be improved? Furthermore, are you certain that a 5-10% profit margin precludes higher wages being paid?

Also, so because people are not receiving a liveable wage, you're saying they are idiots, which may or may not be the case, but so what? They still need a liveable wage, do they not?


Do you mean the fact that businesses feel entitled to run a sloppy business and deserve the right to succeed even when offering a product so crappy, they can't fill their stores effectively?


Irrelevant to the above, but thanks for sharing.


You're bitching here.


By your own admission, you're under-qualified and overpaid. Not a good thing.


I shared them.

Awesome!  Now I actually look forward to responding to this when I get off work :)

1)  Profit margin is likely 5-10% because 1)  it's a food-service business, a type of business that is known for low profit-margins do to a long list of unavoidable expenses and high overhead cost and 2)  they aren't being run as efficiently as possible (aka sloppily).  Sure, it could be improved, but that's irrelevant to the context of the issue I'm raising.

2)  No, I'm not aware of exact profit margin figures for any of the companies involved in the strike. 

3)  I never made any assertions relevant to the OP about the relationship between profit margins and wages.  In fact, nothing at all about the companies involved in the strike is relevant to the OP other than the fact that the strikers worked for them.  The OP is entirely about the general attitude of the strikers.  This is why I keep telling you that you're pulling shit from nowhere in this discussion.  Leave the damn company out of it!  It's off-topic. 

4)  And, the reason I'm leaving the company out of it is because I do believe $8 or $10 or even $12 isn't what I would consider "livable."  I wouldn't be satisfied with that amount, heck I'm not even satisfied with the amount I currently make.  But if you want to start picking apart the lousy practices of fast food restaurants, then you have to pick apart other restaurants, and in fact all other companies who apparently treat their workers to sub-par entitlements.  And at the end of it all, you're talking about capitalism which fucking necessitates competition.  In competition, there are winners and losers.  But I really, really, really don't want to have that discussion.  It's way too complex.  The OP is simple.  You went wayyy too far down the rabbit hole.

Continuing on...

5)  That first part about me is relevant because I was making a simple, general statement about 1) my pay at the time to set a ratio for context and 2) the implication that I was dissatisfied with both my pay and my working conditions, also to set a ratio for context.

6)  Bitching isn't the only thing I was doing.  But seriously, people can't dislike shit anymore or want to talk about why they dislike something?  Grow up.

7)  I'm under-qualified on paper. and so therefore I'm 'over-paid' in relation to where I 'should be' on paper.  If I can go find better, why can't the strikers'?  'Cause I'm white?  Or because of some other horseshit backed by misinterpreted statistics?

8)  Thanks for sharing your thoughts :)

If the workers get paid more, the businesses would just charge more for their product to compensate for the loss (in other words, they take the cost out on the customer.)  However, there's a certain point where people just don't want to pay for a very bland, but expensive combo meal (and that number is usually close to where it already is,) and so the only solution in the eyes of the business would be to either ignore the protestors and hire other people who are willing to work for even less, or to give into doubling the worker's pay while halving the number of workers, which isn't always feasible.  The last thing that'll happen is for the rich cats up top to give up their salaries to ensure their business stays alive and their workers are getting a wage well above the national minimum; they'd sooner abandon ship than do that.

Nothing wrong with protesting, but expressing oneself only matters to those who care, and rich people you've never met don't count among them; they're paid best when they don't care, and that's the single most important interest to a business: maximizing profits.  This is all very normal in capitalism.  The only way to improve the worker's quality of wage and life are to replace the chains with mom & pop type stores, where there's no massive corporate overhead to pay, which I predict would flatten out the wealth and spread it more evenly, but I don't see this happening soon.

Most of the fast food companies have operating profit margin around 30%, like MCD and BKW.

I have parents, who, whenever I go to see them always want to start some big argument.  And they'll constantly be trying to twist things around and make non-points all just to keep the argument going.  They aren't interested in a real debate or discussing things like adults because they basically are still children behaving like they are still in the schoolyard.  Some people just enjoy pointless conflict with other people.  I think it's a type of masochism.

Are you not reading what I've been telling you? And regarding irrelevancy, well, let's just say it's not irrelevant as soon as you decided to start bitching about the workers because you had a bad day.

Why'd you stop the bold with just "irrelevant?"  The rest of it is important, that is, "irrelevant to the context of the issue I'm raising.  "Unavoidable expenses" are "irrelevant" because it's about the damn company.  What's with you and talking incessantly about these companies?  I'm bitching about the workers.  You're the one bitching about the companies!  Remember?  Now you're just confusing your position with mine.   >:(

If you want to talk about the companies involved in these strikes, make your own damn thread. 

By admission, you're bitching about the workers, which has a context associated with it - wages paid by a company.

For example, you bitch about a child crying, and I point out that the mother is beating the child. How dense would you have to be to continue to go on about the two being unrelated?

TL;DR:  Public protests & strikes are one of the many legal options available in wage negotiations. 
You feel that those methods are suboptimal, and you're free to do so. 
The fast food workers disagree, they're free to do that too; they are also within their rights to act on those beliefs. 
Their strikes are no more an expression of entitlement than your fancy cover letters. 

Henry Ford paid his workers 5 dollars per day at a time when half that salary was customary. He also cut their working hours from 9 to 8 hours.

The result was that his workers were highly motivated, turnover was minimized and his workers could actually *GASP* save money so they could buy a car, which increased Ford's revenue.

http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/677-5-dollar-a-day

Today's corporations are in a race to the bottom. Everything must be done cheaper, by less staff who are paid lesser and lesser.

But they forget that employees are also CONSUMERS. People who don't earn much money tend to not spend it much.

The managers don't care though as long as they get paid fat checks. If the company fails they take their lucrative severance bonuses and hop on to the next gravy train. ::)

I think you're forgetting the context AGAIN.  A child is helpless in the situation and can't defend himself.  That's absolutely not the case for the workers who can choose to remove themselves from that environment.  That's why I'll tell again for the millionth fucking time, leave the companies out of it!!!

Spot on.  Except that last sentence you just threw in there to make yourself sound stupid.  Let it go.

You're saying I should leave the companies out of it because you think they're entitled?

No, I'm saying leave the companies out of it because the OP has nothing to do with the attitudes of the companies.  It's a totally separate issue.  The post is not about whether the pay is fair or f the working conditions suck. 

The post is about people who are in a situation they don't like that they voluntarily entered into, and now thy want someone to change it for them.  Those "someones" just happen to be companies.

I could have written the thread about students demanding that their tuition be decreased, in which case I would be talking about students' attitudes.  But then if you started talking about the business practices of colleges, I have to slap you for veering off topic.

Actually, your OP is about you and your bitching about people trying to affect change, albeit in a way you disapprove, hence your bitching. It's also about how you fell into a position in which you are under qualified and overpaid, a situation which is uncommon, and thus utterly stupid of you to assume everyone else might have such an opportunity.

What you fail to realize though, is that perhaps the changes those workers are trying to affect are important. As I've pointed out several times, and as you've been unable to aggregate into your thinking processes, there is fat to trim in the fast food business.

Holy shit.  I'm done with this conversation with you until you realize that what I "fail to realize" is not only something I do realize, but more importantly it's OFF-TOPIC.  In fact, I even agree that they're asking for important changes!  But seriously, I've never met a normal person who can't understand something in plain simple English even after it's been repeated and rephrased 20 times.  Start your own damn thread if you want to talk about what the businesses should be doing.

Then why were you bitching about them?

Because I believe they are thoughtless to the extent that they aren't even addressing the root of the issue and because they have no idea what the root of the issue is or why they can't magically be given $15 per hour.  I was also bitching because it's a poor means of personal adaptation to environmental conditions.  If a person is in dire need of change and have the capacity to elicit that change, then they should do so or else be subject to the passive course they've otherwise chosen.  And, if they don't have the capacity, then chances are their skills aren't worth much more than $7.25 anyway.

The bottom line is that the strikers cannot in any way force their employers to give them higher wages.  Accordingly, while they can demand raises and attempt to persuade their employers, the decision to actually implement a pay increase is beyond their control.  Instead, it would be optimal that the strikers focus on what they can control, e.g. Looking for better work, learning the skills needed to obtain better work, etc.  But, through protesting, they are deferring personal responsibility away from themselves and instead place it upon companies who are preoccupied with their responsibilities to their shareholders and customers.  Thus, if you are a striker and are concerned about yourself and not the shareholders or customers, chances are that you aren't giving your company a good reason to listen to you.

You seem to mistaken with regard to the difference between collective action and individual action. Has it occurred to you that any one individual (or most all) could in fact be personally weighing in their mind the very things you think they should be considering? Obviously not. A strike is a collective action, and you simply are not in a position to make a blanket comment about an individual's goals in that context. Instead, you can make a comment about the strike itself.

But in doing so, please don't be an idiot about it, without first performing a better analysis of what could possibly be achieved. We've already established that there are two parties involved in the strike: the strikers and the employers. Your general assumptions and ignorance have led you to believe that the only resolution is for the strikers to give up, because you're an obstinate and obtuse individual that can't evaluate the dynamics fully.

It is not necessary to feel entitled to higher wages to strike under the "I deserve better wages" banner.
It is not an appeal to employer's sense of decency or an attempt to make him see the error of his ways.  
It is simply a better negotiation technique than, say "I don't deserve higher wages, but i need hookers & blow so give it up!"  
When you ask for a raise, is that a show of your entitlement mentality?

As far as mah sounding stupit, stop reading aloud, the cool kids don't even move their lips.  K?

If I had $7 an hour employees that went on strike, they would be $0 an hour non-employees immediately. That this isn't happening in this case is indicative of the government and arm twisting being in close proximity.

Absolutely. All we need is for people to stop walking into the stores and asking for jobs at the advertised wages.

Database Error? Really Bitcointalk? I guess I'll just type it all again... :(


Maybe he paid $5/hour so he would get and retain the good quality workers he wanted. Higher wages doesn't magically make shitty workers into good workers.

In-n-out pays $15/hour but who is to say that they would want to employ those people who are currently earning $7/hour. FA mentioned that In-n-out can afford to pay $15/hr because of efficient practices. Maybe one of those practices is employing people who are actually worth the money. People who clean tables when they're dirty. People who are pleasant, attentive and polite to customers, who don't get the orders wrong. People who actually clean the bathrooms once in a blue moon.

