Post: #176

(08-30-2013 03:56 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  You can't really outsource a lot of these low-paying service jobs. Now, you many be able to automate them to a certain extent, but I don't see why we can't make some basic reforms to help the people on the lower socioeconomic scale. We already subsidize them. We should look into ways to help them have a better life.

I was talking about the remaining jobs in America that can be outsourced. Any large bump, like the one being asked for would affect that.

I also made a post on this forum about seismic. It pays higher in Canada because of the labour supply. We have a shortage in Canada.

A few americans asked how much it paid. As soon as they heard minimum wage they laughed. They didn't see the opportunity.

It's almost year round work in the US, 90 hours a week. You get hotshot($40/day) and accommodation is paid for. On top of that it gets your foot in the door within the oil industry. You can quickly make contacts and move on to a better paying field.

If I had of said they aren't paying me enough($8/hr when I started), I would probably still be in some soul crushing job in the city bitching about my life.

Post: #177

(08-30-2013 07:48 PM)kerouac Wrote:  In N Out can afford to pay its workers a starting wage close to $15/hr. Their product is far superior to the likes of McDonalds and Burger King and their employees are far more satisfied (employee turnover is much lower than other fast food competitors).



If In N Out can do it, and provide a higher quality product (AND make the owners billions), there must be something they're doing right that others are doing wrong.

I would be interested if someone can explain this.

Also, it would seem that Five Guys is probably close to this. Anyone know?

Post: #178

(08-30-2013 07:35 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  Men deserve what they earn.

^^^Hard to argue against this.

I have a hard time feeling bad for anyone that's lived in the US their entire life, and hasn't figured out how to work the system in their favor.

If you've been at McDonald's for 10 years and haven't moved up the ranks, then you deserve the shit wage you're earning. Sorry I'm not sorry.

Post: #179

The US is the only country where people who aren't making that much money really want other people to make even less money. The poor want to feel superior to the other poor, even if they barely qualify as middle-class.

In other countries, people without ambition can have a job, and have a normal life just doing as they please.

People seem to forget that the whole point of economic systems being valid is providing a route for employment.

A lot of jobs are becoming obsolete, so a lot more people will be entering the workforce "servicing" people with more money. That's just how it is.

Now some of you may think that it might not bite you in the ass, because you might have some military thing going on, but you never know. Why make this system, which isn't geared towards the average person, worse on yourselves?

Post: #180

(08-31-2013 09:28 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  If In N Out can do it, and provide a higher quality product (AND make the owners billions), there must be something they're doing right that others are doing wrong.


I would be interested if someone can explain this.

Also, it would seem that Five Guys is probably close to this. Anyone know?

Here's my theory:

McDonald's, like every other corporate, generates a shit ton of waste. Because of their massive menu, they don't make your food a la minute. Everything is made in huge batches. Whole trays of cheeseburgers at a time, and then held under heat lamps. That's why it's so fast.

Well, food doesn't sit very well under heat lamps. After 5 minutes the quality starts to deteriorate. At 10 minutes it's dried out and stale tasting. I don't know how long McDonald's keeps their food under heat lamps, but I do know that they throw it out after a certain amount of time. I've seen it happen.

At In n Out, it's more of an old school, genuine operation. There's only a handful of things on the menu, and it's all just a variation of burgers, fries, and shakes. They're not throwing away all the salads that they don't sell, like McD's does. Order comes in, food gets made, customer pays, gets their food. Keep it simple, stupid. There's no waste generated in this operation. Every In n Out also seems to be constantly busy, whereas I can pass a McD's and see a few people trickling in and out, but never really packed. I would say that on a per-store basis, In n Out generates much higher revenues and much lower waste than McD's. The business owners are smart, probably not overly greedy, and reinvest a very healthy portion of their profits back into the operation, be in up-to-date equipment or competitive pay and benefits.

