Fast food workers vow civil disobedience

[HI54UNI]

Apple certainly has significant employees in the US. Apple is certainly overall a plus for the American economy. and I will say again I don't have a problem with what Apple does but I do have a problem when people pick the easy target over the one they like. We all discuss the diminishment of the middle class and generally all agree that one of the main causes is the loss of manufacturing jobs and manufacturing jobs are what Apple puts in China. If Apple chose to manufacture in the US, they would be paying people "living wages" in the manufacturing sector. If other companies did the same thing, it would put pressure on the labor supply and would force the Walmarts and McDonald's to pay their workers more.

Additionally, Wal-Mart's margins are slim, last time I looked about 3%. Apples are huge around 20%. Which one can afford to step up and be "good Americans" more.

Also, you can typically find a study that says what you want but there are many of them that show overall Walmart has a positive economic impact when they build a store. No one wants to face it, but they typically hire more and pay better than many moms and pops.

Now I don't have a problem with what either one does. But certainly have a problem with people picking on one over the other because Walmart services the destitute and Apple services the upper class.

Chizzang?

Went into the Apple store on WEdnesday to buy my daughter a computer for her birthday....counted THIRTY FOUR Apple "associates" (or whateverthefuck they call them) in the store. THIRTY FOUR. I have no idea what they pay, but that's more people than the nearest grocery mega store employs at any given time....and most of these thirty four were just standing around picking their ass...

Sucker.

[AZGrizFan]

Went into the Apple store on WEdnesday to buy my daughter a computer for her birthday....counted THIRTY FOUR Apple "associates" (or whateverthefuck they call them) in the store. THIRTY FOUR. I have no idea what they pay, but that's more people than the nearest grocery mega store employs at any given time....and most of these thirty four were just standing around picking their ass...

Sucker.

If by "sucker" you mean I'm a sucker for getting her what she wanted, then yes...I'm a sucker. If by "sucker" you meant for buying an Apple product well then, piss off. I can't STAND Apple products, but it's what she wanted.

[BDKJMU]

Now we know what Apple products are so expensive

Kind of off topic but the way in which the US public chooses to vilify some corporations for making a profit while it chooses to worship others who have higher profit margins kind of amazes me. Like Exxon's profit margin is typically around 7 to 9 percent. People say they're gouging us. Meanwhile Apple's profit margin is typically ranging from 20 to 40 percent and they're worshiped. Certainly not routinely accused of gouging the public.

People will rag on Exxon because gasoline costs $3.219 per gallon then drop $700 on an I phone that cost Apple about $200 to make without batting an eye (http://www.cnet.com/news/apples-iphone- ... s-for-173/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Thrilled to do it.

And Apple isn't diverse. Just a few weeks ago:

"Tech diversity? There's no app for that: Our view

Silicon Valley companies are supposed to disrupt cozy business relationships and empower the creative-minded with cutting-edge technology. But in one key respect — its hiring practices — Silicon Valley is very much the old guard.

At the three large companies that have provided hiring data recently — Google, Yahoo and Facebook — workforces remain overwhelmingly white and Asian, and overwhelmingly male. (Apple will release its numbers "at some point," CEO Tim Cook said Monday.)

At Google, for instance, 70% of workers and 83% of tech workers are male. Men hold 79% of leadership posts. And its overall workforce is 91% white or Asian....."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... /12708649/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Reason Apple hasn't released their #s yet is they are no more diverse than the other tech giants that have recently released their #s and maybe worse.

[JohnStOnge]

They're diverse. They've got Asians, right? It's just that when people say "diverse" what they really mean is "enough Blacks, Hispanics, and Females to make us happy."

[JohnStOnge]

I looked at the article. What a bunch of crap. What the numbers really show is that companies can do fine without having the kind of "diversity" the editorial touts.

[BDKJMU]

I looked at the article. What a bunch of crap. What the numbers really show is that companies can do fine without having the kind of "diversity" the editorial touts.