(This was better the first time around).

This is true. However, I think you got it half right.

In-n-Out trains people effectively. And money motivates workers. I have seen plenty of capable people in ordinary fast food restaurants that are up to the potential of In-n-Out employees.

It is absolutely true that a great portion of the problem with most fast food restaurants is their failure to take a look at themselves in the mirror and see the following problems:

- Unappealing menu
- Poor training practices
- Lower than possible sales per store
- Too few employees per store

Solution:

- Hire a better master chef to come up with better recipes that feature fresh food
- Create a better and more thorough training regime
- Cut the number of stores in half
- Pay the workers more
- Put more workers in each store

If, by chance, minimum wage was raised, a lot of the above would happen automatically, or the businesses would go out of business.

Well said.  And yes, some people are whining about other people whining, what can you do.

If you sell $7 burgers you will soon sell them for $0, you will have the same result. There are many businesses that fleece their customers and treat them like shit. But when they go to a competitor that offers a better deal they feel affronted. Of course it's capitalism when employers sack employees because they ask too much but it's communism when customers go to a competitor who offers a better deal. Only businesses should have negotiating power, workers shouldn't have any. ::)

The negotiation is easy. You agree to give me x time for $y and I agree to give you $y for x time. No time, no $. A strike is effectively ending the agreement.

It's easy to say that without any context.

First, we are in a unique period of RECORD corporate profits coupled with high joblessness. That isn't normal. Normal has typically been high corporate profits coupled with increasing payouts to employees, who spend their money and stoke inflation. We're getting there, a coup,e more years and we might just be close to where we started

Second, if one employee protests for higher wages, yes, it's easy to dump them and move on. Especially when people are fighting over jobs. In other periods, it's even employers fighting over labor. It will b again, too. Its easy to put one employee out to pasture, much more difficult to put your entire workforce out and then rehire and retrain them. It'll be much more difficult to put them all out, hence the point of collective action

It's no more of an entitlement attitude for someone to expect better pay than it is for someone to expect another to work for them at only the cheapest rate possible. In a perfectly tuned capitalist system, both sides would have power and be able to make some demands and cede other to other demands at the same time. Right now, were in a flawed environment because employers have all the power. In the future, the pendulum will swing back. And if your that steadfast in not paying wages that employees eel ate livable, you may just find yourself with an empty shop.

Excellent post, and suddenly the detractors aren't responding.  I love the blatant idiocy displayed by "it's the free market" when a business owner does something, but suddenly when workers naturally self-assemble into unions, it's somehow communism or socialist sponsored oppressive regulation.

It's pretty scary when in a society where the majority decides how will our society look the majority is incredibly fat, stupid, childish and docile.

Meh, the thread is about dead. Do you know what a "closed shop" is? Do you know that striking is often legally protected? If the workers want to join together in collective bargaining, that's one thing. When it's mandated that you're part of that collective or you don't get a job or that employers aren't simply allowed to kick your ass to the curb if you refuse to work, that's quite another thing altogether.

We would love to slant all, rather than most, of the laws in your favor.  Unfortunately, that raises the problem of tar, feathers and pointy pitchforks.  But we're working on it.

Love,
  The Government.

Contracts resulting from voluntary agreements are so tiresome...

Hey, if slavery was allowed, but voluntary, I'm certain plenty of businesses would be all over it, and they'd get workers, since the workers would be provided food and board. But we don't have slavery, do we? We have employment that pays you barely enough to pay for food and board.

Nowhere in this thread did I see anything about joining unions and paying dues becoming mandatory. It was simply "are workers suffering from entitlement mentality" by asking for raises when the employer would prefer not to. Of course employers will prefer not to provide raises, that's money directly out of their pockets. So, of course when a single employee asks, employers tend to act like you would purport to. Hence the use of collective action, especially in times like now. Should it be mandatory? Of course not. But I never thought that's what this topic was about.

I gave up responding when the intended message of the OP was tortured beyond recognition.

So, you're seeing record profits and consistently low wages and joblessness?  Then, find another line of work or pray helplessly as you wait for your fate to be determined by the same employer that you detest.  

"Hey, you're a greedy asshole.  Can I have a raise?"

That's the root of your misunderstanding, OP -- strikers aren't praying to their employer, they're ... striking.  See the difference?
Greedy assholishness is neither here nor there. :)

Usually single employees have no bargaining power whatsoever by themselves. They may politely ask for a raise but when denied it is not wise to push the matter further if one desires to keep their job. The only exception being key personnel (like a talented sysadmin or a top footballer) who can't easily be missed. Collectively employees do have bargaining power. A company may easily sack one employees but not all employee because that would pose a serious problem for their operations.

This is how unions came into existance in the first place, in an era when employers could just say "I can get ten others instead of you." and getting sacked meant starvation. Of course unions later became politicized and abused their power but that's a different story.

Is the strikers' problem a rock or a clay problem?  A rock problem is one in which you have very little or no control over; a clay problem is one in which you can significantly manipulate the elements causing the problem.

If you have a rock problem and you're smart, you'll shift your attention to the things that you DO have control over.  Trying to effect change upon elements you cannot directly control will quickly lead to negative returns on the time and effort you've invested.  This loss of utility is reflective of the lack of insight of the strikers.

You offer a really odd dichotomy, i see it as neither rock nor clay, but rather people problem.  But, since i'm sure it will somehow aid your purpose, i'll follow through with your analogy.  You, i take it, consider striking "a rock problem"?  They've threatened to strike, their bluff was called, and now the rock is thrown & it's out of their hands, is that it?
In reality, of course, that's not the case.  The strike is not simply milling about & hoping for the best -- it is an active fulfillment of a threat.  The act that backs the threat, making it effective & giving it future credibility.  Each body, and boot on the picket line is necessary if the proles are to be taken seriously.  Each step is the melding of your frikn' clay. The strike is not an appeal to reason or the boss' sense of right & wrong -- it is a show of force.  "Do what we fuckin' tell you or suffer."  Like that.   :)

I think all you need to do is look in the mirror to see half the problems with the world you present. Calling someone entitled, yet you pretty much have come on here to flaunt your (non confirmable) success.

That said, $15/hr is chump change--the fact that you started out with this after having a degree shows me you are still young (as am I, but have no degree, and have been making nearly double that wage since I was 20 with no degree--and to this day, quite some years later still no degree...)

I'm all for everyone making $15/hour baseline, as it forces companies to re-evaluate how people are paid throughout the entire structure of the company. You are essentially arguing against your own raise by hating on people trying to raise the federal minimum wage. If everyone in the States got bumped to $15 and I'm sitting at $35/hour, do you think I'm not going to ask for a raise as well? My skills are still just as valuable in relationship to the minimum wage. This is good for every PERSON, just not big corporations bottom line--which we all know to be the bane of our existence today.

I'm not usually one for throwing rocks, especially at individuals, but it blows me away that you are so dense as to not see it. It's simple math and basic economics.

Though you did get a degree, so you did sit through quite a bunch of brainwash and American propaganda...that might explain this whole tantrum. :)

Voluntary slavery,  ::)

Sure, if contras were dictioned.

You failed to follow the flow of the thread.

And employees are not just asking for more money. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that in and of itself. I've done it myself and got it.

Don't worry, your government is busy inflating the currency quickly enough that that will soon be worth less than what minimum wage is now (counts bitcoins).


Congratulations, you just became too expensive and your job has been sent overseas/your company went bust/You got bought out in an aggressive merger and everyone in the company got laid off.

That's why I said this:
William Binney said it best the other day I was listening to him talk: "We are no longer a country with a government, we are a government with a country."

Not only that, but consider:

If people make $15 an hour, minimum, they're less likely to go down the road of crime, are better able to purchase services and goods from those business owners who want to make more revenue, are more likely to enable education for themselves or their children, are less likely to not have insurance...

In short, society benefits.

How would earning less in real terms be good for any person?

If you think inflation is a good thing, you haven't been reading around this forum enough.

Fast food service jobs aren't going overseas.

And how many times do I have to tell you that the fast food industry can trim the fat from other areas of their operation. And furthermore, as I've said, when the free lunch of cheap wages are gone, they'd actually have to create a desirable product, such as that of In-n-Out.

Forget inflation. Fast food personnel can get paid more without changing the price of fast food.

I never said inflation to be a good thing, I simply said raising the min. wage was a good thing for every PERSON. You're welcome to go re-read it again if you think I've said anything otherwise. Inflation is something the world has to deal with, not just the U.S., especially considering the global economy is technically tied to the U.S. dollar. This guy's discussion, however, is a social one, and is not necessarily tied down to inflation, so I'm not sure why you are obsessing about it.

Listen to how stupid this sounds--re read it.

You are basically saying we need to keep paying them $8.25/hr and deal with inflation and it will fix all inequality issues. You, sir, are a moron.

Thanks for telling me what my intentions are and for asserting that they are contradictory to my dozen+ explanations of what those intentions are.  Without you, I'd be lost.

You didn't read this thread carefully.  Moreover, your assumptions of me being "brainwashed" by years of exposure to "propaganda" couldn't be further from the truth.  I'm mostly an autodidact, and, accordingly, I found school to be exceptionally easy because I learned how to think for myself.  I can learn more from a month on the computer and in the library than in an entire year sitting in a classroom.  The whole $15/hr thing wasn't about youth, it was because I made the (financially unwise) decision to work at a hospital funded entirely through public aid

Ill say it again, you're nuts if you think that using an example of personal success to illustrate a point automatically indicates an intention to flaunt success.  If that's what you think, then fuck off.  I'm allowed to have a self-esteem, thanks.

And, as far as being "dense" goes, it might help if you understand the context of the argument you're debating against first.  For example, don't say I'm "arguing against my own raise" when I never received a raise, nor asked or demanded for one.  Care to try again?

Have you considered asking for a pay cut? You did admit you're under qualified. Consider it.

Ah this entire thread is too good to pass up!  The OP was clearly enticing an argument, let's be clear on that.  He feels one way, provided little to no factual data to back up his argument, then invites an opinion.  Clearly it will not serve to convince you of anything.

