Fast food workers vow civil disobedience

[FCS PATRIOTS]

I'm gonna start my own brand of civil disobedience because Labron James gets paid MILLIONS just to play basketball. I should have some of that money. He owes me.

Section 8 tenants who pay NO RENT, complaing that the rich "don't pay enough taxes".

[Col Hogan]

Oh man. This is sure to get tea baggers riled up. Threaten to take away their fast food and all hell will break lose. Criticize Chik fil a and they come out in droves to stuff their faces with processed chicken. A fast food worker strike? The stuff of teabagger nightmares.

I can't wait for this to happen ... Hell, I encourage them to strike ...

And I doubt you'll find Chick fil a workers much involved with these idiots...

SIU is pushing them to strike and unionize .. Won't those fast food workers be pissed when they see their union bosses taking from their last paycheck as they drive off on the day the job is automated ...

[houndawg]

Oh man. This is sure to get tea baggers riled up. Threaten to take away their fast food and all hell will break lose. Criticize Chik fil a and they come out in droves to stuff their faces with processed chicken. A fast food worker strike? The stuff of teabagger nightmares.

I can't wait for this to happen ... Hell, I encourage them to strike ...

And I doubt you'll find Chick fil a workers much involved with these idiots...

SIU is pushing them to strike and unionize .. Won't those fast food workers be pissed when they see their union bosses taking from their last paycheck as they drive off on the day the job is automated ...

:lmao :

Low wages won't keep anybody from automating if they can.

[houndawg]

And not having their employee costs dumped on the US taxpayer...

This right here is the part the BDK's fail to get. Disdain for those working full time and an under appreciation of how many low wage workers aren't teenagers. Teens theoretically can only work part time, so where are all of these low wage workers coming from? And they're having babies to boot!

Solution: cut their government bennies and they'll magically find better paying jobs to support their families and buy more things they can't afford.

If we had a solid economy, any full time employment would keep you out of poverty and enable you to drive the economy through purchasing the necessities for your family...like iPhones and bundled internet/cable.

Sad.

You'd think he'd see it with all the sniveling he does about taxes. Doesn't he get that if the company had to pay the costs of their employees there would be more money for wars on everything?

[JohnStOnge]

You're not going to get more in tax revenue by forcing an income transfer from those who have more to those who have less. The money that goes to increase salaries from something like $8 to something like $15 is going to be taxed at a lower rate than it would be if it stayed in the hands of higher income people.

In fact I think that's something that people who are all wound up about the "income gap" need to think about. If you have the same overall production of income but the gap is closed because lower income people get somewhat more while "the rich" get less you're going to get less tax revenue. Our system is built to suck the blood of the "rich." That's what it does. And if money that would've gone to someone in the top 20% goes instead goes to someone in the bottom 20% it's not going to be taxed much. Like for instance the 2010 average rate at which people in the bottom 20% were taxed in terms of ALL Federal taxes was 1.5% while the average 2010 rate at which people in the top 20% were taxed was 24%. You might shift that SOME by going to a minimum wage of $15 but not much.

[houndawg]

You're not going to get more in tax revenue by forcing an income transfer from those who have more to those who have less. The money that goes to increase salaries from something like $8 to something like $15 is going to be taxed at a lower rate than it would be if it stayed in the hands of higher income people.

In fact I think that's something that people who are all wound up about the "income gap" need to think about. If you have the same overall production of income but the gap is closed because lower income people get somewhat more while "the rich" get less you're going to get less tax revenue. Our system is built to suck the blood of the "rich." That's what it does. And if money that would've gone to someone in the top 20% goes instead goes to someone in the bottom 20% it's not going to be taxed much. Like for instance the 2010 average rate at which people in the bottom 20% were taxed in terms of ALL Federal taxes was 1.5% while the average 2010 rate at which people in the top 20% were taxed was 24%. You might shift that SOME by going to a minimum wage of $15 but not much.

You don't think a living wage is a good idea for reducing welfare and food stamps payments?

[JohnStOnge]

Main thing is it's just flat out wrong to force a person buying something to pay more for it than they want to. If a person can get something from someone else on a voluntary basis for a certain amount it should be none of government's business.

