Study: Low Fast Food Wages Cost Taxpayers $7 Billion Per Year
Options
Comments
-
perspective@100 wrote: »I never said "they feel". They scenario I present is "ethical" for everyone. A percentage scale that allows all employees for a profitable business to survive in their respective location/residence without assistance from government. It would not be one simple scale. Calculations would take into consideration criteria relative to each area that each business is located.
I don't see how that is more ethical vs. your feelings on what you think workers should be entitled to
so are you saying when a company is doing bad, it makes sense to dock a percentage as well?
when it's time to upgrade equipment, the workers should take a dock in pay in your opinion? I doubt that kind of scenario would be beneficial to someone already strugglingperspective@100 wrote: »Productivity directly correlates to value added to the organization... Titles are created to indicate level of training.
but how does productivity correlate to value in this type of organization? either you are measuring potential (ie. predicting how much work an employee can do) or you are basing value on how many customers are served (which the line workers have no control over anyways)
so you saying if two cats working fries does an 8-hr shift, but the one who served more customers should get paid more? how is that fair if neither one of those workers can influence the number of customers who comes on their shift? please explainperspective@100 wrote: »Huh? I never said anything about someones potential.
see my previous response aboveperspective@100 wrote: »Here is where we disagree. You rather have the owners and corporate entities make more money so they can create more businesses and make more jobs, all in all making more money for themselves on a larger scale. You also assume with more jobs created the wages will be raised because everyone is making more money at the top. Wrong! No top CEO at any corporation is going to raise the wages of bottom level employees because their company has doubled, tripled, or quadrupled its profits. If that were the case we would not be having this conversation right now. Regardless of what Mcdonalds makes they try and keep there employees at minimum levels of income, which is why the government has instituted minimum wage so no hugely successful business blatantly gets out of hand.
the reason why they don't is because of unemployment..........if you need a worker to perform a task, then you have no choice but to pay the market rate for wages.......otherwise you will not attract the worker you need
if every worker has a job, the only way they are leaving is if someone else is willing to pay more...............so using the concept of supply and demand means that it makes more sense to create more jobs instead of just raising MW
raising MW just creates unemployment which further depresses wages
-
perspective@100 wrote: »Why hire adults at all then? If the job only entails duties that can be handled by children why are there no entirely children run Mcdonalds restaurants? Zero...
have you forgotten that jobs like these were typically done by teenagers? any adults usually were management
and if you are a manager making MW, then who's fault is that?perspective@100 wrote: »I have never said anything about potential. Actual productivity can be measured and those producers of high volumes should be paid more, yes. Folks with limitations need find a way to increase their own productivity. Productivity does not always have to be physical.
explain how you would apply that for a line worker at McD
how do folks with limitations find a way to increase their productivity at a job like working at McDs? the job is mostly physical labor
if they had an alternative I doubt they would be relying on McD for a paycheckperspective@100 wrote: »Mcdonalds has taken all of its business techniques from technical industries. Determining an employees value is a specialty trade of Mcdonalds. Thats why you train on one thing and once you master it you begin to cross-train. There are a ton of different areas within a single Mcdonalds that a person can be trained on including fries. No cook is just a cook and no cashier is just a cashier. A person who has been trained and can do multiple jobs is more of value to the restaurant and company than a new person just hired who can only perform one task.
how technical is making fries tho? how much does formal training make you better at making fries? cashier? cooking burgers? you can cross train all that ? , but let's be serious.......you really don't need formal training to do any of those jobs
if the experience really matters, then why can't workers transfer those skills anywhere else except for other MW jobs?perspective@100 wrote: »Experience comes from a single person being able to perform multiple task. This means that a persons productivity has increased. With a substantial increase(productivity) for all employees, it would inhibit the need to hire more employees to do any given task. The less employees and more efficient work = greater gains.
so you want less employees that are better trained? I'm not sure what your goal is here fam
you want less cats to have a job so more folks will need assistance? LOL you don't seen how you are contradicting yourself?
