Entitlement Mentality

[FirstAscent]

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

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?

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

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 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 joint]

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

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?

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

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 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.

[the joint]

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.

[J603]

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

Something approaching livable.

"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?

[tinus42]

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

Something approaching livable.

"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. 

[Mike Christ]

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

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 and make a living.

[tinus42]

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

Someone across the globe could do the same work for pennies 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?

[Brunic]

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".

[Rassah]

Someone across the globe could do the same work for pennies and make a living.

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 

[FirstAscent]

Someone across the globe could do the same work for pennies and make a living.

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 

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

[Rassah]

Someone across the globe could do the same work for pennies and make a living.

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 

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

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

[FirstAscent]

Someone across the globe could do the same work for pennies and make a living.

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 

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

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

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

[Rassah]

Someone across the globe could do the same work for pennies and make a living.

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 

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

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

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?

[the joint]

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".

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.

[crumbs]

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".

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.

[the joint]

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".

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.

[crumbs]

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".

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.

[FirstAscent]

Someone across the globe could do the same work for pennies and make a living.

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 

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

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

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 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?

[the joint]

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".

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.

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

[Rassah]

The first thing they need to do is get better recipes and cooking methods.

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.

Then cut stores, which cuts real estate costs.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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