And that's what's going on here. A person offers to buy another person's labor and offers a price. If the person who's going to provide the labor doesn't think the price is high enough they can decline the offer. It's a voluntary thing. Government should not be at all involved in such a relationship. There should be no minimum wage at all; much less this crap about a "living wage."

Again: If someone offers you 1 cent per hour to work and you don't want to do that you can say "no." Government should not be telling the person wishing to purchase the labor that they have to offer more.

And this stuff of people thinking that someone should pay them some minimum amount because that's what they need to live is disgusting. Talk about an entitlement mentality. If you want to make enough to live, go develop skills sufficient to make people voluntarily offer you "enough to live" as compensation. Nobody who graduates with an Engineering degree, for instance, has to worry about whether or not they're going to get paid enough to live because they've got a skill people voluntarily pay for. Instead of sitting around whining about people not paying you more for what you're doing than it's worth go learn to do something that's worth more.

[houndawg]

Main thing is it's just flat out wrong to force a person buying something to pay more for it than they want to. If a person can get something from someone else on a voluntary basis for a certain amount it should be none of government's business.

And that's what's going on here. A person offers to buy another person's labor and offers a price. If the person who's going to provide the labor doesn't think the price is high enough they can decline the offer. It's a voluntary thing. Government should not be at all involved in such a relationship. There should be no minimum wage at all; much less this crap about a "living wage."

Again: If someone offers you 1 cent per hour to work and you don't want to do that you can say "no." Government should not be telling the person wishing to purchase the labor that they have to offer more.

And this stuff of people thinking that someone should pay them some minimum amount because that's what they need to live is disgusting. Talk about an entitlement mentality. If you want to make enough to live, go develop skills sufficient to make people voluntarily offer you "enough to live" as compensation. Nobody who graduates with an Engineering degree, for instance, has to worry about whether or not they're going to get paid enough to live because they've got a skill people voluntarily pay for. Instead of sitting around whining about people not paying you more for what you're doing than it's worth go learn to do something that's worth more.

But you don't think that companies dumping the cost of their employees off on the taxpayer is disgusting?


Talk about an entitlement mentality.

[JohnStOnge]

You don't think a living wage is a good idea for reducing welfare and food stamps payments?

No. First of all, just in purely analytical terms, you don't know what the net savings will be. By shifting money to low income people you are going to dramatically reduce the rate at which that money is taxed. If you take money that would otherwise be taxed at something like 24% and shift it to an area where it'll be taxed at something like 2% you may gain nothing at all in net terms by reducing welfare payments.

And secondly there is a moral reason. So we as a society voted people in who set up all these welfare payments. Now we should not turn around and say we're going to FORCE private employers to pay higher wages so we don't have to make the welfare payments. WE said we'd do it.

[kalm]

Main thing is it's just flat out wrong to force a person buying something to pay more for it than they want to. If a person can get something from someone else on a voluntary basis for a certain amount it should be none of government's business.

And that's what's going on here. A person offers to buy another person's labor and offers a price. If the person who's going to provide the labor doesn't think the price is high enough they can decline the offer. It's a voluntary thing. Government should not be at all involved in such a relationship. There should be no minimum wage at all; much less this crap about a "living wage."

Again: If someone offers you 1 cent per hour to work and you don't want to do that you can say "no." Government should not be telling the person wishing to purchase the labor that they have to offer more.

And this stuff of people thinking that someone should pay them some minimum amount because that's what they need to live is disgusting. Talk about an entitlement mentality. If you want to make enough to live, go develop skills sufficient to make people voluntarily offer you "enough to live" as compensation. Nobody who graduates with an Engineering degree, for instance, has to worry about whether or not they're going to get paid enough to live because they've got a skill people voluntarily pay for. Instead of sitting around whining about people not paying you more for what you're doing than it's worth go learn to do something that's worth more.

So everyone needs to become an engineer then. Problem solved.

[kalm]

You don't think a living wage is a good idea for reducing welfare and food stamps payments?

