Post: #26

Time to retire the industrial age socialist and libertarian rhetoric. We make wealth with info more than manufacturing now. We need new politics and economics. I can't see how it won't have some redistributionist component.

I'd like to see finance dethroned and entrepreneurs and competition enabled but the people who can't compete need some help. I say give them free money and replace them with robots in menial labor.

It creates an underclass? We already have one.

Disincentivizes labor? What about EBT and section 8?

They'll turn to crime? They already do. Legalize pot and watch crime go down.

Post: #27

(07-17-2013 09:48 AM)Roosh Wrote:  Saw this article floating around. The question is why should anyone be able to survive on a minimum wage job? Is that a human right?

It's like saying "Man can't get laid doing only 5 approaches a month." Well, he's going to have to do more, or change his approach. He's not entitled to getting laid from a certain amount of work.

Okay, I have to say I agree with you there.

But if you are going to be one of the Mickey D's of the world, don't do some half-assed campaign where you pretend you're teaching your employees financial intelligence - or, if you're going to, don't use an 80-hour a week income to make the numbers look realistic.

As I said, just a huge PR fail.

The best thing they could do if they really want to teach their employees some financial intelligence is create opportunities for learning job skills that could get them a better future. Or hell, just convince them to get a job somewhere else. LOL

Starbucks is a company they could learn from when it comes to empowering low-wage employees.

In my opinion, financial intelligence is something we really need to start emphasizing hard in schools if we ever want to get this country's act together. Since most parents are obviously inadequate or failing in that department, we can't really hold our breath on them doing it.

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #28

There was a story circulating about the new boomtowns because of natural gas extraction. Places with 0.4% unemployment. .. The fast food places couldn't pay their workers the b prevailing rage , because they couldn't raise their prices to cover the labor costs.

Post: #29

Some quick and dirty math:
McDonalds has 1.8 million employees and last year reported an income of 5.46 billion. That means on average each employee generates $3033/year for the company. That's about $1.46/hr if you assume they work full time (2080 hrs/year).

That doesn't seem particularly exploitative to me. I don't think they'd be able to pay their employees much more without significantly raising their prices.

Post: #30

Quote:By far the most serious logical flaw is the belief that someone who starts at minimum wage earns that wage for the long term. Typically, the minimum wage job is just the starter job for a teenager or a young adult without a college degree. It provides an opportunity to learn skills to advance to the next level, and then proceed to higher income jobs. According to a study by Ralph Smith and Bruce Vavrichek, over 60 percent of workers who were earning the minimum wage in the mid-1980s earned an average of 20 percent more just one year later. The minimum wage job is the start of the journey, not the destination.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/econ...r-bad-idea

Post: #31

Fully agree with Tuth and scorpion. Both of you made very good points. The problem is that these McJobs used to be a stepping stone for students, teenagers, and people who actually could not find work but were going to move on from the job at the first available opportunity. In the last five years or so these kinds of McJobs are now being worked by people with families and others who simply cannot find jobs in this economy. This also speaks to the issue of young college graduates enrolling in bullshit degrees.

(07-17-2013 09:48 AM)Roosh Wrote:  It's like saying "Man can't get laid doing only 5 approaches a month." Well, he's going to have to do more, or change his approach. He's not entitled to getting laid from a certain amount of work.

Roosh, I get what you are trying to say but I have to disagree on this. These McJobs may not be quality jobs and may speak to a lack of relevant skills required in this knowledge economy but anyone who has worked at a busy McDonald's will tell you that a busy restaurant is no joke to work in. I worked at a McDonald's for 15 months when I was in high school. The job was demanding especially when it was busy and I used to work the afternoon/evening shifts when it typically was busy.

Either way, a McJob should only be temporary for anyone. If you plan on making it a career don't blame the companies when you can't live on minimum wage.

Post: #32

Maybe local community colleges should offer associate degrees in "Fast Food Meal Engineering." .. a precursor to Hospitality Management. Then everyone could work at a place where everyone is called an "associate."

I've always felt these jobs are "trial" positions for anything whatsoever in the real world. If you can't provide 1000 perfectly prepared accurate orders through a drive-through window, along with your "team" you can't graduate highs school or have a driver's license.