Inflation = Basic function of economics.  As economies grow, as we add GDP and produce additional goods and services, as money supply increases, then the value of what you currently hold decreases in proportion to the goods and service available.  This is called inflation.  It is the same thing happening to your mining rigs as difficulty "inflates" and reduces the amount of "transactions" it can do proportion to the rest of the network.  So first point, this happens in every economy and is innate, it can't just be blamed on certain entities or people because there would be no growth if there was no inflation.

As the economy grows, those at the top are the ones who reap the largest reward.  Think of the economy as a giant pyramid full of workers at the bottom and Businesses at the top, followed by CEO's and Execs until the lower levels reach back into the basic workers at the bottom.  Revenues, product creation, services all start at the base level with the workers.  The revenues flow back to the business at the top, trickle down the CEO and Execs and through middle management till they reach the bottom of the pyramid.  The bottom produces the most but everything flows through the top first where the lions share is consumed by the business and corporations then passed on the top tier individuals and downward.

Now workers are producing all the product and through productivity they are growing the economy.  As the economy grows, what happens? That's right we get Inflation!  Yes, it's a sign we are doing well!  The problem is that the workers are not compensated for this growth in the economy, they are not paid wages based on inflation.  They are paid wages based on the box that they were originally hired into. Good bad or indifferent, that's their box.

Ultimately it falls on the corporations and leadership to make SURE that their profits and growth are actually passed on to the workers producing the goods and services.  

When the cost of living continues to rise and workers do not receive basic living increases, they are basically working themselves to achieve growth for someone else WHILE their standard of living decreases.  No one wants to be in that situation.

Whether these particular strikes are founded or not? The OP needs to provide more information.  Does McDonalds actually have 5-10% margins? On how much Revenue? How much is Top Brass being paid in comparison to their lower level employees?  What is the basic standard of living in the area?  

Fact of the matter is, corporations need to go back to the basics.  Better paid workers mean better paid consumers and equal higher corporate profits. So inflation continues to rise.... We need dynamic wages and income increases to keep up!

Go play in the corner with your strawman, I said no such thing.

Who is this "We" anyway? How many fast food restaurants do you own?  (I know I don't. Though I've worked in a couple).

You were responding to a comment that I'd made about inflation. If you were ignoring my comment and just repeating what you'd said before, you did not make that clear.

Just in case you wondered what the financial situation of McDonalds is:

Total revenues: 27567 million $
Net income: 5464 million $
2012 Annual Report.pdf (http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/content/dam/AboutMcDonalds/Investors/Investor%202013/2012%20Annual%20Report%20Final.pdf)

Looks like they can afford to pay a little more.

Pay who? Pay the low wage workers? Pay for what? They don't deserve it, if they wanted they could spend their time doing business instead of whacking it off to hentai and watching Breaking Bad or whatever teenagers are doing these days, their net income is 5464 million $ and they deserve every cent, taking even a dollar from their net income forcefully would reduce them to slavery.

I admit I'm under-qualified on paper.

I believe I'm overqualified in terms of competence and ability.

And, in fact I actually did take a (voluntary) pay cut to the tune of about $5,000 in order to allow for extra money to be funneled directly towards patient care.  That $5,000 was (originally) specifically allotted for my salary.

Now, if I really wanted to brag or believed that I was some pinnacle of moral enlightenment, don't you think that might have been the first thing I said?  You should probably be feeling like a dumbass right about now.

I'm a very humble person and I don't like to brag about my skills, sacrifices, or accomplishments.  But, when you challenge my skills, my accomplishments, my intelligence, my conduct, or my professionalism in my field of work, I will illuminate your ignorance so you can see it a bit more clearly.

Lol, yes, I did construct the OP in such a way that I figured it would bring some heated comments.  And you're right, that's exactly what I was looking for.

Hmm.

I'm just not getting a hint of those illuminations here in this thread. Perhaps they are dimmer than you think?

Indeed, considering his immediate next post negated just about everything he said about himself in the previous.

Not everyone is intelligent enough or motivated enough to start a business.  If they were, we would be chock full of businesses with no workers!  We need workers, don't fool yourself.  If you are a business owner, you understand the value of having employees and people under you.

Also, they are still bottom of the barrel.  So does that mean they do not deserve a living wage, even if they work 40 hours a week?  I fail to see your logic on whether they deserve it.  You deserve a living wage if you work, period.  If you do MORE work, start a business, provide more value to society, you deserve more than a living wage.  Pretty basic stuff.

If they have 100,000 US employees, and paid each of them an additional $1000/annually, that would amount to $100m in wage increases.  Their net income would fall from $5464million to $5364million.  You still don't think they can afford it?

why? what if i do a piss poor job? what if my employer asks me to pick up all of the sticks in his yard and i walk at like 1/10th of a mile per hour. instead of picking up 10 sticks and carrying them to the bin i pick up 1 and carry it to the bin then walk back into the yard and pick up 1 more. what if my work is creating significantly less value than is required to sustain my person? why am i entitled to more compensation than my labor is worth? where is this money supposed to come from? it necessarily must come from someone elses surplus productivity, why does that person owe me anything?

its easy to make generalizations like "everyone is entitled to a living wage" but you have to remember that employers are not forced to hire people. if you raise the price of a thing people will purchase less of it. if grocery stores raise the price of peanuts people will purchase fewer peanuts. if the government raises the price of labor than people will purchase less of it.

consider that what you probably really want is for everyone to have their basic needs taken care of, i.e. food water clothing shelter. if this really what you want, like i suspect it is, than a minimum wage would only accomplish the opposite of this goal. sometimes the most destructive actions are taken unwittingly in the pursuit of noble ends, like supporting a minimum wage for the right reasons with out understanding the economics of the situation.

If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life. -Henry David Thoreau

My point exactly, your pay is always proportionate to how much you contribute to society, if all that you do is dig up a hole so that another group can fill it back up then you deserve nothing. The faulty logic of raising the minimum pay in order to "take care" of the minimum wage workers accomplishes nothing but add to unemployment and ultimately to their misery.

Be careful with your words. in a free market wages are generally a reflection of productivity but they are not proportionate since its very difficult to calculate the marginal utility of employes and even in the best of circumstances requires at least a little guess work. i hate to nitpick but i only do it because its better that you hear it from me than someone who is intellectual dishonest and might attempt to use it to disprove the thesis, which is sound.

I would love to know how you arrived at that conclusion. Do you know what 'to negate' means?  I'm guessing not if you can take two posts that are totally independent of each other and use one to negate the other...

Asserting a strong opinion is typically a good way to evoke a strong response.  So what?

Completely different argument. You made a pure Employer-Employee contract argument.  If you don't do the job you're hired to do, you get fired.  That doesn't mean I don't pay you a reasonable wage to do the job when you do the job I hired you to do.

You can't negate the fact that the 1% controls the majority of the wealth in the world.  We aren't talking about redistribution, we are talking about supporting the base of the pyramid that the entire economy is built on.  If you don't take care of the foundation, the rest of the house will crumble.  The stronger the foundation, the bigger the house can be built.

Let me pose it differently.  If tomorrow McDonalds raised their wages and exceeded other fast food chains, would you still have the same argument that bums watching hentai and breaking bad all day worked there? Or would you instead be dealing with a higher class employee striving to get a job at the better paying McDonalds?

There is nothing wrong with paying employees more to do jobs, all it means is that there is an immediate reduction in profit margins for teh business and reduction in take home at the top tiers.  It is a better long term stance in terms of growing corporate profits through adding spending power to the consumer base.

I will never understand the comments about getting paid what you're worth.  The lowest levels of labor should get paid the lowest of wages, but those wages should be the bare minimum needed for food and shelter and wages should rise from there.  If you're workers can't survive, how can they continue working for you and further, how could your business continue to thrive?  It's again very simple economics.

To argue the alternative is to basically say, corporations are entitled to all the profits they make and owe no one anything.  The CEO's at the top should be able to take the chunk they want because they are at the top of the entity that deserves it all.  Clearly this is misleading, because corporations wouldn't have profits without consumers and they wouldn't have profits without workers providing their services or producing their goods.  Lose the economy, you lose the profits and the benefits of running a business.   Again, econ 101.

Lastly, consider that workers are paid because they are NEEDED by the company.  Do you really think you get hired at McDonalds to flip burgers because they are just looking to help you out?  It's a fair transfer and should have a mutual benefit for both parties involved, even if it requires low skilled labor. 

Won't be long until machines are able to replace many of the labors we do on a daily basis  I read an article this week about artificially generated beef, grown through stem cells.  So how far away are we from artificially grown beef, automated cooks and serving machines and a prerecorded voice taking your order at the drive thru?  Should be a super fun argument when we start debating labor and fair living wages then.

Once again, the poster boy for those who don't listen speaks.

1. If you're just plain bad and slow at your job, nobody is advocating any type of wage. But if you do your job well at, say fast food, for 40 hours a week, you deserve a decent wage. Such a job may not require a degree, but that doesn't mean it isn't work.

2. As for your arguments about raising the cost of burgers, that's dependent on how the business is structured, and there are businesses which pay a decent wage, make better burgers than the competition, and charge less. If you can't compete with those businesses, maybe you shouldn't be in business.

Newsflash: This has happened before, over and again, in many other industries and we are all better off for it. I'm pretty glad I don't have to wait for the scribe to finish transcribing my copy of "Perl in a Nutshell".

You said before that anyone who does work deserves a living wage. this necessarily includes employees who violate employee employer contracts. If we have a contract that says you pick up ALL the sticks and you only pick up 1 stick, you have violated the contract yes but you have also done work, according to your previous statement you are still entitled to a living wage even though you have broken the contract. since your position is that even contract violators are entitled to a living wage i dont see how drawing a distinction between people who uphold their contracts and those who violate their contracts is relevant.

If it's not relevant why are you bringing it up again? If you don't do your job you get fired.  Is it complicated to you?

Because you appear to be under the impression that it is relevant, and while it isn't relevant, the fact that it isn't relevant is relevant.

You've got to understand, if you work hard and do your job well, you get the living wage, if you're a crap worker, you get fired and get the living dole.

Now what's that incentive to work hard again?

