Fast food workers vow civil disobedience

[Chizzang]

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?

Yeah...
But your observation didn't change ANYTHING that I said... Not one thing
Yes they have a difference in customer appeal and "go to market"
but they also have different employment strategies - as I pointed out



And I already said:
McDonalds and Wal-mart are focused on the destitute - both in their customers - and the lowest rung on the ladder in their employees. You're simply confirming that

Thank you / My point still stands

[kalm]

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.

Wait a second… I thought corporations are people? Do they exist outside of society?

And if corporation (A) decides to not provide jobs, will no corporation (B) step in and fill the demand?

[houndawg]

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

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

Everybody does compared to lawyers and bankers.

And there are engineers who make good money explaining the physics of collapsing buildings to gullible half-wits like Spankit....

[houndawg]

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.

So we can take your whimpering and hand-wring about the big bad guvmint with a grain of salt?

[Grizalltheway]

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.

So we can take your whimpering and hand-wring about the big bad guvmint with a grain of salt?

I'd say you should take his posts with an Ambien, but that would be overkill.

[houndawg]

So we can take your whimpering and hand-wring about the big bad guvmint with a grain of salt?

I'd say you should take his posts with an Ambien, but that would be overkill.

...take his posts when you can't sleep....

[ASUG8]

Quadruple the price of Big Macs and you'll drop the social cost of treating obesity and diabetes by half by forcing people to choose better foods.

[OL FU]

Quadruple the price of Big Macs and you'll drop the social cost of treating obesity and diabetes by half by forcing people to choose better foods.

Wouldn't you also have to raise the price of tater chips at the local 7-11

[ASUG8]

Quadruple the price of Big Macs and you'll drop the social cost of treating obesity and diabetes by half by forcing people to choose better foods.

Wouldn't you also have to raise the price of tater chips at the local 7-11

Touche, sir.

[BDKJMU]

".....Latoya Caldwell, a mother of four from Kansas City, Missouri, who earns $7.50 an hour at a Wendy's restaurant, said she works six days a week to get 40 hours and earn a $435 paycheck......"

Looks like almost $11 an hr to me and close to 23k a year. And of course no mention of EITC, food stamps, subsidized housing, SCHIP, Medicaid, subsidized day care, etc, etc, etc..

None of them are in poverty or deserve more than they are getting.

She gets paid every two weeks.

$7.50 an hr x 40 hours for 1 week = $300.
$7.50 an hr x 40 hours for 2 week = $600.

Do they do some type of special math in Illinois?

[bandl]

She gets paid every two weeks.

$7.50 an hr x 40 hours for 1 week = $300.
$7.50 an hr x 40 hours for 2 week = $600.

Do they do some type of special math in Illinois?

OSBF went to Illinois State...

[BDKJMU]

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.

So what that teens during the school years can't work full time. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of minimum wage workers, whether they are working part time or not, making $7.25 an hr, are age 15-24. And maybe the stupid f*cks should stop having kids they can't support.

[Chizzang]

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.

So what that teens during the school years can't work full time. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of minimum wage workers, whether they are working part time or not, making $7.25 an hr, are age 15-24. And maybe the stupid f*cks should stop having kids they can't support.

So why do you actually care that minimum wage workers are using any means necessary to gain a pay advantage in their work environment..?

Isn't THAT the American way..?
Isn't that what everybody does..?

Just because they have to do it on a public stage..? Do tell why it matters so much to you..?

[Skjellyfetti]

And maybe the stupid f*cks should stop having kids they can't support.

And keep contraception as far from them as possible!

[AZGrizFan]

She gets paid every two weeks.

$7.50 an hr x 40 hours for 1 week = $300.
$7.50 an hr x 40 hours for 2 week = $600.

Do they do some type of special math in Illinois?

You forgot to multiply by 6.93.

[houndawg]

She gets paid every two weeks.

$7.50 an hr x 40 hours for 1 week = $300.
$7.50 an hr x 40 hours for 2 week = $600.

Do they do some type of special math in Illinois?

Here, BDMBFK, let me help - $600 is what she earns, $435 is what she takes home. Because she pays taxes.

Been a while since you worked an honest job?

[BlueHen86]

She gets paid every two weeks.

$7.50 an hr x 40 hours for 1 week = $300.
$7.50 an hr x 40 hours for 2 week = $600.

Do they do some type of special math in Illinois?

There is a difference between what you earn (gross) and what you take home (net). Do you have a job? Have you ever looked at your paycheck?

[Grizalltheway]

$7.50 an hr x 40 hours for 1 week = $300.
$7.50 an hr x 40 hours for 2 week = $600.

Do they do some type of special math in Illinois?

There is a difference between what you earn (gross) and what you take home (net). Do you have a job? Have you ever looked at your paycheck?

Truckers generally pay for his "services" in cash.

[AZGrizFan]

$7.50 an hr x 40 hours for 1 week = $300.
$7.50 an hr x 40 hours for 2 week = $600.

Do they do some type of special math in Illinois?

Here, BDMBFK, let me help - $600 is what she earns, $435 is what she takes home. Because she pays taxes.

Been a while since you worked an honest job?

Yeah, I'm sure she's in the 27% tax bracket.

[houndawg]

Here, BDMBFK, let me help - $600 is what she earns, $435 is what she takes home. Because she pays taxes.

Been a while since you worked an honest job?

Yeah, I'm sure she's in the 27% tax bracket.

Oh my, we are eat up with the dumbass today, aren't we?

Lets come at it from a more simple direction: Since she makes $300/week, a check for $435 must be for more than one week..

[Baldy]

And maybe the stupid f*cks should stop having kids they can't support.

And keep contraception as far from them as possible!

Really?
How, and by whom?

[BDKJMU]

$7.50 an hr x 40 hours for 1 week = $300.
$7.50 an hr x 40 hours for 2 week = $600.

Do they do some type of special math in Illinois?

Here, BDMBFK, let me help - $600 is what she earns, $435 is what she takes home. Because she pays taxes.

Been a while since you worked an honest job?

Dumbass, if she is working 40 hours a week making $7.50 an hour she ain't paying about 28% in taxes. Her income tax liability would be less than zero after EITC was factored in.

I worked some close to minimum wage jobs in my late teens/early 20s and didn't have even close to 28% taken out in taxes, and I wasn't claiming 2 kids either.

[BDKJMU]

$7.50 an hr x 40 hours for 1 week = $300.
$7.50 an hr x 40 hours for 2 week = $600.

Do they do some type of special math in Illinois?

There is a difference between what you earn (gross) and what you take home (net). Do you have a job? Have you ever looked at your paycheck?

See above post.

[BDKJMU]

Here, BDMBFK, let me help - $600 is what she earns, $435 is what she takes home. Because she pays taxes.

Been a while since you worked an honest job?

Yeah, I'm sure she's in the 27% tax bracket.

I see You beat me to it. I should have read on....

[BDKJMU]

Yeah, I'm sure she's in the 27% tax bracket.

Oh my, we are eat up with the dumbass today, aren't we?

Lets come at it from a more simple direction: Since she makes $300/week, a check for $435 must be for more than one week..

Oh my god...