No. First of all, just in purely analytical terms, you don't know what the net savings will be. By shifting money to low income people you are going to dramatically reduce the rate at which that money is taxed. If you take money that would otherwise be taxed at something like 24% and shift it to an area where it'll be taxed at something like 2% you may gain nothing at all in net terms by reducing welfare payments.

And secondly there is a moral reason. So we as a society voted people in who set up all these welfare payments. Now we should not turn around and say we're going to FORCE private employers to pay higher wages so we don't have to make the welfare payments. WE said we'd do it.

I thought broadening the tax base was the way to go? If low income workers no longer require government spending and their tax burden increases, isn't that a win-win?

[houndawg]

You don't think a living wage is a good idea for reducing welfare and food stamps payments?

No. First of all, just in purely analytical terms, you don't know what the net savings will be. By shifting money to low income people you are going to dramatically reduce the rate at which that money is taxed. If you take money that would otherwise be taxed at something like 24% and shift it to an area where it'll be taxed at something like 2% you may gain nothing at all in net terms by reducing welfare payments.

And secondly there is a moral reason. So we as a society voted people in who set up all these welfare payments. Now we should not turn around and say we're going to FORCE private employers to pay higher wages so we don't have to make the welfare payments. WE said we'd do it.

You don't know but you're opposed anyway. Got it.

[houndawg]

Main thing is it's just flat out wrong to force a person buying something to pay more for it than they want to. If a person can get something from someone else on a voluntary basis for a certain amount it should be none of government's business.

And that's what's going on here. A person offers to buy another person's labor and offers a price. If the person who's going to provide the labor doesn't think the price is high enough they can decline the offer. It's a voluntary thing. Government should not be at all involved in such a relationship. There should be no minimum wage at all; much less this crap about a "living wage."

Again: If someone offers you 1 cent per hour to work and you don't want to do that you can say "no." Government should not be telling the person wishing to purchase the labor that they have to offer more.

And this stuff of people thinking that someone should pay them some minimum amount because that's what they need to live is disgusting. Talk about an entitlement mentality. If you want to make enough to live, go develop skills sufficient to make people voluntarily offer you "enough to live" as compensation. Nobody who graduates with an Engineering degree, for instance, has to worry about whether or not they're going to get paid enough to live because they've got a skill people voluntarily pay for. Instead of sitting around whining about people not paying you more for what you're doing than it's worth go learn to do something that's worth more.

So everyone needs to become an engineer then. Problem solved.

Yeah that's what we need: a nation of engineers. We'd be dull as shit.

[Grizalltheway]

So everyone needs to become an engineer then. Problem solved.

Yeah that's what we need: a nation of engineers. We'd be dull as shit.

Beats a bunch of lawyers and bankers. At least engineers generally have some kind of integrity.

[JohnStOnge]

But you don't think that companies dumping the cost of their employees off on the taxpayer is disgusting?

They are not dumping the cost of their employees off on the taxpayer. The People "decided," through their votes for various politicians over the years that government will supply certain things to people who have incomes below certain levels.

A business offers to pay a certain amount to have somebody do certain things for it. Somebody decides to take them up on their offer. The cost of the employee is the price they agree upon. Meanwhile the society has decided that it will subsidize people who have below a certain income. If they have no income at all, the society will subsidize them. It's a separate issue.

The taxpayer is not paying for the cost of the employees or any portion of it. The business is paying what it costs for it to have those employees. And, if anything, they are saving the society money by doing that. If they weren't there providing jobs that at least take care of SOME of the expense the society decided to undertake the people involved would be costing the society more they're costing. I don't know why anyone thinks that someone should be obligated to bear the burden of what the larger society decided to provide because they decide to buy their labor from them.

This thing of saying that employers dump the cost of their employees on taxpayers by virtue of low wages is absurd. It makes a nice sound bite but it's nonsense.

[∞∞∞]

But you don't think that companies dumping the cost of their employees off on the taxpayer is disgusting?

They are not dumping the cost of their employees off on the taxpayer. The People "decided," through their votes for various politicians over the years that government will supply certain things to people who have incomes below certain levels.