Ahem.. The problem with demanding a higher wage is that there will likely be someone else on the sidelines who will gladly take your job for a lower wage. Wages go up when number of people willing to do the job (or able to do it) goes down. McDonald's workers are paid what they are, because customers don't care who served them food, or whether the food is of a marginally better quality. McDonalds will seel whatever customers demand, for the cheapest price they can get away with.

I used to work for McDonakd's corp. Margins on burgers are indeed in the 5% range. Soft drinks, on the other hand, cost about $0.05 a cup, and are a major profit provider.

Regarding "Net income: 5464 million $," that's not some fat asshole in a top hat collecting all that money. McDonald's is a publicly owned company. If you increase employee's pay, and decrease McD's net income by a few million, what you will effectively do it take money away from those same McDonald's owner's retirement accounts, and from 401K retirement accounts of a lot of older folks. Please stop advocating stealing money from poor old grandma. Unlike those teenagers at fast food restaurants, she is too old to work.

No she isn't:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-92-mcdonald-oldest-employee-article-1.1402335

That is not actually a good thing :(

1. Why does working 40 hours a week mean you get a good wage? McDonald's work is easy. It doesn't require a degree because a monkey could do most fast food jobs. Apparently monkeys can even work in higher class restaurants.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7654267.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7654267.stm)

2. What fast food place is cheaper than McDonald's but higher quality, while paying more than any other place? Obviously no place exists, or McDonald's would not be such a dominant force in fast food. Even if this place did exist, they have a very inefficient business model.

Because 40 hours a week (plus getting ready for work and commuting to work) consumes most of your time. Pretty simple.


Glad you asked. http://blogs.wsj.com/independentstreet/2009/01/28/in-n-out-burger-vs-mcdonalds-guess-who-won/

https://www.google.com/search?q=in-n-out&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=hF0KUuHbI-G2igK6wYCQDg&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1144&bih=1006

A cheeseburger, fries and soda costs just over $5. Starting pay is $11. They're serving more customers at  3:30 in the afternoon than most fast food restaurants are serving at 12:20 in the afternoon. At lunchtime, I will count about fourteen employees working in an In-n-Out.

They never freeze any ingredients. They have no microwaves or freezers or heatlamps. Potatoes are sliced from whole potatoes at each store. They have the freshest fast food you'll ever eat.

Compare prices:

http://m.wsj.net/video/20120913/091312lunchmcdonalds/091312lunchmcdonalds_512x288.jpg

http://codinghorror.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a85dcdae970b0120a86d9487970b-pi

In-n-Out has really good food and people know it. Hence, when an In-n-Out opens in a new area that has been deprived of their food, they wait in line. See pictures: https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&q=in-n-out+lines&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.50500085,d.cGE,pv.xjs.s.en_US.ciY8R2R6XC8.O&biw=1144&bih=1006&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=emAKUoDpN-WSyAG_goHwDQ

1. In-n-Out pays more.
2. Their food is all fresh.
3. Lunch at In-n-Out costs less.
4. Their food tastes better than McDonalds
5. The restaurants are packed.

Conclusion: bad food and too many locations with limited revenue is considered to be a viable business because they're allowed to pay their employees too little.

Solution: Make a good menu that actually tastes good, and pack more customers into a single store, and you have more money to pay employees and still serve excellent food at a competitive (or better) price.

In-n-Out employs about the same number of people per burger sale, but doesn't waste money on real estate or opening stores which can't create crowds.

Why not just make everything automated?  Wouldn't that be the most efficient?  You know, if a business really wanted to be as efficient as possible they'd just have machines serving the food faster, fresher, and better than the employees ever could. Oh, but wait, then you wouldn't really need the employees...

So maybe we should just set limits on how efficient a company can be to ensure that there will always be employees around to be paid and to take away from company efficiency.

Your efficiency argument is inefficient.

Ridiculous. In the real world, my argument demonstrated the invalidity of J603's claim.

I suggest you get back to what you're good at: whining about people making claims about you that you don't agree with.

Your argument is flawed because it implies a limit to efficiency as a result of merely having human employees that need to be paid.  Why aren't you condemning fast food restaurants for not automating everything?  Better food,  served faster, with fewer mistakes.  And best of all, super low labor costs!  Then you can lower the food prices to beat all competitors, including In 'N Out.  Sounds like a better restaurant to me.

We'll know it's a better restaurant when we see it, experience their service and atmosphere, and taste their food. Until then...

But-but-but that means they can out-compete them. McDonalds should lobby the government to stifle In-n-Out's business model so McDonalds can trump them all in the name of "free market capitalism". ::)

I'm pretty sure you can get a cheeseburger, fries, and a coke for about $3, to $4 at McDonald's. Most of those items are a dollar each there.

FirstAscent, you keep saying "descent wage," or "actual work," or "most of your time." Personally, I also believe that everyone should have a great income, and work in very nice jobs, and be very efficient with their time. But that says pretty much absolutely nothing. So, can you be more specific? Give us a formula that would determine how much someone should get paid based on the type of work they do, the amount of time it takes up, and what you consider to be decent wage. Then please explain why someone shouldn't be allowed to work for less than that wage if they need the job more than whoever is holding it now.

Hey, now you're getting it!  Now just apply that same statement to McDonald's...

So In-N-Out may be higher quality but it's certainly no cheaper. McDonald's is 3.00 plus tax for the stuff you mentioned. The McDonald's I live near gives out the small cups for free, so I pay $2.00 for a McDouble and fries. I think that all McDonald's are obligated to give you a cup of "water" (which you can fill with anything) for free.

Besides, I think that I said in my original post, that if such a company existed they were not nearly as efficient. McDonald's, BK, and Wendy's are all much more popular than In-N-Out, so arguably In-N-Out is not nearly as efficient.

By the way, McDonald's is a corporation, but as a corporation it owns very few stores directly. It's actually mostly a corporate franchise, where individual franchise owners set up a restaurant, pay royaltees (franchise fees) to the corporation, and in exchange get marketing materials and contracts for products (food/ingredients). So the reason that there are so many McDonaldses around isn't because the corporation is being inefficient, sticking them everywhere, it's because individuals think that a McDonald's in some piece of land will be good business, and open it up themselves. Sometimes they are wrong, and it turns out to be a bad investment. Likewise, McDonald's owners hire local people to work in their restaurant for whatever wage they will accept. They want lower wage employees because it costs a few million to open up a franchise (close to $6 I think), and they need to make their investment back. So, if you force minimum wages to be higher, it won't be profitable to upen, or run, McDonaldses in various places. Good is that there may be fewer McDonald's around. Bad is that there will be fewer jobs for poor unskilled workers.

Since we've had this conversation before, I know the following:

You've never eaten at In-n-Out, and nobody but someone who has never eaten at In-n-Out makes a fool of themselves comparing a McDonald's 99 cent cheeseburger to anything In-n-Out offers. Please stop offering your opinion on this matter.


Still not getting it, are you? In-n-Out employs about the same number of employees per lunch served as other fast food restaurants, but pays more. Therefore, it appears you're trying to make the argument that if other restaurants adopted a model such as In-n-Out, there would be less jobs for burger flippers.

Here's some advice, since you desperately want to show that businesses can't afford to pay more: look at the various fast food business models, and see where they're wasting money and why they're wasting money.

A McDouble doesn't compare. Stop pulling from Rassah's uninformed playbook.

I'd take a $1 McD's burger over a $2 In 'n Out burger any day.  I always have to remove tons of crap I don't like from In'n Out burgers.

I think you're lying to try and save face. Consider this earlier post of yours with the relevant statement boldfaced:

Yes, and it's better tasting than McDonald's, too.  You have a serious problem with inference.  I want a McD's burger because it's cheaper and more nostalgic, and all I have to tell them is "no pickles."

You read way, way, way too much into stuff, find things that aren't there, then turn those imaginary things into the context of your argument (you are the straw GOD!).

I've eaten at McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, Hardee's, Checkers, Fudruckers, Rally's, Red Robin, and a few others. I can pretty damn well guess what kind of burger In-n-Out offers. If you don't want shitty McDonald's burger, you can still get a good burger for $3 at McD's, plus a buck for fries and soda, and it'll still be about the same. No, it won't be as fresh, but you'll have more than just cheese and beef on it.



Yes, I am making the argument that McDonald's is able to employ more people, in a wider range of areas, than In-n-Out. The fact that there are barely any In-n-Outs out there compared to McDonald's supports that claim. If you wish to refute or explain away the facts to answer why there are way fewer In-n-Outs, I'm all ears.
Also, please answer the question: How will you determine what is a "decent wage" and what is the actual number?


No, you got it backwards and wrong. You are the one desperately trying to show that businesses can afford to pay a lot more. I am trying to show that it's not up to the businesses. Businesses are offering work for whatever people are willing to take it for. If someone is willing to take the job for less, because they need it more, they are not prevented from doing it. Also, different McDonald's charge different prices and pay different wages depending on where they are. A BigMac meal in Downtown Disney, Orlando, FL can cost almost $10, and the wages are much higher, because it is a much wealthier and more affluent area. How do you set a wage level while still accounting for these differences?

So what?


No, you can't, since you've compared it to a McDonald's cheeseburger in two separate threads. See here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=268056.msg2893060#msg2893060

Sorry, but to me, a cheeseburger is a cheeseburger. The only difference is how thick the beef is. Besides, this is irrelevant. Stop avoiding the issue, and answer why someone who wants a job more than someone else should be prevented from getting it, or how something as nebulous and undefined as "decent" and "good" can be narrowed down to a specific number?

That's your opinion.

Earlier, I said to name a company that was cheaper but more efficient. You failed to find one. McDonald's is the cheapest as far as I know and it's certainly one of if not the most successful fast food chain. I like McDonald's food better, but opinions don't matter. Perhaps you are uninformed if you think that your opinion is evidence for an argument.

My opinion actually matters because I've eaten at both restaurants. You've admitted that you have not eaten at In-n-Out. Given that, you might consider that my opinion carries more weight than yours.

