Entitlement Mentality

[FirstAscent]

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

Total revenues: 27567 million $
Net income: 5464 million $
2012 Annual Report.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.

You deserve a living wage if you work, period.

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

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.

[1715555795]

1715555795

[1715555795]

1715555795

[1715555795]

1715555795

[Richy_T]

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.

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".

[Anon136]

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?

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.

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.

[BBazaar]

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?

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.

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?

[Anon136]

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?

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.

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.

[Richy_T]

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?

[Rassah]

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.

[tinus42]

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

[Rassah]

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

[J603]

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.

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

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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[FirstAscent]

Compare prices:

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

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

[FirstAscent]

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.

[the joint]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

[the joint]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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...

[tinus42]

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.

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".

[Rassah]

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.

[the joint]

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...

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