-
perspective@100 wrote: »Poppy ? , I smelled ? when I read the bold... The employee is trained, has gained experience and increased his/her own productivity. This means plainly the employee is working harder than when he/she first started, contributing more and helping Mcdonalds profit more money. The risk is they are investing their livelihood and man hours to help a company potentially not pay them anything worth living for. Thats risk enough for me...
that's not risk unless you believe what is in the next man's pocket belongs to you
for a manager as you claim, you have a real twisted view of property rights and how business works
the agreement between an employee and an employer is that as an employee you get consistent benefits based on consistent work
but as the boss I get the biggest cut because I'm the one with all the liability........I'm the one who's livelihood is really on the line.......I'm the one who could get sued, I'm the one who invested my money, I'm the one who takes the L if you find a better job and choose to walk away tomorrow and I got to spend the money to replace you
the reason employees are not considered when the company profits is because the employee can leave at any point even tho they are being relied on
-
perspective@100 wrote: »The workers are a victims of a business structure in place to keep them in the dregs of society. Applying for a job to sustain or make for better living VS someone purchasing a franchise to increase their huge amounts of money is not comparable.
thank you for admitting that you see these grown adults as helpless victims
we have already seen what victim mentality gets you in the endperspective@100 wrote: »Not every Mcdonalds is Franchised, and they all still fall under the same banner. Mcdonalds institutes policies and they are to be followed by every restaurant, franchise or not, point blank period. I wish a Franchise owner would be like" I'm taking down the golden arches and putting up my Initials"... ? please.
the bolded can be done so I don't get what you are saying........those policies you mentioned are part of the franchise agreement
once the franchise agreement is broken, McDs is pretty much irrelevant to the business ownerperspective@100 wrote: »Sure, in your scenario where every Mcdonalds is franchised lol, they can pay what they want, but if Mcdonalds makes certain pay for entry level employees or even management level employees policy best believe franchises will have to abide or risk being penalized or having their franchise contract ripped to shreds.
but McDs has no incentive to do the bolded when they know it would just squeeze the franchise owners
that means it would be harder for them to extract royalties if their franchisees are struggling
-
perspective@100 wrote: »Honestly I'm lunch/dinner ? when it come to work and they had me breakfast/lunch. Im not getting up at 4am for no job... Stop with this fuckery, Calvin was that ? in his neighborhood, had all the free cheeseburgers and ? to bring home. haha...
yeah, exactly just like I thought.......another ? willing to talk it, but not live it himself hahaperspective@100 wrote: »Only to an extent when you work for someone else. All they can do is work hard and hope to be treated fairly. Problem is corporations like Mcdonalds are not ethical organizations. The appearance on tv commercials is false. Their business dealings and scale of pay, support the idea of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
if you don't treat your own self fairly, how you gon be upset when somebody else doesn't? if you know McD doesn't take care of employees, why would you sign up for that?
and you as a customer, why would you buy ? from a place like that?perspective@100 wrote: »Its not subjective. Corporate execs at Mcdonalds are not struggling financially and people whop decide to purchase a Mcdonalds franchise are clearly not struggling with finances.
I could say the same about a ? making MW but they got cable TV, the latest Android phone, a pair of Jordans, and 5 kids to feed
it all boils down to personal choices.........if you see the MW worker as having an excuse to buy ? they don't need, why is the executive any different? you would think the person with less money would be even more responsibleperspective@100 wrote: »I'm glad you entertain yourself with this nonsense. ? flipping burgers and dropping fries are not buying Bentley's to put them further in debt...
does it matter what is being bought to put yourself in debt? why is one scenario better than another if both groups are buying unnecessary luxuries?perspective@100 wrote: »The negotiation is to have a certain amount of customers walk through the door upon the start of your business(sales). If the guaranteed amount does not walk through your door(sales), then royalty payments are decreased(the decreased amount is proportionate to the amount of unseen revenue, in this case sales). That would be a financial gain considering you have less liability, thats basic accounting.
the bolded makes no sense, that is NOT basic accounting
if you knew anything about franchise agreements, you would know that they are pretty much standard and they are already based on percentages.........so I don't see what financial gain you are referring to
a financial gain is transferable.....if you didn't incur a debt that is minimized or gain a credit that can spent somewhere else, then a financial gain doesn't exist ( I do taxes as well bruh don't even try to go there with me haha)
you have exposed yourself as not really know wtf you are talking aboutperspective@100 wrote: »Negotiations and easy are never in the same sentence...
but there really isn't any negotiation when it comes to a standard agreement..........what you think you gon tell McD how ? gon go at your store when they got plenty of other franchisees under the same agreement already? LOL -
perspective@100 wrote: »blakfyahking wrote: »
you need to redo your math fam........it can be lucrative
but there are other ventures just as lucrative or better with less hassle
why take on all that extra work and risk? this is why it's doesn't make sense to ? on business owners when mofos claim they want more jobs available out there for workers
60,000 is what percent of 3,000,000? 60,000/3,000,000=.02
To get percentage move decimal point over 2 places to the right or x 100.