McDonald's probably has very low profit margins on a per-store basis, but look at how many stores there are. They can also corner certain markets that other fast foods can't; you'll find McDonald's in some pretty goddamn remote areas and they probably operate more 24-hr drive through windows than their competitors.

Post: #181

(08-31-2013 09:28 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  If In N Out can do it, and provide a higher quality product (AND make the owners billions), there must be something they're doing right that others are doing wrong.

I would be interested if someone can explain this.

Also, it would seem that Five Guys is probably close to this. Anyone know?
[/quote]

Here's my theory:

McDonald's, like every other corporate, generates a shit ton of waste. Because of their massive menu, they don't make your food a la minute. Everything is made in huge batches. Whole trays of cheeseburgers at a time, and then held under heat lamps. That's why it's so fast.

Well, food doesn't sit very well under heat lamps. After 5 minutes the quality starts to deteriorate. At 10 minutes it's dried out and stale tasting. I don't know how long McDonald's keeps their food under heat lamps, but I do know that they throw it out after a certain amount of time. I've seen it happen.

At In n Out, it's more of an old school, genuine operation. There's only a handful of things on the menu, and it's all just a variation of burgers, fries, and shakes. They're not throwing away all the salads that they don't sell, like McD's does. Order comes in, food gets made, customer pays, gets their food. Keep it simple, stupid. There's no waste generated in this operation. Every In n Out also seems to be constantly busy, whereas I can pass a McD's and see a few people trickling in and out, but never really packed. I would say that on a per-store basis, In n Out generates much higher revenues and much lower waste than McD's. The business owners are smart, probably not overly greedy, and reinvest a very healthy portion of their profits back into the operation, be in up-to-date equipment or competitive pay and benefits.

McDonald's probably has very low profit margins on a per-store basis, but look at how many stores there are. They can also corner certain markets that other fast foods can't; you'll find McDonald's in some pretty goddamn remote areas and they probably operate more 24-hr drive through windows than their competitors.

Post: #182

McDonalds is a publicly traded corporation, so their financials are open for all to see.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MCD&annual

McDonald's made $5,464,800,000 Net Income in 2012 in the US. That's how much it made after all expenses, wages, etc. They're not barely making it by as many people on here, and the fox-news-osphere would like you to believe.

Post: #183

(08-31-2013 01:46 PM)kerouac Wrote:  McDonalds is a publicly traded corporation, so their financials are open for all to see.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MCD&annual

McDonald's made $5,464,800,000 Net Income in 2012 in the US. That's how much it made after all expenses, wages, etc. They're not barely making it by as many people on here, and the fox-news-osphere would like you to believe.

That's the corporation. It's a franchise.

Individual owners own most of the stores. Every owner is not making 5 billions dollars.

You also managed to add 3 zeroes somehow. It was 5 billion not 5 trillion.

Post: #184

(08-31-2013 01:46 PM)kerouac Wrote:  McDonalds is a publicly traded corporation, so their financials are open for all to see.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MCD&annual

McDonald's made $5,464,800,000 Net Income in 2012 in the US. That's how much it made after all expenses, wages, etc. They're not barely making it by as many people on here, and the fox-news-osphere would like you to believe.

True.

McDonald's squeezes their franchise owners dry, that is why on a "franchise basis" McDonald's don't generate much profit, but the reason for this is not due to barely being able to pay its worker's wages. The real reason is that McDonald's corporation captures most of the economic profit from their franchises. If McDonald's franchises had to pay their workers more, then the franchise owners would demand new franchise agreements from McDonald's corp or they would declare bankruptcy to get out of the agreement.

Post: #185

(08-31-2013 02:57 PM)Damedius Wrote:  That's the corporation. It's a franchise.

Individual owners own most of the stores. Every owner is not making 5 billions dollars.

You also managed to add 3 zeroes somehow. It was 5 billion not 5 trillion.

You're wrong on both counts.

First, $5,464,800,000 is 5.4648 billion dollars.

Second, McDonalds is a corporation. There are franchisees who franchise from the corporation, and there are corporate owned restaurants.