A business offers to pay a certain amount to have somebody do certain things for it. Somebody decides to take them up on their offer. The cost of the employee is the price they agree upon. Meanwhile the society has decided that it will subsidize people who have below a certain income. If they have no income at all, the society will subsidize them. It's a separate issue.

The taxpayer is not paying for the cost of the employees or any portion of it. The business is paying what it costs for it to have those employees. And, if anything, they are saving the society money by doing that. If they weren't there providing jobs that at least take care of SOME of the expense the society decided to undertake the people involved would be costing the society more they're costing. I don't know why anyone thinks that someone should be obligated to bear the burden of what the larger society decided to provide because they decide to buy their labor from them.

This thing of saying that employers dump the cost of their employees on taxpayers by virtue of low wages is absurd. It makes a nice sound bite but it's nonsense.

I rarely agree with JSO, but this is one of those times.

[JohnStOnge]

You don't know but you're opposed anyway. Got it.

The point is that people have taken the angle...and I've been hearing it for a while...of saying that businesses are costing taxpayers by not paying certain employees a living wage. It is not known that such is true. I don't know whether it is true or not and neither do the people making that argument. There are all sorts of factors involved and it falls into that realm in which you would need a controlled experiment to know and that's not going to happen.

But it is true that even if I knew that it WOULD save taxpayers money I would be opposed to it because it is wrong to take the burden the society decided to create for itself and put it on people who own businesses by forcing them to pay more for labor than it is worth.

[JohnStOnge]

I thought broadening the tax base was the way to go? If low income workers no longer require government spending and their tax burden increases, isn't that a win-win?

When you're talking about going from $8 per hour to about $15 per hour I don't think you're talking about seeing a that dramatic an increase in the percent rate at which income is taxed. When the extra $7 goes to salary that is a business expense and so no tax is paid on it at that end. So you'd have to find out what rate it would have been taxed at on that end and compare the rate at which its taxed if it's paid to the low income worker.

The other thing is that it really could cause there to be less jobs than there otherwise would have been. This, I think, is very hard to get a handle on. Like I heard a progressive on MSNBC say the other day that all of the States that raised the minimum wage have more total jobs now than they did before they raised the minimum wage. He posited that as proving that what they did didn't cost jobs. But it doesn't because we don't know how many jobs there would be in those States right now if they had not raised the minimum wage.

[DSUrocks07]

So everyone needs to become an engineer then. Problem solved.

Yeah that's what we need: a nation of engineers. We'd be dull as ****.

Lehigh fans ARE dull as ****.

[Chizzang]

I am long past wanting to see the looks on the faces of la raza and all the black handout recipients when whites finally get fed up, walk off our jobs, take our money out of the banks and get the hell out of this country. I'm ready to see this crap and just laugh my ass off at watching that many complainers trying to forge a thought as to what happened, much less trying to run a business, run a store, etc, etc.

You name it. I can't wait to see it.

I fir one wish you would hurry up and leave already...

[Chizzang]

I think I must be the only one who's just excited to watch the games..!!!
I love a little low grade civil unrest - its prime time entertainment

I don't really care what the outcome is - I'm sure it'll work out fine - I just want a good long battle between fast food employees and fast food franchise ownership - Good Times..!!!

[YoUDeeMan]

But you don't think that companies dumping the cost of their employees off on the taxpayer is disgusting?

They are not dumping the cost of their employees off on the taxpayer. The People "decided," through their votes for various politicians over the years that government will supply certain things to people who have incomes below certain levels.

A business offers to pay a certain amount to have somebody do certain things for it. Somebody decides to take them up on their offer. The cost of the employee is the price they agree upon. Meanwhile the society has decided that it will subsidize people who have below a certain income. If they have no income at all, the society will subsidize them. It's a separate issue.

The taxpayer is not paying for the cost of the employees or any portion of it. The business is paying what it costs for it to have those employees. And, if anything, they are saving the society money by doing that. If they weren't there providing jobs that at least take care of SOME of the expense the society decided to undertake the people involved would be costing the society more they're costing. I don't know why anyone thinks that someone should be obligated to bear the burden of what the larger society decided to provide because they decide to buy their labor from them.