=2% My math is straight...
Owners dont work ? . They not getting the hassle that Management gets. Where is the risk now that I see they getting 2% from a $3 mil investment even only bringing in $60000?
Its not about more jobs being available in my eyes. Its about making the jobs that are available more lucrative. Sure Mcdonalds could take profits and create another restaurants but that pales in the comparison of all the employees at every restsaurant being financially stable and able to create businesses of their own.
I meant redo your math figuratively........on risk alone that isn't an attractive deal
the bolded is what naive workers on the bottom think
when that lawsuit comes in or when it's time to do some planning, bosses do all the heavy lifting that make it possible for your organization to exist
the fact that you care about making the existing jobs more lucrative but not worried about creating more jobs just shows that you got your hand in the next man's pocket cause you are jealous.........you got a golddigging ? 's view on life
instead of building you'd just rather take a handout..........you'd rather have these workers sitting at home completely relying on welfare instead of striving to work hard to the benefit of everyone.........but eventually, you'll run out of other people's money to rely on haha
going back to the math.........remember that $60K in net profit?
well if you just pay those 10 employees just an extra $3 an hour, that's an extra $62K that franchise owner has to pay out of pocket
so if you only getting $60K in net profit from your store, now as an owner you'd have to pay an extra $2K out of you own pocket just to keep your store running........but you really think someone with good business sense is gon sign up for that? yeah champ (I mean scamp haha) we're done here........go play
-
Has a CEO ever taken a pay decrease to help a company? I know its been done but more than likely they are not. If that is something the CEO will be willing to do then he/she should have no problem explaining to the employees (company-wide)why their pay is going to be coming in shorter just to keep the business running. Its either that or go find another job pretty much when a company is in that kind of dire straights, but obviously Mcdonalds is not one of those companies. Its ethical because everyone eats, to put it simple. I just notice you going hard at the franchise side of Mcdonalds because you want to make it seem like a percentage payscale is a ? idea. This is why you bring up franchise owner profits. The payscale by law would be consistent for all corporate owned Mcdoanalds and the payscale for franchise owners would be created directly for their restaurants owned since "technically" they are small business as you put it, still not getting off the hook of paying ? wages. Its a must since they are in contract with such a large corporation they uphold the same ethical principles of pay. Dont worry your precious people at corporate wont have to shed millions to new hires in their restaurants as the payscale would also be facility based. Millionaires dont usually work next to someone making minimum wage right? I dont think this should be applied for just Mcdonalds but for all businesses. Your argument is based on who already has money keeping money vs the hard worker never being able to say what he/she truly deserves. You call it entitlement but lets be real, the entitled people are the ones at the top just making decisions and never really doing labor. The people at the bottom are doing the grunt work and them wanting more money just becomes a class battle. This has nothing to do with feelings or "emotion". Its common sense that if someone is never given the opportunity to make real money then they most likely will never change their situation.blakfyahking wrote: »I don't see how that is more ethical vs. your feelings on what you think workers should be entitled to
so are you saying when a company is doing bad, it makes sense to dock a percentage as well?