If you think franchisees don't have any say in making new arrangements with the head corporation, you are wrong. If the workers decided to unionize and expect $15/hr or whatever, do you think the head corporation is going to sit there and let the franchisees die off? No. The head corporation would make arrangements (sign new contracts/make new deals) with the franchisees to make sure they survive. A bit of that $5,464,800,000 would be cut, but a lot of workers would be able to lead more decent lives.

I think the reason In N Out can do what it does is because it is private. Once companies go public, they have to deal with greedy shareholders. When it's kept within the family, the family can make more humane decisions than some accountants in NYC.

Post: #186

(08-31-2013 04:27 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

(08-31-2013 02:57 PM)Damedius Wrote:  That's the corporation. It's a franchise.

Individual owners own most of the stores. Every owner is not making 5 billions dollars.

You also managed to add 3 zeroes somehow. It was 5 billion not 5 trillion.

You're wrong on both counts.

First, $5,464,800,000 is 5.4648 billion dollars.

Second, McDonalds is a corporation. There are franchisees who franchise from the corporation, and there are corporate owned restaurants.

If you think franchisees don't have any say in making new arrangements with the head corporation, you are wrong. If the workers decided to unionize and expect $15/hr or whatever, do you think the head corporation is going to sit there and let the franchisees die off? No. The head corporation would make arrangements (sign new contracts/make new deals) with the franchisees to make sure they survive. A bit of that $5,464,800,000 would be cut, but a lot of workers would be able to lead more decent lives.

I think the reason In N Out can do what it does is because it is private. Once companies go public, they have to deal with greedy shareholders. When it's kept within the family, the family can make more humane decisions than some accountants in NYC.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-22...mates.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/...wages-15hr

Please recheck the numbers. There is no point in having a discussion when you think McDonald's makes $5.5 trillion dollars in profit a year.

Post: #187

(08-30-2013 07:03 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

(08-30-2013 06:55 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  I AM for fast food workers starting a union. There should have been a fast food worker union a long time ago.

Well that would be the quickest way to sink the industry.

And our nation would have been much slimmer and happier because of it..

Post: #188

(08-31-2013 04:46 PM)Damedius Wrote:  Please recheck the numbers. There is no point in having a discussion when you think McDonald's makes $5.5 trillion dollars in profit a year.

5,464,800,000 = 5.4648 billion ( 5.4648 trillion would be 5,464,800,000,000 )

Post: #189

(08-31-2013 01:25 PM)kerouac Wrote:  The US is the only country where people who aren't making that much money really want other people to make even less money.

I read a study which surveyed people's income preferences.

I don't know the exact amounts, but the result:

People wanted to be ABOVE others more than they wanted high income.

Something like, "Would you rather make $75k when the average was 50K, or 100K when the average was 100K"

People went for the $75k.

We all love looking down. ( From a Morcheeba song on "BIG CALM", a great album. )

Post: #190

(09-01-2013 01:23 AM)king Wrote:  

(08-31-2013 04:46 PM)Damedius Wrote:  Please recheck the numbers. There is no point in having a discussion when you think McDonald's makes $5.5 trillion dollars in profit a year.

5,464,800,000 = 5.4648 billion ( 5.4648 trillion would be 5,464,800,000,000 )

Lol.

Don't post on the forums after being up for over 36 hours. You should have seen the post I had just wrote up and was just about to hit reply on.

Post: #191

My mother brought this story up to me yesterday. She's all for the workers making more money. She said they're people too and deserve the money. Her argument was that most of them are poor students and have to pay for their own car and tuition. So there you go fellas. Mom knows best

Post: #192

Quote:They are correct when they say it is mathematically possible to pay these workers about twice what they are currently making. In Australia, for instance, fast-food workers already make about $15. Only some of this higher cost of labor is passed on to consumers. The rest is absorbed by using more technology than people, and demanding more productivity from the fewer people they pay this higher wage.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...53480.html

That passage from the WSJ article hits the nail on the head. Think of what a $15/hour wage would actually lead to. One guy brought up In N Out burger and how they pay their workers better ($15/hr) than other fast food outlets while being higher quality.