Thus, you cannot afford to survive. duh.

In the same respect, the guy serving me my breakfast on time and accurate at McD's is almost as important to me as my boss many days. so.......

Post: #33

I'd like to elaborate briefly on the concept of the national dividend/guaranteed minimum income. The main criticism you usually hear toward this idea is that it rewards people for doing nothing. Many feel that this is inherently wrong, and that people should not get income without working for it somehow. People are against this type of "free ride".

But the thing is, we have all received a free ride, in the form of the labor, knowledge and scientific/technical progress of our forefathers. The knowledge and infrastructure of the men who came before us is their legacy. It is their gift. We all benefit from it every day. It is a source of wealth whose value is immeasurable. And it is a source of wealth to which every living person can stake a claim of ownership in small part. The knowledge of mankind is the property of mankind.

Have you ever had an infection that was cured with antibiotics? Then you got a free ride.

Have you ever driven on an interstate highway in an automobile? Then you got a free ride.

Have you ever flown in an airplane? Then you got a free ride.

Have you ever walked into an air conditioned building on a hot summer day and breathed a sigh of relief? Then you got a free ride.

Have you ever ridden an elevator 20+ stories up in a tall building and been glad you didn't have to take the stairs? Then you got a free ride.

Have you ever used the internet? Then you got a free ride.

Other men invented all of those things, and we reap the benefits from their hard work and genius. And we shouldn't feel bad or guilty about that. It's the natural thing for men to do, and it's what they would want. How many men have labored hard their entire lives simply with the wish that their children and grandchildren would live better lives than they did? Well, that's us. And if we aren't utilizing the advances made by previous generations to better ourselves, then we are essentially spitting in the face of their sacrifice and hard work.

When you look at it from this perspective, the idea of a national dividend makes perfect sense. The efficiency and productivity gains enabled by the advances of generations before us should rightfully be utilized to advance humanity as a whole, since no single person alive today can claim credit for them. A national dividend, then, can be understand as each individual's rightful share in the sum practical knowledge and technology of humanity as a whole.

Post: #34

(07-17-2013 11:13 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  What happens in places like this is the businesses import labor from abroad. There's some kind
of labor broker that brings in younger college students from the FSU and Ukraine, Moldova or wherever.

The kitchens, supermarkets and fast food joints are full of foreigners. They come here for the summer
under contract and work for a low wage. Housing is supplied and they live like 20 to a house.

For them it's a vacation in a cool American spot. They have a predetermined amount of money
at the end of the season and what they bring home is enough to live on for the rest of the year
in their homeland.

I also hear that the females end up doing some hooking on the side for extra money.

It's the same here in my Florida beach town. Plenty of Eastern Europeans here now, mostly girls, who work in hotels, restaurants and gift shops. My uncle knows the manager of a well known beach hotel, who told him that plenty of the girls were selling BJs at $50 a pop

Post: #35

Interesting thread. I don't know what my views are.

Before the Bailouts of Wall Street, I was libertarian.

But once I really started looking into the issue, I realized we live in a corpocracy.

Wall Street and other large corporations received welfare on orders of magnitude larger than wage slaves receive.

If corporations and high level executives are on the dole, why should the common man be denied his share of the pie?

Post: #36

(07-17-2013 04:57 PM)scorpion Wrote:  I'd like to elaborate briefly on the concept of the national dividend/guaranteed minimum income. The main criticism you usually hear toward this idea is that it rewards people for doing nothing. Many feel that this is inherently wrong, and that people should not get income without working for it somehow. People are against this type of "free ride".

But the thing is, we have all received a free ride, in the form of the labor, knowledge and scientific/technical progress of our forefathers. The knowledge and infrastructure of the men who came before us is their legacy. It is their gift. We all benefit from it every day. It is a source of wealth whose value is immeasurable. And it is a source of wealth to which every living person can stake a claim of ownership in small part. The knowledge of mankind is the property of mankind.

Have you ever had an infection that was cured with antibiotics? Then you got a free ride.

Have you ever driven on an interstate highway in an automobile? Then you got a free ride.

Have you ever flown in an airplane? Then you got a free ride.