And you might want to factor in this:

http://consumerist.com/2011/06/30/science-confirms-in-n-out-burger-is-the-best-and-mcdonalds-the-worst/

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/02/in-n-out-v-mcdonalds-which-burger-chain-has-been-deemed-superior/

http://voices.yahoo.com/in-n-out-vs-mcdonalds-337393.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/independentstreet/2009/01/28/in-n-out-burger-vs-mcdonalds-guess-who-won/

But I guess you guys think you know better because it's important to save face with your arguments.

Stop being a bunch of dumbfucks.

Strawmothafuckinman

The argument was on what is a better business. I do not care whatsoever what people think the quality is. McDonald's is more successful and cheaper. Also, how does McDonald's rank lowest if it's the most popular, I wonder?

Maybe because they're where better places are not?

Compare sales per store. Compare ratings. Compare worker happiness. Compare freshness of food. Compare prices per volume of food received. Compare earnings per store.

OK, let's compare McDonald's at Downtown Disney to any In-n-Out in the whole country (I am actually being fair, because McDonald's in Italy and Germany is WAY better than here).

Sales per store: McDonalds wins hands down. That place is packed from early morning to late evening with huge lines.
Ratings: Likely a tie. That McD's uses the best quality ingredients and has impeccable service
Worker happiness: No clue. Those McD's workers live in Florida, right next to Disney, work in a high quality wealthy area, and get somewhere around $10+ an hour.
Freshness of food: tie for that location
Price per volume: In-n-Out wins. That McD's is very expensive
Earnings per store: Pretty sure almost every McDonalds store earns more than any In-n-Out. The one in Downtown Disney earns more than most other McDonald's.

Final result: You can make up any conclusion if you are selective in what you compare.
Bottom line is, McDonald's bottom line trumps In-n-Out's bottom line.

Feel free to keep ignoring how you would establish what a "fair wage" is by the way.

We've already established that you have no experience with In-n-Out. Why are you even contributing on this subject?

Something approaching livable.

The topic is wages. Quality of food is subjective, and a straw man you added to the discussion. We have also already established that you don't understand business or economics, so why are you contributing to that subject?


Define livable? I don't mean feel-good buzzwords. How do you actually figure out what to put down on paper? You have mentioned something about time being important, something about hard work needing to be rewarded, and some other feely subjective things. How about you bring it all together and tell us what a livable wage is, how it might be different in different economic environments around the country, or why someone who wants or needs the job, and is willing to earn less for it,should be prevented from doing so?

I've weighed my statement against yours, and I found more truth in mine. See here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=268056.msg2893060#msg2893060


I suggest you seek studies on the cost of living for various geographical regions instead of asking me. I submit that it is greater than minimum wage. I made no claim as to what the exact amount is. Likewise, I suggest you defer to consumer reports or other journalistic reports regarding the appeal of In-n-Out burgers over your own misguided conclusion based on zero experience.

The problem is that for 9 pages in this thread you've consistently tried to interject, as both Rassah and myself have dutifully pointed out, strawman arguments that are OFF-TOPIC.  As I have clarified and now so has Rassah, the topic is about wages.  More specifically, it's about whether workers' are entitled to wages they are demanding in the CHICAGO strikes.  Ever seen an In 'N Out in Chicago?  No?  Then STFU.

This thread wasn't even about employers at all.  It is about the attitude of a person given a set of circumstances.  It's not a thread about whether employers should change their practices, it's a "what the fuck should a person do to survive?" thread, and also a "is it reasonable for strikers to demand the changes they are asking for?" thread.

The difference is that I'm asserting a given state of events (i.e there ARE low wages that people aren't happy with), and you're too focused on trying to change the given state of events...which is off-topic.

On an interesting side note, FirstAscent, it is your exact line of thinking and reasoning which I believe exemplifies the reason why I created this thread in the first place!

I think some people naturally look outward to blame.  There is a huge difference between accepting a given state of events and then doing what you can to maximize your success in those events vs. refusing to accept a set of circumstances (commonly known as denial) and then blaming who you find to be responsible for those circumstances.  It is clear from our exchanges both privately and in this thread that you refuse to even accept that this thread is not about the topic you think it's about...and then you blame me for misunderstanding!

I actually wasn't able to put an exact word to the root of the emotional process behind the entitled attitude, but I think "denial" might work well enough.  How is a striker in denial?  Well, assuming they aren't also working a second job, or working on the skills needed to find a better job or create another means of income, I think they are unable to accept that they ended up in a shitty financial situation and simply refuse to accept that they had anything to do with getting there.  Or in some interesting cases, maybe they're in denial of their potential.

"Something approaching livable" is less than minimum wage. No one works for wages that will kill them. If someone works for $2.00 an hour than obviously their wage is livable, unless one day a corpse shows up to work.

Also, could you be more specific?

A liveable wage is a wage where one doesn't need additional food stamps to survive.

But food stamps are very beneficial to the TBTF's (esp. J.P. Morgan which runs the food stamps program) and Walmart (which gets cheap government subsidized workers) so that is why you will only see an increase of them.

It's not only low wage workers who may have an entitlement mentality but also the richest of the rich. How many big corporations are there that pay 0 taxes (sometimes even getting tax refunds whilst not paying anything) whilst small and medium companies are taxed through the roof (putting them at a disadvantage to their big competitors).

The elite love nothing more than having the middle class bickering about the poor class and vice versa. Takes them and their cronies out of the blame zone.  ::)

I'm not sure this one really works out; the homeless get by without a wage and without food stamps, though none of them are exactly thrilled to be in such positions.  I believe a fair wage is whatever amount of money people are willing to accept in exchange for their time.  If a wage is not fair, people shouldn't accept them, and yet people do, and so by admission the wages are always fair (except in the case of minimum wage, of course, since no work is apparently better than cheap work.)  Someone across the globe could do the same work for pennies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country) and make a living.

Of course that increasingly happens. It's easy for a multinational to outsource their workforce to a low wage country.

But then you hear business leaders and politicians complain that people don't spend enough money. Why would that be? ::)

Entitlement mentality exists only when you have the means to live decently and you believe you deserve more. Ex: Any big business crying to mommy government to bail them out when things are going bad.

When you're poor, it's not entitlement, it's called "surviving".

Maybe instead of forcing wages to go up, government should force the price of food and housing to go down. Then we'll all be rich living on $1 a day  ;D

Another post that doesn't demonstrate thinking outside the box.

Because, what is more "outside the box" than the tried and true "Minimum Wage"  ;D

Getting businesses to look elsewhere to cut costs besides the labor force. I've already explained how In-n-Out does it.

You said McDonald's has shit restaurants with shit food and shit service. What more can they cut?

I disagree.  I think that it's the antithesis of "surviving."  It's only "surviving" if it works (i.e. strikes lead to wage increases which allow significant improvements in ones quality of life).

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the last time McDonald's workers went on strike in Chicago, they received a 10 cent raise.  This means that if they went on strike for even a single day, it would take nearly 3 months of full-time work for that 10 cent wage increase to earn them back their lost wages from that one day.

I wouldn't call that "surviving."  I'd call it horrible risk analysis.

You seem to be stuck on this.  Are you opposed to strikes simply because they are ineffective? 
In that case, the title of this thread should be changed to "poor risk analysis" from "entitled mentality."
If you feel that striking is not the ideal approach to securing higher wages, share your wisdom with the strikers, not this Libertarian-leaning forum.  Coals to Newcastle.

Sorry for being "stuck" on topic in a thread that I created.  Nine pages of clarification and you're still asking why I'm against the strikes?

I'm not "sharing wisdom," I shared an opinion and asked that others do the same.  It's called conversation, and it happens when people share ideas.

Answer the question in red boldface plz.

I already explained that to you. The first thing they need to do is get better recipes and cooking methods. Then cut stores, which cuts real estate costs. With better recipes and and less stores, they'll attract the customers from the removed stores to the remaining stores, bringing in more revenue per store.

This is exactly what In-n-Out does: half the stores as McDonalds per area, yet more customers per store, because their food is so good. Result: costs are cut. Did you know that at lunchtime, you can count about fourteen employees in an In-n-Out?

Not entirely, but that has a lot to do with it. 

They did/do, all the time, by trying new recipe. Recently they had Angus Deluxe burgers, but those were dropped. All that does though is raise costs, not cut them, and likely for a lower marginal profit increase. For example, apparently adding superior Angus Deluxe burgers didn't increase their profits, so your idea of superior recipes and cooking methods didn't work.


Cut wages from minimum to zero? Tell franchise investors who sunk millions into their own restaurant that they should accept their losses, pack up, and leave?


Maybe. They tried recipes, but those don't always work. And they do close unprofitable locations sometimes, but if one restaurant even make $1 in profit, why close it? You're thinking that if A gets X customers, and B gets Y customers, then if you close A, then B will get X + Y customers. But that's simply not true. B may not have the capacity to handle all new customers, and long lines will drive them away, and customers who bought from A location may find B's location inconvenient. And, of course, less jobs for locals.


If it's so great, how come McDonald's is all over the world, and In-n-Out is only in your area?

From wiki I learn that In-n-Out operates in five western states at 281 locations. So McDonalds is indeed more widespread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-N-Out_Burger

But I were a McDonalds employee in a town which had an In-n-Out I would try my best to get a job there. Who would say no to better working conditions and better wages? Is that fair or is it also entitlement mentality to think like that?

Because In-n-Out focuses on profitability, excellent food, and excellent service, within a framework that pays reasonable wages. Maybe if McDonalds focused on being profitable while paying better wages and offering better food, they too would have a more sophisticated and thoughtful expansion plan.

Regarding trying recipes: they're clueless.

Regarding locations: ask yourself why In-n-Out's very crowded restaurants do not drive away customers.

Also, as I've said, they're employing more employees per store, so it's not as if In-n-Out is employing less employees per region.

Of course that's fair. But since In-n-Out is focusing of quality instead of cheap jobs, they may not have jobs available for you, meaning you'd have no option but McDonald's.

Would it be fair for you to make an offer to In-n-Out to work for less than what they are currently paying their employees, in the hopes of getting one of their employees jobs?

McDonald's is a franchise. How many employees per store there are is not the McDonald's company's choice. Even if an individual McDonald's makes no money, the company still profits in the end off of that establishment.

And all businesses focus on profits, but some (like McD's) make more than others.

