Entitlement Mentality

[FirstAscent]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1714995452]

1714995452

[1714995452]

1714995452

[FirstAscent]

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

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

[the joint]

Sure ya did.

[FirstAscent]

Sure ya did.

Yes, I did.

[Rassah]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Rassah]

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

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

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

[FirstAscent]

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

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

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

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

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

[Rassah]

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

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

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

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

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

[tinus42]

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

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

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

[FirstAscent]

Regardless of which Mcdonalds you go to in the country, you know exactly what you are going to get.

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

[the joint]

Regardless of which Mcdonalds you go to in the country, you know exactly what you are going to get.

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

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

[FirstAscent]

Regardless of which Mcdonalds you go to in the country, you know exactly what you are going to get.

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

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

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

Here's some more reliable information:

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

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

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

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

[CoinChex]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[the joint]

Regardless of which Mcdonalds you go to in the country, you know exactly what you are going to get.

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

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

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

Here's some more reliable information:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[FirstAscent]

Regardless of which Mcdonalds you go to in the country, you know exactly what you are going to get.

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

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

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

Here's some more reliable information:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[the joint]

Regardless of which Mcdonalds you go to in the country, you know exactly what you are going to get.

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

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

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

Here's some more reliable information:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[smscotten]

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

Here are some of the methods I use:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rassah]

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

Here's some more reliable information:

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

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

[Mike Christ]

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

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

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

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

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

[Rassah]

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

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