Have you ever walked into an air conditioned building on a hot summer day and breathed a sigh of relief? Then you got a free ride.

Have you ever ridden an elevator 20+ stories up in a tall building and been glad you didn't have to take the stairs? Then you got a free ride.

Have you ever used the internet? Then you got a free ride.

Other men invented all of those things, and we reap the benefits from their hard work and genius. And we shouldn't feel bad or guilty about that. It's the natural thing for men to do, and it's what they would want. How many men have labored hard their entire lives simply with the wish that their children and grandchildren would live better lives than they did? Well, that's us. And if we aren't utilizing the advances made by previous generations to better ourselves, then we are essentially spitting in the face of their sacrifice and hard work.

When you look at it from this perspective, the idea of a national dividend makes perfect sense. The efficiency and productivity gains enabled by the advances of generations before us should rightfully be utilized to advance humanity as a whole, since no single person alive today can claim credit for them. A national dividend, then, can be understand as each individual's rightful share in the sum practical knowledge and technology of humanity as a whole.

Generally, I agree. But "mankind" didn't do all of that; Western civilization did. As you say, the men that built everything you referred to intended the fruits of their labors to benefit their descendants -- their descendants. Not everybody's descendants. I owe none of my inheritance to jungle cannibals, or whoever else might be clamoring for it these days.

Post: #37

Yeah - the financial crisis of 2008 made me question everything. I am not sure what I believe anymore.

Post: #38

(07-17-2013 11:09 AM)Menace Wrote:  I have hear some bloggers argue (HalfSigma, now Lion of the Blogosphere) that we have too many people and not enough jobs due to efficiencies. There simply isn't enough for people of average or below average below average abilities to do.

If this is the case, then we shouldn't have any poor people. But, we do because America is mostly a racket.

Post: #39

(07-17-2013 12:04 PM)kosko Wrote:  Could somebody live in NYC on that wage? I'm just curious to know.

On 1100 monthly? With someone else, maybe.

By themselves? All the placed you could live would look like the locations where they filmed the movie "28 Days Later".

Post: #40

(07-17-2013 01:37 PM)Ensam Wrote:  Some quick and dirty math:
McDonalds has 1.8 million employees and last year reported an income of 5.46 billion. That means on average each employee generates $3033/year for the company. That's about $1.46/hr if you assume they work full time (2080 hrs/year).

That doesn't seem particularly exploitative to me. I don't think they'd be able to pay their employees much more without significantly raising their prices.

You mean the McDonald's Franchise Corporation made 5.46 billion? That's a lot different than the sum of the individual restaurant owners' gross operating revenues.

Also, your math suggests the company is losing about six bucks per hour per employee. Sounds a little too quick and too dirty to me.

Post: #41

(07-17-2013 10:01 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  I remember when it was all high school students and retirees working there.

Minimum wage is not meant to be a living wage.

Of course, the change from a manufacturing economy to service doesn't take this into account.

I would argue that we went from a manufacturing economy to an intellectual economy. You can make a very good living in the USA without manufacturing (in the traditional sense) or working in the service sector.

The service sector serves those of us that have adapted to the new world order. Adapt and overcome.

Side note. I highly recommend reading the book "Grinding it Out" by Ray Kroc, the guy that built the McDonalds empire. Straight up hustler. This guy was a beast.

http://www.amazon.com/Grinding-It-Out-Ma...0312929870

Post: #42

(07-17-2013 11:14 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 08:28 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  (At the end of 2012, average rent in the U.S. was $1,048).

Can that really be true?

Seems pretty high for Zanesville, OH.


-----

As a side note, I heard managers can make 100k there.

Any truth to that?

Also, what does an owner make?

I have a feeling it's pretty accurate if the are calculating it per household. If you look at Miami it's pretty common for one person to pay that much. If you look at a place like Vegas, a one bedroom is not commonly so expensive, but many people in places like Vegas will rent a 3 bedroom house and split the cost with two other friends. If that's how they're calculating I believe it, but is the average person paying that much by themselves? I think not.

Post: #43

(07-17-2013 08:14 PM)lurker Wrote:  Also, your math suggests the company is losing about six bucks per hour per employee. Sounds a little too quick and too dirty to me.

You should read that again.

