Entitlement Mentality

[the joint]

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:

[1714050389]

1714050389

[1714050389]

1714050389

[ninjarobot]

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.

[the joint]

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.

[crumbs]

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...

[the joint]

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?

[crumbs]

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? 

[FirstAscent]

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

[the joint]

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

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.

[FirstAscent]

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

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.

[the joint]

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.

[the joint]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

[the joint]

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

[the joint]

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.

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?

  Thanks for sharing your thoughts

[Mike Christ]

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.

[vampire]

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.

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

[hawkeye]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

[the joint]

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. 

[FirstAscent]

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?