when it's time to upgrade equipment, the workers should take a dock in pay in your opinion? I doubt that kind of scenario would be beneficial to someone already struggling
When you ask questions like this I wonder man. Its easy to look at an employee and say employee (A) Can make a sandwhich every 20 second all the while keeping fries in tray 1 ready and second batch dipped with nuggets in tray 2 and second batch dipped. While employee (b) takes 1-2 minute per sandwhich and cant simultaneously keep fries or nuggets ready to go. Measure their customers served in a lunch rush or breakfast rush. This is why they have monitors that have time to see how fast each employee is working. Line workers have direct control of speed of food being put out. Customers will become upset and leave Mcdonalds if service is slow. You underestimate the main attraction of Mcdonalds (fast food). If the food is not created to put out, no customer can be served, period. Your faster food makers are your more valuable employees and best believe their are tools in place to measure all activity including bathroom breaks. In this case, supply during rushes at breakfast or lunch must meet demand.blakfyahking wrote: »but how does productivity correlate to value in this type of organization? either you are measuring potential (ie. predicting how much work an employee can do) or you are basing value on how many customers are served (which the line workers have no control over anyways)
so you saying if two cats working fries does an 8-hr shift, but the one who served more customers should get paid more? how is that fair if neither one of those workers can influence the number of customers who comes on their shift? please explain
Your answer to my question of "why wont top level employees increase payrates of bottom level employees as the profits more than quadruple?" is "because of unemployment"? ? what? I never said raise MW. I said pay at a scale where the top level employees income does not dwarf bottom level. Its not that hard. Mcdonalds could function very well and operate even better if top execs actually had to use their brains and figure out how to profit as lower level employees were paid more. When a company profits in the billions its a minimal sacrifice to help the economy in general since these workers have become such a burden. You continually say adults were not meant to work these jobs but you forget the demands for jobs is ever increasing as population has been shooting upward due to things like immigration and unexpected pregnancies. Our hole social landscape has completely changed in the last 15 or so years. Sadly providing jobs is not enough. Quality trumps quantity every time in all scenarios and all cases when it comes to business. Since our landscape in our country has changed the jobs provided must adapt.blakfyahking wrote: »the reason why they don't is because of unemployment..........if you need a worker to perform a task, then you have no choice but to pay the market rate for wages.......otherwise you will not attract the worker you need
if every worker has a job, the only way they are leaving is if someone else is willing to pay more...............so using the concept of supply and demand means that it makes more sense to create more jobs instead of just raising MW
raising MW just creates unemployment which further depresses wages -
I have not forgotten anything, but it seems you live in the past. Adults are hired because they do better work then children and take jobs more seriously as they have more responsibility and have less restrictions. The fact that so many adults have these jobs is proof of how Americas society and landscape has changed drastically over the years.blakfyahking wrote: »have you forgotten that jobs like these were typically done by teenagers? any adults usually were management
and if you are a manager making MW, then who's fault is that?
Did this already... Its an assembly line style job. Productivity is easily measured...blakfyahking wrote: »explain how you would apply that for a line worker at McD
Handling training with videos/lecture is one way. Delegating responsibilities or handling the books and counting money is another way. Handicap people work at Mcdonalds and find ways to be productive even with limitations. I have witnessed this first hand. Being a forward thinker never hurt anyone.blakfyahking wrote: »how do folks with limitations find a way to increase their productivity at a job like working at McDs? the job is mostly physical labor
Your just foolish to believe someone can walk into a job and perform all the task untrained. You would be the main person in line ? because it took you 20 minutes to get a #2...blakfyahking wrote: »how technical is making fries tho? how much does formal training make you better at making fries? cashier? cooking burgers? you can cross train all that ? , but let's be serious.......you really don't need formal training to do any of those jobs
TF, experience is gained on every job you ever work no matter the income and it stays with you forever and transfers to all jobs. Its not just what you do task wise its also customer service. For example: If you have a bad experience or a situation with a customer at one job you are more prepared at your next job for the same kind of event so it does transfer. Who is to say the speed at which you put a sandwhich together at Mcdonalds does not assist in hand eye coordination and benefit in putting a car part together at a potential car parts job as a mechanic in the future?blakfyahking wrote: »if the experience really matters, then why can't workers transfer those skills anywhere else except for other MW jobs?
Less employees who can do more work make the company more money and deserve to earn higher wages. This debate has never been about how many jobs Mcdonalds can provide. Its about the compensation that it gives its current worker, lets try and stay on topic here...blakfyahking wrote: »so you want less employees that are better trained? I'm not sure what your goal is here fam
you want less cats to have a job so more folks will need assistance? LOL you don't seen how you are contradicting yourself?
-
gotdayum.