It's INCOME per employee. Income is after all expenses(including wages). So if they were to give stock dividends to all of their employees it'd be that amount divided by the amount of employees.....

Post: #44

Yeah, it's $3033/year after paying wages. So that's how much money the company is actually making off of its employees. The revenue is $27.56 billion which means each employee takes in $15.3k/year. It's hard to work out an exact average hourly wages from those figures because there are a significant number of part time employees.

A company like Intel on the other hand has a revenue of $53.34 billion and an income of $11 billion. But they only have 104,700 employees. That means each employee brings in $511365/year and Intel has an income of $105k/employee. If anybody is being exploited it's not fry cooks at McDonalds, it's the chip designers making $150k/year at Intel.

Post: #45

I always tell myself and others, if I was not going to school, I would work construction for the rest of my life.

There is a lot of opportunity in construction and entry level tradesmen can find more then enough work to live off of, but as it turns, my generation seems to see physical labor as a no-no. I've offered my friends jobs at construction companies I've worked for that would offer them fifty percent to double the money then their current wages, but they were fine with working at McDonalds and whining about how awful it is.

Which is fine, but I think it just shows that men I know would rather work hard at a lowly-fast food job then work hard at a mans job and get respect and money to match said respect.

Post: #46

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/07/17/...lp00000058

Robots replacing fast food workers...in China.

Post: #47

(07-17-2013 10:25 PM)RouteBackwards Wrote:  I always tell myself and others, if I was not going to school, I would work construction for the rest of my life.

There is a lot of opportunity in construction and entry level tradesmen can find more then enough work to live off of, but as it turns, my generation seems to see physical labor as a no-no. I've offered my friends jobs at construction companies I've worked for that would offer them fifty percent to double the money then their current wages, but they were fine with working at McDonalds and whining about how awful it is.

Which is fine, but I think it just shows that men I know would rather work hard at a lowly-fast food job then work hard at a mans job and get respect and money to match said respect.

UPS is a good job for simple physical labor, just moving boxes. They are Teamsters, so the pay is well above minimum. Don't know about FedEx, DHL, etc, but probably similar.

The general problem in the economy is that capital has wrangled more and more of the value of labor over the last forty years.

You can blame immigration, you can blame the decline of unions, you can blame globalization, you can blame the capture of both parties by financial and corporate interests, you can blame women in the workplace, or you can blame something else, but it's a fact that workers are not sharing in the American Dream the way they did in the 50s and 60s.

Post: #48

(07-17-2013 09:52 PM)Ensam Wrote:  Yeah, it's $3033/year after paying wages. So that's how much money the company is actually making off of its employees. The revenue is $27.56 billion which means each employee takes in $15.3k/year. It's hard to work out an exact average hourly wages from those figures because there are a significant number of part time employees.

Say McDonald's gives back 1/2 - 1500 - spread over 25 bi-weely checks - 60 bucks a check.

It helps, but that's not the sort of money that allows you to change your fortunes.

(07-17-2013 09:52 PM)Ensam Wrote:  A company like Intel on the other hand has a revenue of $53.34 billion and an income of $11 billion. But they only have 104,700 employees. That means each employee brings in $511365/year and Intel has an income of $105k/employee. If anybody is being exploited it's not fry cooks at McDonalds, it's the chip designers making $150k/year at Intel.

!!! The exploitation gets worse the further up the education level you move.

WIA

Post: #49

Roosh Wrote:

"Saw this article floating around. The question is why should anyone be able to survive on a minimum wage job? Is that a human right? "

Slippery slope.

Post: #50

(07-17-2013 08:36 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 08:14 PM)lurker Wrote:  Also, your math suggests the company is losing about six bucks per hour per employee. Sounds a little too quick and too dirty to me.

You should read that again.

It's INCOME per employee. Income is after all expenses(including wages). So if they were to give stock dividends to all of their employees it'd be that amount divided by the amount of employees.....

It's not worth arguing about the definition of "income" as opposed to "net income," so I'll accept that he meant the latter. Still, the assumption of a full-year work schedule for McD's employees is way off, and it still doesn't answer the original question: is that the McD's corporate net income, or is it the aggregate net income of the various franchise restaurants?