Oh I'm not ragging on the tech companies. I don't have any problems with them vis a vi "diversity". I just find it ironic that liberals, the so called champions of diversity, have a fondness for these tech companies that aren't very diverse.

[Baldy]

I looked at the article. What a bunch of crap. What the numbers really show is that companies can do fine without having the kind of "diversity" the editorial touts.

Oh I'm not ragging on the tech companies. I don't have any problems with them vis a vi "diversity". I just find it ironic that liberals, the so called champions of diversity, have a fondness for these tech companies that aren't very diverse.

They've been smart talking a good game and by showing their concerns for marriage equality, climate change, and other environmental issues. They have earned their "progressive" street cred to avoid scrutiny for their lack of diversity, off shoring jobs to China, and creating overseas tax havens.

[OL FU]

Apple certainly has significant employees in the US. Apple is certainly overall a plus for the American economy. and I will say again I don't have a problem with what Apple does but I do have a problem when people pick the easy target over the one they like. We all discuss the diminishment of the middle class and generally all agree that one of the main causes is the loss of manufacturing jobs and manufacturing jobs are what Apple puts in China. If Apple chose to manufacture in the US, they would be paying people "living wages" in the manufacturing sector. If other companies did the same thing, it would put pressure on the labor supply and would force the Walmarts and McDonald's to pay their workers more.

Additionally, Wal-Mart's margins are slim, last time I looked about 3%. Apples are huge around 20%. Which one can afford to step up and be "good Americans" more.

Also, you can typically find a study that says what you want but there are many of them that show overall Walmart has a positive economic impact when they build a store. No one wants to face it, but they typically hire more and pay better than many moms and pops.

Now I don't have a problem with what either one does. But certainly have a problem with people picking on one over the other because Walmart services the destitute and Apple services the upper class.

Chizzang?

I have an EXTREME distaste for Apple...
I pretty much disagree with EVERYTHING they stand for

One of the most deceptive lying deceit-filled companies in America History

Dang, I thought I had you

[Chizzang]

I have an EXTREME distaste for Apple...
I pretty much disagree with EVERYTHING they stand for

One of the most deceptive lying deceit-filled companies in America History

Dang, I thought I had you

Meh...
I understand the Pro-Wal-Mart perspective, I really do
I just don't like it much

I think as a NATION
as a COUNTRY UNITED we do better when the ownership of extremely profitable businesses take the odd approach of actually empowering the employee - strange - YES but it seems to work as a strategy just as well as pocketing all of the profits and telling everybody to F__ck off go work somewhere else if you don't like it...

Both tactics work fine
Both have proven to be effective
I just like one more than the other

[kalm]

Dang, I thought I had you

Meh...
I understand the Pro-Wal-Mart perspective, I really do
I just don't like it much

I think as a NATION
as a COUNTRY UNITED we do better when the ownership of extremely profitable businesses take the odd approach of actually empowering the employee - strange - YES but it seems to work as a strategy just as well as pocketing all of the profits and telling everybody to F__ck off go work somewhere else if you don't like it...

Both tactics work fine
Both have proven to be effective
I just like one more than the other

One is better for the overall economy.

[Chizzang]

Meh...
I understand the Pro-Wal-Mart perspective, I really do
I just don't like it much

I think as a NATION
as a COUNTRY UNITED we do better when the ownership of extremely profitable businesses take the odd approach of actually empowering the employee - strange - YES but it seems to work as a strategy just as well as pocketing all of the profits and telling everybody to F__ck off go work somewhere else if you don't like it...

Both tactics work fine
Both have proven to be effective
I just like one more than the other

One is better for the overall economy.

I'm not entirely sure about that...
One is probably better for the psychology of the country
But the other allows for People like the waltons to invest billions MORE on Wall Street and keep the market flooded with movable cash

whereas a bunch of contented lower middle class workers doesn't "add" anything to the game

And if you ask some financial wizards America doesn't actually need a middle class
it just needs around 500 Multi-Billionaires and a stock Market for them to completely control
and a government beholden to them (and them alone)

Seems to be working fine right now..?

[kalm]

One is better for the overall economy.