McDonald's had (and has) an opportunity to create a business model like that of In-n-Out. The result would be no price change for customers buying lunch, no fewer employees (due to reasons outlined in my last post), and very possibly increased profitability as well.

It's a culture thing. McDonald's just can't visualize anything that isn't McDonald's like.

So?

Here's the question you might want to ask yourself:

If the minimum wage rose $3.00 or $4.00, how would it affect the profitability of McDonald's vs. In-n-Out? Is McDonald's able to survive a minimum wage increase? Is their business model that fragile?

I have a hard time blaming them trying to get better work conditions. It's a way to increase the pressure on the employer so they can use this as a negotiation tool.

I agree that 15$/hour for flipping burgers is a lot, but it doesn't excuse the ridiculous minimum wage of 7.25$. Our minimum wage is 10.15$CAD (rate is almost 1:1) just across the border up north and McDonald prices are still decent. You're getting a nice plate of bullshit from the fast-food corporations right now.

It's about finding a balance and right now, looking at this with my outsiders goggles, I think you're crushing your economy by letting the employers get all the entitlements. Unions are a GREAT way to bring back the money at the bottom of the pyramid when it's stuck at the top. Sure, too much unions is not better, but right now, you would strongly benefit to counter the effects of "too much capitalism" that your country is plagued with.

Low wage fast food joints tend to have a high employee turn over. Because everyone who can get a better job will quit the moment they find one.


Well that sometimes happens. There was a story in the papers over here today about interns offering their services for free because they had difficulty getting a paid internship and desperately needed the work experience for their education.

You're not claiming that In-n-Out profits > McDonald's profits, are you?


Why do you say that? McDonald's has their own university devoted to researching and creating new recipes (among other things), and hires top chefs to create and test foods in their experimental restaurants around the country. What does In-n-Out do that's not "clueless" that McDonald's doesn't?


The same reason some restaurants can have waiting times of 15 minutes before they get seated: people are willing to wait for something special. In-n-Out essentially has a monopoly on In-n-Out burgers, but are getting screwed on fast food competition in general.


How many McDonalds restaurants are in your city and state compared to In-n-Out restaurants? If there are twice as many, In-n-Out better be employing twice as many people outer store. I suspect it's 10 times as many stores though. At least.

It would force many McDonald's in poorer areas to close down, because they would no longer be able to afford to operate. I did mention that different McD's restaurants in different areas charge different prices, right? The effect would be similar to dropping an In-n-Out into a poor urban area. It'd go out of business in no time.

A large proportion of McDonalds are franchises. I can't find an exact proportion but in the UK, it's 50% so likely higher here. That means employees are paid by the franchise owner and McDonalds makes money regardless of the profitability. McDonalds doesn't have much of an incentive to close branches or improve the product or workflow. Many franchise owners are making less than their employees (I have known of some directly). Now, they might be able to go-it-alone, trim the workflow and provide better food but people will still flock to the craptacular McDonalds that pops up next door five minutes after.

Good luck to In-n-Out though. If they have a good business plan, they'll surely succeed and I would welcome a better eating experience. I haven't eaten McDonalds in so long I can't remember.

Also completely false. McDonald's has changed many times over the years, and experiments with new restaurants and culture constantly. You heard of Roy Rogers restaurants? Those are McDonald's owned. How about Chipotle, which started the awesome high quality burrito trend that was also copied by BajaFresh? Guess who you have to thank for Chipotles? Yep, McDonald'a.

Per store, definitely.


Do you have a memory problem?

http://consumerist.com/2011/06/30/science-confirms-in-n-out-burger-is-the-best-and-mcdonalds-the-worst/

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/02/in-n-out-v-mcdonalds-which-burger-chain-has-been-deemed-superior/

http://voices.yahoo.com/in-n-out-vs-mcdonalds-337393.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/independentstreet/2009/01/28/in-n-out-burger-vs-mcdonalds-guess-who-won/


They're not getting screwed at all. How funny.


I just googled three cities: the ratios are 3:1 and 3:2 and 3:2.

An average of 9:5 then?

Ummm, no. I've seen McDonald's way of cooking and menu for over forty years. Not many changes there.

Doesn't McDonald's serve stuff like fried insects in some Asian countries?  I'm pretty sure they feature culture-specific food at many international locations.

They have the McKroket (based on a meat croquette) over here in NL.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7139/7068706561_bcc7d31e49.jpg

It's the McDonalds product I consume the most. Since I otherwise prefer the Burger King burgers. :)

To be fair, McDonalds did have a problem a few years ago where their race for the bottom had driven away a lot of customers to the point where they were starting to have issues. I think this was also an issue for Hardees and, more recently, Dominoes. The incentive in many large companies is to cut costs because that produces returns *right now* and customers get lost later after all the bonuses are handed out.

McDonalds has looked at automation. But the truth is by the time you have an expensive engineer to look after the machinery, the downtime it takes for him to get there when things break, his travel costs, the cost of someone to watch things to guard against vandalism, you may as well pass some aprons and a spatula to a trio of spotty teenagers and cross your fingers that the place doesn't burn down while they're out-back smoking pot.

Culture, as in this case, doesn't refer to the community, but the way of thinking by the business.

I think both cultural contexts are implicated in what I said.  There's the community culture (i.e. insects are popular to eat in some areas), and there's also the way of thinking about business in terms of cultural trends (e.g. your 'burrito trend' example vs. my 'insect trend' example).

Business culture, company culture, as in, "We don't bake our buns on site, we put our burgers under heat lamps, we don't think it's important to train our employees how to mop the floors, we don't think fresh unfrozen ingredients are important, we do franchises, etc."

It gets even more hairy when you have the Mr. Burns types at TEPCO saying that they shouldn't spend money on nuclear safety so they can save a buck and increase their corporate profits. I'm seriously worried about the Fukushima situation. It may trump all our concerns about the global economy.

And that's nice and all, but entirely irrelevant to the OP.  I'm sure the strikers are demanding to be taught how to mop properly, and are just aching for fresh, unfrozen ingredients.

It's entirely relevant to your last post.

No, really?  The point is that it's part of the same context that you've insisted on pushing that has turned this thread into something other than I had intended.  I'm just trying not to be a total dick, and so I'm entertaining your ideas because you think they're so important that they're worth dismantling someone else's topic thread to talk about them.  Make your own thread if you want to talk about employer business practices so much.  I might even comment in it.  I promise I'll stay on topic. 

Seriously, do you really think any of us are gonna argue against fresh ingredients?  Obviously fresh ingredients are better in terms of both taste and nutritional value.  I don't even think any of us would argue with you that's it's possible to still make a nice profit while serving a good product and satisfying both customers and employees.  I think we all want clean, healthy, low-cost, fast food restaurants where employers, employees, and consumers are all happy.

The problem is, that has nothing to do with the OP.  You keep wanting to talk about employer business practices, and whether it's out of narcissism, reading comprehension problems, autism, or some form of undiagnosed mental retardation, you still haven't figured out that you are not in any way, shape, or form arguing against any point made in the OP other than that you might've said that you believe the strikers are allowed to strike.  Yay.  Me too.  I just think it's dumb.

made me laugh fucking hard lol


saw this and thought of OP right off the bat

http://i44.tinypic.com/ohq075.jpg

To use an extreme example, Nordstrom makes way higher profits per store than WalMart. As did Sears. That doesn't mean that either company as a whole has higher profits, or that their business model is better than WalMart's (it's worse)


Do you have a language problem? You said they're clueless. I pointed out that they try hard. Are you claiming that they spend millions a year hiring clueless people to design food that clueless tasters approve of? That's absurd! Most likely they hired experts to design as best foods as possible using as cheap cooking methods as possible, because they themselves picked a level of quality they believe is adequate. A level they have reached after also a lot of testing, which is adequate enough for their food to be desired by billions of people around the world, allowing them to build their stores all over the world, instead of just Chicago where they started (on the other hand, I almost never hear about In-n-Out). In other words, you say their food is like that because they are clueless. I am suggesting their food is like that because they specifically wanted it to be that way. All your polls say is that some people like other burgers over theirs. No shit. I'm sure most people like Checkers/Rally's burgers way more than McDonald's ones, too. I don't see Checkers/Rally's popping up all over the place (or Hardees, or Sonic, or Jack-in-the-Box, or Carl's Jr, or WhiteCastle).



Are those ratios of stores, or ratios of employees per store? Can you conclude that In-n-Out employs as many people as McDonald's?


EDIT: To bring this around to the OP topic, I also think that the strikers may be stupid. McDonald's has a business model that allows them to exist in many places, and in many different economic and cultural environments. Sure, the jobs may suck and not pay more, but they're there. If the strikers change McDonald's business model to something else, like to that of In-n-Out burger, some of them will get improvements in quality of work environment and raise in salaries, but a lot of them will simply lose their jobs. As In-n-Out has demonstrated, it simply can't exist in as many places as McDonald's can. (unless they purposefully don't want to make more money by expanding)

Deluxe Quarter Pounder, Angus Deluxe, Arch Deluxe, Breakfast Bagel Sandwiches, McGriddles,  Snack Wraps, Salad Shakers, Fish Bites, changes to the BigMac even. Most of these in just the last 10 years. Any of those ring a bell? Or do you not consider those changes?

Good one.  You have to love memes, the last retort from bandwagoners and the uncreative.

You're really going to blast someone for sharing an opinion on a public forum founded upon the opinion that Bitcoin is a superior currency, and after voicing your opinion through a picture indicating someone else's opinion about what people should do with their opinions?  Wow.  You're complex.

Rassah,

Sounds like you really know your stuff about McDonald's. No doubt with their excellent business model and progressive menu, it shouldn't be an issue for them to change their starting pay to well above minimum wage like In-n-Out. At least we both now know that their menu prices won't undergo a rise in price if ever they had to pay their employees more. Kudos to you for pointing this out and rendering the joint's opinion even more suspect, as he was claiming fast food businesses just wouldn't be able to afford it.

Why would McDonald's pay their employees more? If In-N-Out pays their employees more, that's their loss. They're free to waste money. I thought we were talking about good business practices, not charity.

I'm beginning to believe that ad-hominems were designed especially for you.  You don't even have the faintest idea about how I arrived at my opinion.  Quit being a fucking idiot.