I remember the last time I went to an In N Out in Daly City, CA (just south of SF). Almost all of the employees were young Asian teenagers (high school or even college) that spoke perfect American-accented English unlike what one would find from a Mickey D's in the same area. They were sharp and attentive and ready to work.

If the wage goes up, so will standards, meaning fewer jobs. The exact people this policy is ostensibly designed to help will be the most harmed. Those kids that would probably be out selling drugs or locked up if there wasn't a Mickey D's to work at will stand no chance in working at a Mickey D's that pays $15/hr and now will attract applicants from a "better" upbringing due to the respectable "living wage" they can earn.

It just doesn't work that way in business where labor costs goes up with nothing else being affected. There's ALWAYS a trade off. In most cases, costs are merely passed down to consumers and/or investments in technology that increases productivity with less human workers. Think about those self-checkout counters you see at the grocery store where one worker will oversee anywhere from 4-6 self-checkout registers just to make sure nothing goes awry. Those registers take up one lane that used to be staffed by one human. Now that same lane is 4-6 times more productive.

Post: #193

(09-01-2013 09:44 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  My mother brought this story up to me yesterday. She's all for the workers making more money. She said they're people too and deserve the money. Her argument was that most of them are poor students and have to pay for their own car and tuition. So there you go fellas. Mom knows best

She should open a restaurant then.

Post: #194

(09-01-2013 12:50 PM)Bolthouse Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 09:44 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  My mother brought this story up to me yesterday. She's all for the workers making more money. She said they're people too and deserve the money. Her argument was that most of them are poor students and have to pay for their own car and tuition. So there you go fellas. Mom knows best

She should open a restaurant then.

One person owning a restaurant is not the same as corporate owned chain.

Post: #195

(09-01-2013 01:06 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 12:50 PM)Bolthouse Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 09:44 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  My mother brought this story up to me yesterday. She's all for the workers making more money. She said they're people too and deserve the money. Her argument was that most of them are poor students and have to pay for their own car and tuition. So there you go fellas. Mom knows best

She should open a restaurant then.

One person owning a restaurant is not the same as corporate owned chain.

So the big hero white knight women first anti-male govt should come in and dictate how much each individual business pays their workers.

Granted this is where we are heading in the USA anyway, but anyone on this forum will be hurt badly by it. We already are being hurt badly by it. Having to travel to other countries just to find decent women and decent lives.

I can't imagine traveling back in time 40 years and telling the men there that their own sons and grandsons would have to travel to other countries just to enjoy a decent life. But that is the end result of the socialist system being put in place and for some odd reason supported by a few people here.

Post: #196

(09-01-2013 01:58 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  So the big hero white knight women first anti-male govt should come in and dictate how much each individual business pays their workers.

You see ....this is the problem. You and companies see employees as property or worse ...a commodity.
Where's the humanity here? Employees are people and people deserve a livable wage relative to the cost of living.

Post: #197

(09-01-2013 02:42 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 01:58 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  So the big hero white knight women first anti-male govt should come in and dictate how much each individual business pays their workers.

You see ....this is the problem. You and companies see employees as property or worse ...a commodity.
Where's the humanity here? Employees are people and people deserve a livable wage relative to the cost of living.

"Humanity" as you used it is another word for "steal from those who work hard and give to those who do not". So where is the "humanity" in that? How is it fair to steal from people who work hard to get ahead to give to those who simply do not?

What you are suggesting is not only anti-nature and will destroy civilizations and has done so over and over and over (USSR, China gave up on communism, the joke that is Cuba's economic system, where all of western Europe is heading, Pol Pot in Cambodia on and on).

But what is most amazing is you post on this great forum here. One that stands up for men's rights and you suggest an economic situation that steals from men and gives to women by a greater and greater amount year by year.