I'm not entirely sure about that...
One is probably better for the psychology of the country
But the other allows for People like the waltons to invest billions MORE on Wall Street and keep the market flooded with movable cash

whereas a bunch of contented lower middle class workers doesn't "add" anything to the game

And if you ask some financial wizards America doesn't actually need a middle class
it just needs around 500 Multi-Billionaires and a stock Market for them to completely control
and a government beholden to them (and them alone)

Seems to be working fine right now..?

This!

[CAA Flagship]

I'm not entirely sure about that...
One is probably better for the psychology of the country
But the other allows for People like the waltons to invest billions MORE on Wall Street and keep the market flooded with movable cash

whereas a bunch of contented lower middle class workers doesn't "add" anything to the game

And if you ask some financial wizards America doesn't actually need a middle class
it just needs around 500 Multi-Billionaires and a stock Market for them to completely control
and a government beholden to them (and them alone)

Seems to be working fine right now..?

This!

What the hell is wrong with you two?

[kalm]

This!

What the hell is wrong with you two?

What? You don't agree?

[JohnStOnge]

I think I'm seeing indications of that mythology about the decline of the United States Middle Class again.

[Grizalltheway]

And you continue to ignore the ever more obvious reality of it.

In 2012, the top 5 percent of earners were responsible for 38 percent of domestic consumption, up from 28 percent in 1995, the researchers found.

Even more striking, the current recovery has been driven almost entirely by the upper crust, according to Mr. Fazzari and Mr. Cynamon. Since 2009, the year the recession ended, inflation-adjusted spending by this top echelon has risen 17 percent, compared with just 1 percent among the bottom 95 percent.

More broadly, about 90 percent of the overall increase in inflation-adjusted consumption between 2009 and 2012 was generated by the top 20 percent of households in terms of income, according to the study, which was sponsored by the Institute for New Economic Thinking, a research group in New York.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/busin ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/upsho ... chest.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Chizzang]

I think I'm seeing indications of that mythology about the decline of the United States Middle Class again.

John how many hundreds of economic experts have to write books and articles about this for you to take your eyes off FOX NEWS for 10 minutes and let some different information creep in

Rupert Murdoch is the only human being alive
who is still selling Americans on the "everything is fine with the Middle Class" mantra

Amazon lists 878 books on this ONE TOPIC
The declining Middle Class based on Economic numbers in the US



One of the early observations was from 20 years ago
This book by PhD Nancy Green Leigh of Georgia Tech
"STEMMING MIDDLE-CLASS DECLINE. THE CHALLENGES TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING"



Unlike Climate Change debates... this one can be researched on your own very easily

[Skjellyfetti]

The declining middle class is only real if it can be reproduced through experimentation in the lab.

[OL FU]

Dang, I thought I had you

Meh...
I understand the Pro-Wal-Mart perspective, I really do
I just don't like it much

I think as a NATION
as a COUNTRY UNITED we do better when the ownership of extremely profitable businesses take the odd approach of actually empowering the employee - strange - YES but it seems to work as a strategy just as well as pocketing all of the profits and telling everybody to F__ck off go work somewhere else if you don't like it...

Both tactics work fine
Both have proven to be effective
I just like one more than the other

It isn't so much pro-Walmart as it is being anti-government mandating things that don't address the issues. The truth is I avoid Walmart at every opportunity. But the ugly truth is Walmart is able to take advantage of an economy that isn't providing opportunity for better. If I thought for a minute that raising the minimum wage would actually help I would support it in a heart beat. More than likely it would provide Walmart with more incentive to treat their employees like crap.

[UNI88]

The declining middle class is only real if it can be reproduced through experimentation in the lab.

Airtight statistical analysis is only required for things that John disagrees with. Anecdotal evidence is completely acceptable proof of anything consistent with his worldview. i.e. John is middle class. John is doing fine economically. Middle class people are like John. Therefore middle class people are fine.

[houndawg]

The declining middle class is only real if it can be reproduced through experimentation in the lab.