This thing of saying that employers dump the cost of their employees on taxpayers by virtue of low wages is absurd. It makes a nice sound bite but it's nonsense.

JSO just put houndpuppy back in the dog house where he belongs.

Saying that employers are dumping the real cost of their employees onto the taxpayers is a ridiculous argument.

houndpuppy's next argument will be that anyone who owns a car is reducing the amount of oxygen in the air resulting in less brain function among mouth breathers, leading them to revert back to primal functions such as reproducing at a younger age. So, yeah, richer people are causing lower income people to breed, and those poorer fathers are spending more time looking for a job instead of staying with the mother to help raise the kid...and we're all paying more taxes as a result.

[Chizzang]

They are not dumping the cost of their employees off on the taxpayer. The People "decided," through their votes for various politicians over the years that government will supply certain things to people who have incomes below certain levels.

A business offers to pay a certain amount to have somebody do certain things for it. Somebody decides to take them up on their offer. The cost of the employee is the price they agree upon. Meanwhile the society has decided that it will subsidize people who have below a certain income. If they have no income at all, the society will subsidize them. It's a separate issue.

The taxpayer is not paying for the cost of the employees or any portion of it. The business is paying what it costs for it to have those employees. And, if anything, they are saving the society money by doing that. If they weren't there providing jobs that at least take care of SOME of the expense the society decided to undertake the people involved would be costing the society more they're costing. I don't know why anyone thinks that someone should be obligated to bear the burden of what the larger society decided to provide because they decide to buy their labor from them.

This thing of saying that employers dump the cost of their employees on taxpayers by virtue of low wages is absurd. It makes a nice sound bite but it's nonsense.

JSO just put houndpuppy back in the dog house where he belongs.

Saying that employers are dumping the real cost of their employees onto the taxpayers is a ridiculous argument.

houndpuppy's next argument will be that anyone who owns a car is reducing the amount of oxygen in the air resulting in less brain function among mouth breathers, leading them to revert back to primal functions such as reproducing at a younger age. So, yeah, richer people are causing lower income people to breed, and those poorer fathers are spending more time looking for a job instead of staying with the mother to help raise the kid...and we're all paying more taxes as a result.

Meh... ^ to rigid
Every company has a strategy
Hound is simply pointing out that a percentage of companies do not (will not) invest in their employees in any way shape or form (because)

They don't want quality people, they thrive off of the lowest common denominator - the destitute
Quality people tend to be more expensive and want 40 hours and to effect change in their environment
At some company's NOBODY but management gets more than 25 hours a week and NOBODY but management gets above minimum wage... and businesses can be successful with this strategy

One of the only key distinctions (difference) between Starbucks and McDonalds is this attitude towards their people on their staff and core work base

as well as Costco vs. Wal-Mart

Its just a strategy difference
One type of company places a BET on their employees (takes a risk)
The other does not

Thats all it is...

[YoUDeeMan]

Meh... ^ to rigid
Every company has a strategy
Hound is simply pointing out that a percentage of companies do not (will not) invest in their employees in any way shape or form (because)

They don't want quality people, they thrive off of the lowest common denominator - the destitute
Quality people tend to be more expensive and want 40 hours and to effect change in their environment
At some company's NOBODY but management gets more than 25 hours a week and NOBODY but management gets above minimum wage... and businesses can be successful with this strategy

One of the only key distinctions (difference) between Starbucks and McDonalds is this attitude towards their people on their staff and core work base

as well as Costco vs. Wal-Mart

Its just a strategy difference
One type of company places a BET on their employees (takes a risk)
The other does not

Thats all it is...

That's not all it is.

You focused solely on the relationship between the employer and employees. You ignored the significant fact that those businesses target different customers.

McDonald's advertises their 99 cent coffee. Starbucks advertises their 99 cent coffee...er, wait, they don't, do they?

[Baldy]

This thread is so full of win.

JSO joined the crowd by carving up houndy like a Christmas turkey, and Cluck educates Chizz on business models and how businesses target certain types of customers.