Post: #198

(09-01-2013 02:53 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 02:42 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 01:58 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  So the big hero white knight women first anti-male govt should come in and dictate how much each individual business pays their workers.

You see ....this is the problem. You and companies see employees as property or worse ...a commodity.
Where's the humanity here? Employees are people and people deserve a livable wage relative to the cost of living.

"Humanity" as you used it is another word for "steal from those who work hard and give to those who do not". So where is the "humanity" in that? How is it fair to steal from people who work hard to get ahead to give to those who simply do not?

What you are suggesting is not only anti-nature and will destroy civilizations and has done so over and over and over (USSR, China gave up on communism, the joke that is Cuba's economic system, where all of western Europe is heading, Pol Pot in Cambodia on and on).

But what is most amazing is you post on this great forum here. One that stands up for men's rights and you suggest an economic situation that steals from men and gives to women by a greater and greater amount year by year.

We're not talking about gender issues. We're talking about labor issues.

There will always be some form of labor that is at the bottom of the totem pole. I'm not saying fast food workers should all be driving brand new BMWs or Mercedes. I'm saying they should be able to have the basic necessities of life on a 40 hour a week salary.

Post: #199

(09-01-2013 02:59 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 02:53 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 02:42 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 01:58 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  So the big hero white knight women first anti-male govt should come in and dictate how much each individual business pays their workers.

You see ....this is the problem. You and companies see employees as property or worse ...a commodity.
Where's the humanity here? Employees are people and people deserve a livable wage relative to the cost of living.

"Humanity" as you used it is another word for "steal from those who work hard and give to those who do not". So where is the "humanity" in that? How is it fair to steal from people who work hard to get ahead to give to those who simply do not?

What you are suggesting is not only anti-nature and will destroy civilizations and has done so over and over and over (USSR, China gave up on communism, the joke that is Cuba's economic system, where all of western Europe is heading, Pol Pot in Cambodia on and on).

But what is most amazing is you post on this great forum here. One that stands up for men's rights and you suggest an economic situation that steals from men and gives to women by a greater and greater amount year by year.

We're not talking about gender issues. We're talking about labor issues.

There will always be some form of labor that is at the bottom of the totem pole. I'm not saying fast food workers should all be driving brand new BMWs or Mercedes. I'm saying they should be able to have the basic necessities of life on a 40 hour a week salary.

It all ties in together. And it has been explained in this thread over and over by many different posters of how this whole idea will only hurt those wanting $15 an hour the most. Businesses will simply shut down, or hire a lot less, or simply be far more picky of who they do hire. And those protesting will be out of jobs for the most part.

Every single time they have raised minimum wage in the USA, unemployment levels of those in the minimum wage jobs has increased and took years to recover. Something like this will break the bank for small and medium sized businesses.

Socialism = a govt. voted into place by women so they can no longer be dependent upon men. It allows them to vote in a govt. that puts a gun in men's backs to pay taxes and fees and be forced to hire women and all the benefits go directly to women. In the end it fails and will always fail. Just like forcing these companies to raise their pay will fail.

Post: #200

(09-01-2013 02:42 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 01:58 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  So the big hero white knight women first anti-male govt should come in and dictate how much each individual business pays their workers.

You see ....this is the problem. You and companies see employees as property or worse ...a commodity.
Where's the humanity here? Employees are people and people deserve a livable wage relative to the cost of living.

They are resources. Thus the term Human Resources. Everyone that works is a resource. We all fit into the same dynamic. I am a resource for my boss. He uses me to achieve his objectives. The people that work under me are resources that I use to achieve the objectives that are set for me and so on.

What needs to be recognized is that someone needs to be at the bottom of the pay scale. If you raise the pay at the bottom it will rise at all levels in the economy and the resulting inflation will make their higher income meaningless.

I said earlier that I could live with a minimum wage that kept pace with the inflation rate, but I just believe that doubling their pay overnight will have a net negative effect on employment opportunities which we have discussed earlier in this thread.