Airtight statistical analysis is only required for things that John disagrees with. Anecdotal evidence is completely acceptable proof of anything consistent with his worldview. i.e. John is middle class. John is doing fine economically. Middle class people are like John. Therefore middle class people are fine.

John has a six-figure income according to no less authority than himself. He more a gated-community guy... out-of-touch by definition.

I have experienced the decline of the middle-class first hand, since the Eisenhower admin. Its real.

[AZGrizFan]

Airtight statistical analysis is only required for things that John disagrees with. Anecdotal evidence is completely acceptable proof of anything consistent with his worldview. i.e. John is middle class. John is doing fine economically. Middle class people are like John. Therefore middle class people are fine.

John has a six-figure income according to no less authority than himself. He more a gated-community guy... out-of-touch by definition.

I have experienced the decline of the middle-class first hand, since the Eisenhower admin. Its real.

So, what you're saying then is that you don't make six figures.

[Grizalltheway]

I think I'm seeing indications of that mythology about the decline of the United States Middle Class again.

John how many hundreds of economic experts have to write books and articles about this for you to take your eyes off FOX NEWS for 10 minutes and let some different information creep in

Rupert Murdoch is the only human being alive
who is still selling Americans on the "everything is fine with the Middle Class" mantra

Amazon lists 878 books on this ONE TOPIC
The declining Middle Class based on Economic numbers in the US



One of the early observations was from 20 years ago
This book by PhD Nancy Green Leigh of Georgia Tech
"STEMMING MIDDLE-CLASS DECLINE. THE CHALLENGES TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING"



Unlike Climate Change debates... this one can be researched on your own very easily

Even good ol' Fox don't have their heads as far up their asses as St. Wronge.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-poli ... covery-sp/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JohnStOnge]

Guys, let me try to respond to multiple posts at once.

The basis for me saying that the idea of the decline of the middle class is a myth is the CBO data I have cited multiple times showing that the inflation adjusted income for the three middle quintiles of the American population has increased significantly over what it was during what people view as the "glory days" of the middle class. I can't believe that I have to do it once again but here, again, are the CBO estimates for average after tax income by the middle three quintiles in 1979 and 2010 (latest year from the December, 2013, CBO report inflation adjusted in 2010 dollars):

2nd quintile (20th - 40th percentiles): 1979 $30,000, 2010 $41,000 (up 37%)
3rd quintile (40th - 60th percentiles): 1979 $42,600, 2010 $57,900 (up 36%)
4th quintile (60th - 80th percentiles): 1979 $55,700, 2010 $80,600 (up 45%)

You can find the numbers by going to http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44604" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, clicking on the "Supplemental Data" link at the top right to download the Excel file, and clicking on the "3. Number of Households, Average Income, and Shares of Income for All Households, by Before-Tax Income Group, 1979 to 2010' link on the "Contents" worksheet.

There's just no way the middle class has "declined" since what most people perceive as the "glory days." Most of what you see has to do with the "upper class" making MORE progress than the "middle class" has. But the "middle class" has not declined.

And as far as science goes: There are processes of observation to show that something is happening or has happened and there are processes for inferring cause and effect. What we're talking about here is just observing that something has happened.

[JohnStOnge]

Even good ol' Fox don't have their heads as far up their asses as St. Wronge.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-poli" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... covery-sp/

That's about a widening income gap. The CBO data also show that. But the fact that one person's income grew more than another person's income does not mean that the second person's income has declined.

Again: Let's say person A has an income level of $1,000,000 per year one year and person B has an income level of $50,000. The income gap between the two is $950,000. Let's say the next year person A has an income of $10,000,000 and person B has an income of $100,000. The income gap between the two has gone up to $9,900,000. Way larger.

But does that mean person B is worse off when they're making twice as much as they did the previous year?

I think not.

And that's the crux of the problem with the "income inequality" argument.

There are ups and downs but over the long term since the 1970s the trend is that the "middle class," however it is reasonably defined, has gotten better off. Significantly better off. The fact that the "upper class" has made even more relative progress doesn't change that.