-
Uh no, its business. If I helped the next man make that money he owes me some of the profits. Thats how business works. We try not to work the IOU method anymore we need that money yesterday.blakfyahking wrote: »that's not risk unless you believe what is in the next man's pocket belongs to you
You make the boss seem to be under tremendous pressure. The boss has lawyers and lets not for get the boss's company is most likely protected under llc laws. Uh huh you aint risking much. With your attitude a boss is justified in paying his or her employees anything in order to make his or her company profitable. Sorry, but thats not acceptable anymore. Learn to do business correctly and ethically then count the money.blakfyahking wrote: »for a manager as you claim, you have a real twisted view of property rights and how business works
the agreement between an employee and an employer is that as an employee you get consistent benefits based on consistent work but as the boss I get the biggest cut because I'm the one with all the liability
Everyone is...blakfyahking wrote: »I'm the one who's livelihood is really on the line.......
An employee can be sued as well at any given establishment...blakfyahking wrote: »I'm the one who could get sued
Peons invest time and recieve waaaay less money.blakfyahking wrote: »I'm the one who invested my money,
Due to the nature of the Mcdonalds job an employees worth can actually be calculated. Their is an average amount it cost the company to hire a new employee at any given position or level. There is also a way to measure how much each employee will earn for the company in a given amount of time. On average it takes an peon level employee at minimum wage 3-4 months to cover the cost of his/her hiring. Please stop ? to me about turnover and the company having to pay cost. If it were that serious and detrimental Mcdaonalds would have been out of business long long ago.blakfyahking wrote: »I'm the one who takes the L if you find a better job and choose to walk away tomorrow and I got to spend the money to replace you the reason employees are not considered when the company profits is because the employee can leave at any point even tho they are being relied on
Oh, so the bold is your reason #2 to one of my earlier questions. Sorry, this also does not make sense considering any employee at any level can leave the company at anytime. CEO's can resign and board members can retire.
-
So a ? victim is not a victim? People like to take phrases and run with them like "Victim Mentality".blakfyahking wrote: »thank you for admitting that you see these grown adults as helpless victims
we have already seen what victim mentality gets you in the end
Does not mean you are not a victim of systems in place. I actually just went to wiki and look what I found about victim mentality:Unemployment or dissatisfaction with current employment: Many people really are victims of an unfair socio-economic system or a poor educational background.People with victim mentality are not victims in that real sense. Instead, they may have a good background and skills but miss opportunities because of an exaggerated fear of taking risks or experimenting with something new.
So you think these workers at Mickey D's are the ones with good backgrounds and skills? lol
I was saying your not taking down the arches under agreement...blakfyahking wrote: »the bolded can be done so I don't get what you are saying........those policies you mentioned are part of the franchise agreement once the franchise agreement is broken, McDs is pretty much irrelevant to the business owner
And that why Mcdonalds is not an ethical corp and why the top 1% continue to thrive and hoard money... Mcdonalds gets its royalties though they not struggling getting any payments dont front...blakfyahking wrote: »but McDs has no incentive to do the bolded when they know it would just squeeze the franchise owners
that means it would be harder for them to extract royalties if their franchisees are struggling
Huh? I did live it. I had no problem working there and made good money for the hours I worked. I did not like the hours so I moved on. Had nothing to do with being under paid or labor. I'm just particular that way. I work any job management or factory. I just recognize what pay people deserve and what pay people are willing to take and make my own assessments about those individuals. In the case of workers making more money at Mcdonalds I stand behind them 100%blakfyahking wrote: »yeah, exactly just like I thought.......another ? willing to talk it, but not live it himself haha
Personally I cant stomach Mickey D's. You are not realistic in your awareness of American society these days. The professions people take on are more out of necessity rather than choice. I currently know a girl who lives in a small town near me who has a psychology degree but works at a family dollar making chump change. She does not really have a means to take a job further from her residence and is kind of in a bind when it comes to what she is capable of obtaining vs what she needs right now.blakfyahking wrote: »if you don't treat your own self fairly, how you gon be upset when somebody else doesn't? if you know McD doesn't take care of employees, why would you sign up for that?
and you as a customer, why would you buy ? from a place like that?blakfyahking wrote: »I could say the same about a ? making MW but they got cable TV, the latest Android phone, a pair of Jordans, and 5 kids to feed it all boils down to personal choices.........if you see the MW worker as having an excuse to buy ? they don't need, why is the executive any different? you would think the person with less money would be even more responsible
The exec is not struggling because they have the money to spend on luxuries after paying bills comfortably. Working and receiving a check is a means for the exec to pay off debt
The MW employees sacrifices paying bills to purchase luxuries in attempts to feel happy. Working for MW employee does notpay all of the bills so the attitude becomes I need to do something to make myself happy in spite of the debt digging situation. Its a no win situation for the lesser income employee.blakfyahking wrote: »does it matter what is being bought to put yourself in debt? why is one scenario better than another if both groups are buying unnecessary luxuries?