I worked at McDonald's Corp for a while, and had the chance to see visit their central office and see how they operate from the inside.
And how the hell do you come to that conclusion after numerous questions from myself and others of "Why should McDonald's deny someone a job if they need it more and are willing to charge less for their labor?"

How does In-n-Out determine whom to give a job to? I can't imagine burger flipping has a lot of qualifications.

I've been in McDonald's many times - no doubt hundreds and hundreds of times. Same with In-n-Out. Experiencing both gives one both perspective. I have both perspectives. You don't.

Hundreds?  ;D

Seems like we have a hypocrite over here. Tell me, did you start hating McDonald's burgers the 100th time you went? Or was it the 101st that really pushed you over the edge?

Also, who cares if he's eaten there? His argument wasn't for how "good" McDonald's food is if I remember correctly. Even then that's subjective, and he could think In-N-Out tastes bad just to spite you.

I've eaten at both having lived in both Cali and the Midwest.  Unfortunately for you, Rassah and myself have experience with reading comprehension, which gives us perspective that you lack.  We understand what you're saying and so we know your arguments not only suck, but they're in no way relevant to the OP.  You don't understand what we're saying, so you make up your own issue and push it relentlessly so it will appear as though you're not a fucking imbecile.  Maybe if you try harder it'll work!

You think hundreds is a lot in a lifetime? Maybe I also have the perspective of living longer than you.

You might want to get evaluated for dementia, old timer.

How many times are you going to bring up your OP? I don't really give a fuck about your OP, did you know that? I don't really give a fuck if my posts are off topic to your OP, did you know that?

I don't give a rat's ass if my posts are relevant to our OP. Your OP is a whining sob story and brag fest about how wonderful you think you are.

I'm absolutely tired of you and you continuing to complain about posts here aren't relevant to your OP. Most everyone doesn't give a fuck about your OP. Not only did you whine in your first post, now you whine incessantly about how people aren't giving your OP intense focus.

You're the one with the lapse of memory, first stating In-n-Out is tasty earlier in the thread, and then claiming that you like a McDonald's dry and pasty cheeseburger over the In-n-Out cheeseburger.

By the way, how many other people had to suffer through that sob story of a PM you sent me?

Hundreds for a company you supposedly hate is a lot. If I don't like somewhere, do you know how many times I go back there? 0.

Really? Wait, do you mean just in front of the counter? Or behind the counter and at their business office? If the former, that's an incredible skill. I, for instance, would never be able to figure out a company's business structure just by shopping in their stores.

(One way to test your skill: Why is Walmart kicking everyone else's butt? What does it do that no one else did before?)

P.S. I worked there, and I visit there often (especially when I go on long roadtrips), and I'm not exactly young, but I doubt I've been there a hundred times, let alone two hundred. On the other hand, I'm not a fan of Burger King, and I know I haven't been to their chain more than maybe 20 times in my lifetime. So, your claim is a bit weird. Especially considering that, by your own admission, you paid hundreds of times for overprices crappy burgers, when you had a much better and cheaper alternative.

As I said, I have both perspectives. You don't.

Should I take that as your admission that you have worked in fast food at both McDonald's and In-n-Out burger? Or are you saying "both" as in a perspective of "both" restaurants just from your experience shopping there?

And if latter, can you tell why is Walmart has such an enormous competitive advantage over every other store, just from your experience shopping there?

I have worked at neither. I have patronized both, obviously.


I'm not really interested in googling Walmart. Anyway, I prefer Target - it's a much cleaner and nicer shopping experience.

I bet it's smart, well presented people with pleasant manners and a good work ethic. The kind of people FA wants McDonalds to shower money upon would be out-of-work in and In-n-Out dominated world. And other than the welfare he'd like to give them in that case, it would probably be a good thing. I hate stopping off somewhere and the tables are covered in spilled food and the toilets are vomit-inducing.

Ah, so you claim to know the business structure of both companies just because you have bought their products? Hard to believe, considering you have shown time and again that you don't really understand or think things through when it comes to business.


I didn't say google it. You claimed to understand what McDonalds and In-n-Out businesses do just because you shopped there. I'm sure you shopped at WalMart once before, too. So it should have been pretty obvious to you, based on your shopping experience, that the only reason WalMart is so successful is because WalMart invented a completely new, computerized, and automated supply chain system the likes of which the world has never seen before, and still can't duplicate.

Everything that needs to be known is plain as day:

1. Polls show people like In-n-Out better.
2. Their food is fresher (actually fresh).
3. Their prices are competitive, even better.
4. Their service is great.
5. Their wages are publicized.
6. They're busy as hell. Go to one.
7. They're doing very well.


So? I prefer Target, as do lots of other people.

Ok, listen up, you dumbass.  You just listed 7 things that are "everything that needs to be known."

Not a single fucking one of them has ANYTHING to do with the attitudes of striking workers, the topic of the OP.

You're the type of person that makes me want to sacrifice good karma just so I can have fun being a dick to you, and also the type of person that makes me want to report you to a moderator like a child tattling to a grown-up.

I wasn't responding to you, nor your original post. Why do you keep going on about the importance of your original post?

So the only thing that's left to be known is, why is McDonald's all over the world, making hundreds of millions of dollars, and In-n-Out is an obscure thing in a few states, making a fraction of that? You know, the most important question of all.
I mean, SURELY if all those things were the most important things that need to be known about the success of these businesses, then In-n-Out would have restaurants all over the country, hiring millions of employees for "decent" wages, while McDonald's would be the obscure chain that's only in a few states, right?

Why is that the most important question of all?

Perhaps a more important question: how does In-n-Out always win the hamburger polls with ease vs. McDonald's, manage to pay their employees significantly more, and yet charge no more, sometimes less, for an equivalently sized meal?

No, I think the most important question is, why is McDonalds able to, and *IS* hiring a hell of a lot more employees than In-n-Out. You know, if we were to stick at least somewhat to the OP.

Do you like being stupid?  I can't believe you just asked that question.

I created this thread to have a discussion about the topic.  You have instead insisted on replacing the topic of the thread with your own topic. 

I guess I should've created a thread that contained absolutely nothing that I wanted to discuss.

Imagine going to a steak restaurant, and so you order a steak.  Instead, they bring you the kids' corn dog meal.  When you complain, they ask you, "Why do you insist on the steak?!"

You're an evolutionary cul-de-sac.

That may in part have been my fault, too. Your point is that striking for higher wages was a bad use of their time, he pointed out that higher wages are possible with the In-n-Out example, and I *tried* to point out that In-n-Out has a severe lack of employment opportunities, due to their business model being much more limited than McDonald's. So, i.e. I was trying to say that those striking workers should be glad they have someone around to hire and pay them in the first place, but it all kind of went downhill from there.

That's not your fault.  That's how far he's pushed his own topic -- people reading this thread will assume its about something other than what it was originally intended to be.

Walmart is succesful because they are cheap. And while their supply system contributes to that the main reason is that they pay very low wages. So low that many of their employees are on food stamps. Effectively they get cheap government subsidized workers That's another side of entitlement mentality.

Nah, that's the popular media reason for it. They are cheap first and foremost because of their supply system (their warehouses are fully automated, working like network hubs, routing packages from truck bay to truck bay, with trucks working like network cables to deliver the packages over roads). Low wages is a minor part of it, and other more expensive stores, including Target, as just as guilty of it. But, of course, if all you've done is go to he store and shop there, you would conclude that it's just the wages.

Never concluded any such thing, did I now? What I did was make conclusions about fast food.

And honestly, Walmart is really no cheaper than Target. I have comparison shopped many items and never really saw a price difference greater than a couple cents one way or another. Now, please don't take my statement about Target prices to mean that I implied you said anything about Target prices.

Based on the same "I bought burgers from there, so I know" reasoning  ::)

I went to In-n-Out yesterday at 2:20 PM, after the lunch hour rush. I made it a point to count some things. What I saw was a very successful business kicking ass over McDonald's. I was there for 25 minutes. Here's what I saw:

1. They were calling order #45 when I walked in. When I walked out they were calling order #15, wrapping around from 100. That's 70 orders, each on average representing a party of two, totaling 140 meals in 25 minutes.

2. 17 employees. 3 to 4 working the registers. 1 to 2 cleaning tables and tending the beverage bar. The rest in the kitchen.

3. I counted 84 patrons, either seated at tables, in a line to order, or waiting for their order to go.

4. I ordered a combo meal for $5.20. I got a soda, a large carton of delicious fries that were in full unpeeled never frozen potato form only fifteen minutes prior, and a cheeseburger with lettuce hand leafed only minutes prior, and fresh onions and tomatoes. It's far more delicious than anything McDonald's offers, and actually fresh, and frankly, cheaper than an equivalent McDonald's meal.

Let's summarize: After the lunch time rush when things slow down, we had 17 employees, 84 patrons, and in 25 minutes, 140 fresh and delicious meals served, at a price which beats McDonald's. Frankly, you look like an idiot championing McDonald's.

Then, for shits and giggles, I went across the street to check out business at the McDonald's. I counted 5 employees, 18 patrons, and one car in the drive-thru. The one guy at the register was twiddling his thumbs because he had no one to serve.

Their building was over half the size of In-n-Out's.

Sure ya did.

Yes, I did.

Sounds like they are very inefficient, and can't handle the capacity. Maybe they should open more stores, so they can serve 100 meals at two stores in 5 minutes.


Again sounds very inefficient. You don't need more than 1 employee cleaning the tables AND tending the beverage bar. And even if you have 4 employees at the registers, and 2 cleaning the tables, that still leaves 17-4-2=11 employees in the kitchen. The hell do you need all those people there for? It should be 1 taking drivethrough orders and collecting cash, 1 running bags from kitchen drop-off to windows and registers, and maybe three in the kitchen putting together burgers conveyor--belt style, with mane one manager helping out. 6 is enough.


Yep. Not efficient enough. You should only see patrons at the table, and barely anyone in line or waiting for their order. Otherwise it means the restaurant is not able to keep up. Even with 11 people. They should open another store.



Yay! Good for you! How long did you wait?


