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.
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? 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!!! You're saying I should leave the companies out of it because you think they're entitled? |
|
|
|
Don't confuse Shinoda's The Petrified Forest with the other Petrified Forest movie. Masahiro Shinoda's The Petrified Forest trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMc5G9kJkoUWarning: Japanese trailers are sometimes a little not safe for work. |
|
|
|
|
The Petrified Forest was kind of wicked. You guys are missing out. Of the three Masahiro Shinoda films I've seen, they've all featured nihilistic themes, morally deviant women bent on destruction, either of themselves or others.
|
|
|
|
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.
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? |
|
|
|
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.
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. |
|
|
|
It is. I'll explain why.
Imagine someone so pompous as to present a codified document about cleaning procedures inside a hospital without having any knowledge about the following:
- What actually goes on in the hospital
- What the schedules are
- What allergens are
- What a mop is
- What a floor polisher is
- What dust is
Now, I asked you some questions. Please address them.
The bill isn't a map for a centrally planned existence, so I don't see the connection with your example. It's an authority on the definitions and limits of violence in human interaction. If you have an objection, I'm not seeing it. To answer your question; yes, I would translate that to mean that someone could use any wolves, riparian zones, water, old growth forests, and such not belonging to others and make it his property. I don't know how that would work; I would leave that to people who are interested. Well, for starters, there is no unclaimed land left on this Earth, or land that doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of some existing treaties. So it's a fantasy document then, or is this for the Moon, Mars or perhaps Ganymede? If on the other hand, we wish to assume that it could somehow work on Earth, I then can only assume that you then advocate those that are ignorant to be allowed to mess it up for others. Is that so? Of course, I'm assuming you're completely cognizant of the relationship between wolves, riparian zones and the water supply. Are you? Also, I'm assuming you're fully cognizant of the relationship between old growth forests and the material sciences, computer sciences, biological sciences, and soil sustainability, among other relationships? Are you? To summarize, you're fully aware of the ramifications of what you believe? Correct? |
|
|
|
In Chicago, IL fast food workers are striking, protesting and demanding $15/hr where the state minimum wage is $8.25/hr.
Okay. 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.
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? 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.
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? 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.
Irrelevant to the above, but thanks for sharing. So, what did I do? Did I bitch and complain and protest about my salary or my work conditions?
You're bitching here. 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.
By your own admission, you're under-qualified and overpaid. Not a good thing. Thoughts?
I shared them. |
|
|
|
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. 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.aspxAll 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. |
|
|
|
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. 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 |
|
|
|
How about you tell me how it works with regard to the examples I gave you? That would be a first step in indicating how well thought out what you're promoting is.
You have heard of dogs? They were once wolves that someone decided to own. Yeah, I've heard of dogs. I love them. But dogs aren't wolves. This isn't a thread about ecology.
It is. I'll explain why. Imagine someone so pompous as to present a codified document about cleaning procedures inside a hospital without having any knowledge about the following: - What actually goes on in the hospital - What the schedules are - What allergens are - What a mop is - What a floor polisher is - What dust is Now, I asked you some questions. Please address them. |
|
|
|
A U.S. trailer for Wong Kar-Wai's The Grandmaster: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_OLP_1ei9MI'm looking forward to seeing Zhang Ziyi's performance, given how astounding she was in 2046. Of course, if you haven't seen a Wong Kar-Wai film, then life is passing you by. |
|
|
|
|
Channeling some Dan Quayle, I see.
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
3. use any object not belonging to others and make it his property;
Really? You mean like wolves, riparian zones, water, old growth forests, and such? As I've said, these fantasy documents and their authors remain woefully ignorant of such concepts as ecosystem services, ecology, and such. As soon as you guys come up with something written by someone who actually knows stuff, I'd be interested to read it. Is your objection to private property, or how its appropriated? Individuals have appropriated all of the things you mentioned as private property. How about you tell me how it works with regard to the examples I gave you? That would be a first step in indicating how well thought out what you're promoting is. This isn't a fantasy document, but a real one. How would the author's supposed ignorance of ecology affect law?
I think the very fact that you're asking that question indicates the document's shortcomings. These things cannot be written within a vacuum. Do you think a state protects the ecosystem better?
Yes, I think their solutions are better, but not nearly as good as they could be. |
|
|
|
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. 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. 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." 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. 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.
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. 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 Norhwestern 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. I didn't assume anything. |
|
|
|
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?
Holy non-sequitor. 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. 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. 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. 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. |
|
|
|
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?
Holy non-sequitor. 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. 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. |
|
|
|
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. 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. 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. |
|
|
|
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?
Holy non-sequitor. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