The point is the MW employee is more likely to be in debt based on what he/she is being paid from cost of living alone not including purchasing any luxuries which can rarely be afforded in the first place.
You did incur less debt... Basic accounting. You Hypothetically negotiated a lesser royalty fee on achieving a lesser amount of sales that were estimated by the company.blakfyahking wrote: »the bolded makes no sense, that is NOT basic accounting
I'm no genius but terms for anything can be negotiated. I know its standard but a good business person gives him/herself options. MW is standard and an employee can negotiate that he/she does not deserve such a low pay based on skill and experience and education for begining a new job, so standards really are not set in stone.blakfyahking wrote: »if you knew anything about franchise agreements, you would know that they are pretty much standard and they are already based on percentages.........so I don't see what financial gain you are referring toblakfyahking wrote: »a financial gain is transferable.....if you didn't incur a debt that is minimized or gain a credit that can spent somewhere else, then a financial gain doesn't exist ( I do taxes as well bruh don't even try to go there with me haha) you have exposed yourself as not really know wtf you are talking about
Your looking at it from a tax accountants point of view but infact you did incur a debt that was minimized... The royalty was decreased making the debt smaller. Thats a fixed cost negotiated to a variable cost... Lesser liability is not taxable as a financial gain no, but its still a win win for the company who now has more flexiblity. That flexibility is margin increase. Any increase in profit margin is an improvement in profitability.blakfyahking wrote: »but there really isn't any negotiation when it comes to a standard agreement..........what you think you gon tell McD how ? gon go at your store when they got plenty of other franchisees under the same agreement already? LOL
So you just advise people to shut the ? up and take the deal given with no back talk and do their books telling them nothing can be gained from decreasing cost? You the worst business consultant ever, lol.... -
Nah you didnt... You see my accuracy when it comes to these numbers!blakfyahking wrote: »
I meant redo your math figuratively........on risk alone that isn't an attractive dealblakfyahking wrote: »the bolded is what naive workers on the bottom think
when that lawsuit comes in or when it's time to do some planning, bosses do all the heavy lifting that make it possible for your organization to exist
The lawsuit is taken care of by lawyers... So you got planning? we talking about planning? I'm suppose to be the franchise worker and we sitting here talking about planning, lol... C'mon man we talking about planning. Not the job I get up everyday and work my ass off for? we talking about planning. What is we talking about?
I'm jealous because I think hard work deserves more pay? Next thing you gonna tell me is that music artist are greedy for wanting more money from record industry execs who work so hard to be able to provide the music the ARTIST MAKES to everyone else...blakfyahking wrote: »the fact that you care about making the existing jobs more lucrative but not worried about creating more jobs just shows that you got your hand in the next man's pocket cause you are jealous.........you got a golddigging ? 's view on life
You getting emotional bruh... Everybody should work hard no exceptions not even for elitist ? you align yourself with...blakfyahking wrote: »instead of building you'd just rather take a handout..........you'd rather have these workers sitting at home completely relying on welfare instead of striving to work hard to the benefit of everyone.........but eventually, you'll run out of other people's money to rely on hahablakfyahking wrote: »going back to the math.........remember that $60K in net profit?
well if you just pay those 10 employees just an extra $3 an hour, that's an extra $62K that franchise owner has to pay out of pocket
Have 3 workers do 3 jobs a piece instead of having10 workers you can get by with 4 while the 3 make more money for doing more work and the fourth makes the minimum for doing only one job.
10x MW or 3 times (MW plus 3) +1MW... what makes sense to you?
A good business person/owner knows how to profit even with paying higher wages... I agree with the boldblakfyahking wrote: »so if you only getting $60K in net profit from your store, now as an owner you'd have to pay an extra $2K out of you own pocket just to keep your store running........but you really think someone with good business sense is gon sign up for that? yeah champ (I mean scamp haha) we're done here........go play
-
Problem is, good paying jobs with degrees are scarce these days. Even trade work is getting harder to find.