And, again, the most important queston: who has more employees, McDonald's Corporation, or In-n-Out? If if McDonald's (obviously it's McDonald's), then why doesn't In-n-Out open more stores? I mean, according to you, they have a much better business structure than McD's, so obviously it shouldn't be a problem for them to take over the Burger/Fast Food market. What's stopping them?

Maybe it was because people can get their food within seconds after ordering, and no one has to stick around waiting for their order? McDonald's around my area are packed (despite us having Checkers, Hardees, Burger King, Wendy's, etc), and serve about 300 customers an hour during lunch rush, and about 100 a hour the rest of the day. Average a day for the good ones is about 3,000 customers. So not THAT much worse.

Imagine how empty McDonald's in your area would be if an In-n-Out was next to it.

As for your other comments, they seem like you're reaching. Pretty far. For example, you claim that the McDonald's I went in was so efficient, that nobody was waiting and they were in and out in a flash. The reality is, nobody was coming in or out or ordering.

The two McDonald's that are next to a Burger King and a Checkers (which makes burgers way better than any other fast food place) are doing just fine, usually being quite full. The other places are a bit empty. Reason is because people prefer uniformity to quality. They go to a McDonalds knowing exactly what they will get, as opposed to wanting to experiment with new things. And that, by the way, is the McDonald's version of WalMart's supply chain. McDonalds is beating everyone around the world because they were the first to set up a uniform burger standard around the country. Regardless of which Mcdonalds you go to in the country, you know exactly what you are going to get.

Most people are unoriginal and have a very bland taste, that's true.

That's also why Justin Bieber and Rihanna are popular. :P

You sure do. An uninspired, semi tasteless, okay tasting burger. At In-n-Out, you also get the same great taste everywhere you go, except it tastes delicious, and is made from 100 percent fresh ingredients, cooked on the spot for you.

Honestly, Hardee's burgers taste better to me than In 'N Out.  In 'N Out "secret sauce" is absolutely disgusting.  And price to me is more important, hence I'd prefer McDonald's because, yes, it's cheaper.  Actually, if I could pick any fast food joint in the world, I'd pick this place Nicky's Red Hots right by my house.  They absolutely obliterate In 'N Out.  But, they have like 2 or 3 stores max.  Actually, I prefer Wendy's over In 'N Out simply because I can get chili or a baked potato, far healthier than anything In 'N Out has to offer.

I honestly don't think your poor taste matters. Even Rassah can't find your opinion useful, given that he's never tried In-n-Out.

Here's some more reliable information:

http://consumerist.com/2011/06/30/science-confirms-in-n-out-burger-is-the-best-and-mcdonalds-the-worst/

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/02/in-n-out-v-mcdonalds-which-burger-chain-has-been-deemed-superior/

http://voices.yahoo.com/in-n-out-vs-mcdonalds-337393.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/independentstreet/2009/01/28/in-n-out-burger-vs-mcdonalds-guess-who-won/

Purely by volume, history, and size today McDonalds is "beating" competitors.  Recently though the Double Arches missed estimates and had lower than expected performance. Maybe they really aren't the best.  Perhaps the real reason they are "successful" is because they can craft cheap food through poor wages and questionable sourcing practices of their food products.

Now back to entitlement, should a company like McDonalds really be an icon in our modern day economy? Or should we perhaps treat them like casinos, admit that wages should be higher and food should be sourced appropriately, and then focus our attention on the things that make us a better society.  I really could care less that McDonalds makes cheap food, we all know we shouldn't eat it and do it anyways. Lets just keep it that way.

Yeah, I read your pseudoscience articles.  Gotta love when journalists butcher the scientific method.

My opinion is infinitely more important to me than the opinions of others.  Quit your ad populum bullshit.

Your opinion is more important than that of a large poll? Let me see if I understand: your opinion is more important because it is in disagreement with many people? Also, let me remind you, near the beginning of this thread, you admitted "In-n-Out is tasty", to quote you.

You have a terrible habit of isolating little snippets and totally taking them out of context.  That might work if you told person B a snippet said by person A.  If you think that you can take what I said and spin it back to me to fit the context of your argument, you're a retard.

Yes, my opinion is infinitely more important than a poll, even if that poll contained opinions from an infinite number of people.  You see, I actually think for myself and form my own opinions.  If I say Hardees's is better, it's because it fucking is.  My experience infinitely outweighs others' opinions, and especially your horrible arguments.

I'm still waiting for you to make a relevant point without committing a logical fallacy.  Yeah I said In 'N Out is tasty.  So what?  That doesn't imply a fucking thing about In 'N Out relative to anything else, you dumb fuck.
Girl Scout cookies are tasty too. That doesn't mean McDonald's sucks.  Schmuck.

There are, of course, many ways to judge a restaurant. One way is to look at its profitability. From the point of view of a consumer, however, profitability is not something I use to judge where to go eat.

Here are some of the methods I use:

What is the customer experience like? Generally I prefer restaurants where employees are better trained, paid, and treated. Of course, other people seem to think that saving 10¢ on a burger is worth putting up with rude, incompetent servers with no motivation to improve, so perhaps this is a luxury.

How clean is the restaurant? I prefer restaurants that are very clean. Generally, I trust that if the floors, windows, and tables are clean that the kitchen will be as well. Again, other people seem to treat this as non-essential.

How is the flavor and texture of the food? I prefer ingredients and recipes that I find pleasing. Here, even I make trade-offs from time to time and eat stuff that doesn't taste very good just because it's cheap. But generally I prefer to pay more if it means that I get a better flavor and texture.

What sort of nutrition does the food provide? One way to look at this is: if I ate at this restaurant every day, would I survive ten months? Ten years? A hundred years? Another way to put the question is whether I will feel ill (or actually become ill) after eating. As with flavor I am often willing to trade this form of quality if I can get a better price, or sometimes for flavor.

I gave up on McDonalds a long time ago, because in every part of the United States (I've never been to DisneyWorld or DisneyLand) it has failed to live up to the standards of any of its competitors, many of which have prices as low as McDonalds.

Perhaps people like me who make decisions using factors other than price are a niche market, but I don't think that it is fair to say that businesses like In-N-Out that provide products of higher quality have inferior business models. That's logic I don't follow.

McDonalds has had menu changes, but for the most part those menu changes have had very limited success. One could say that it is because McDonalds has their formula so dialed in that it cannot be improved; rather I think that McDonalds very much has so thoroughly made its reputation that anything that varies from what people expect is met with distrust. It's one thing to tell a market researcher that I might eat at McDonalds occasionally if they served salads. It's another thing to see a salad sold by McDonalds and trust that the ingredients (salads really ought to be fresh) won't land me in the hospital. So the reality is I'm much more likely to eat a Filet O Fish (which I know is bad for me) than a salad from McDonalds (which I believe is probably good for me but fail to trust the establishment to actually deliver.)

I'm not sure that profitability is really a very good indicator of much of anything at all, actually. I've made much more profit from trading bullshit crapcoins than from Bitcoin, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to start keeping my savings in ChinaCoin. It is actually the lack of health of those crapcoins that makes them profitable, just as it is, I contend, the lack of quality in McDonalds and Wal-Mart that makes them profitable. It is easier and faster to deliver crap than quality, and customers with very low expectations are hard to disappoint.

To bring this back on-topic, McDonalds is probably right that they can afford neither to increase the wages of their employees, nor to train them better. If I walked into a McDonalds restaurant, found it to be clean and was greeted at the counter by a friendly, cheerful employee who was capable of speaking English (or whatever language was prevalent in the area) articulately and understandably, it would be so outside my expectation that I would probably keep one hand on my wallet while I made as rapid an exit from the establishment. If they made things "better" by my standards it would only make me suspicious.

Not unlike hearing, "I'm from the government and I'm hear to help you."

I'm no fan of minimum wage laws, but in a society where we have a taxpayer-funded safety net it probably ought not be legal to hire a worker at a rate at which, if they worked full time, they would still require and be eligible for the safety net. I'm not a fan of social welfare programs or corporate welfare programs and it seems that a low minimum wage encourages the growth of and long-term reliance on both kinds of welfare programs. That may seem paradoxical but it also seems perverse to offer companies taxpayer-funded incentives to offer lower wages.

There is only one information that matters, which doesn't depend on anyone's subjective tastes or polls:

In-n-Out does not employ anyone on the east coast. Boom. Done. Move on.

Good point; I'm fairly certain being on welfare while working for WalMart was/is a common thing; I saw it in a documentary, and so I'm just repeating what I've heard, since I've never worked for them and have no plans to.  But we're talking about a rock and a hard place; if we increase the minimum wage, businesses lay-off employees to make up the difference, which merely increases the workload for the remaining employees.  The social safety net catches those laid-off and to pay for all these people to survive without work, we would reappropriate taxes, either from one spot and to another (and social is already one of the biggest, if not the biggest black-holes of tax money, right up there with military and interest on debts), or increase taxation to push into social, one way or another.  On the other hand, if we lower minimum wage, people would still really need that social safety net to get by.  The worker just can't get a break, it seems.

I'm not sure what the solution to this problem is, but I don't believe there's a magical middle point where minimum wage can be that will result in both happy workers and profitable businesses; the only thing I could think of is a sharp decrease in government expenditures, and to allow people to keep more of their money, both workers and businesses; this way, businesses will have more capital to expand upon, thereby creating more work and higher-paying work, and people will be able to save more and not need to rely on others to get by, and those who chose to live off the system would be pushed off and would either pay their own way or find friends.  In this way, I can understand the entitlement mentality; people should be entitled to every penny earned, or at least, much more than what they're currently allowed to keep.  I recall my brother telling me, recently, that after a 60 hour work week, he had earned something close to $500, but had over $100 taken for all the various taxes owed.  That's quite a sum to folks like he and I; that's about an entire day's work lost.

Well, right now an employee is able to get a WalMart job, and say "yes" to the paltry wage, because he knows he can still rely on safety nets to survive. But what if we were to take away the safety nets? Wouldn't employees demand higher wages to make sure they have enough to live off of, or even start saying "no" to the job until it offers more pay? I would think there is some point at which an employee would decide that the pay is low enough to not be worth their time or their effort. In the end, sure, prices at WalMart will go up a bit, but they may be more than offset from everyone not having to pay as much for safety nets.

That is why corporations bribe contribute to both parties. They don't want to lose their corporate entitlements.