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
-
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 strugglingblakfyahking 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 explainblakfyahking 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 -
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?blakfyahking wrote: »explain how you would apply that for a line worker at McDblakfyahking 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 laborblakfyahking 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 jobsblakfyahking wrote: »if the experience really matters, then why can't workers transfer those skills anywhere else except for other MW jobs?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.
-
blakfyahking wrote: »that's not risk unless you believe what is in the next man's pocket belongs to youblakfyahking 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 liabilityblakfyahking wrote: »I'm the one who's livelihood is really on the line.......blakfyahking wrote: »I'm the one who could get suedblakfyahking wrote: »I'm the one who invested my money,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.
-
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? lolblakfyahking 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 ownerblakfyahking 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 strugglingblakfyahking wrote: »yeah, exactly just like I thought.......another ? willing to talk it, but not live it himself hahablakfyahking 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.blakfyahking wrote: »the bolded makes no sense, that is NOT basic accountingblakfyahking 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.... -
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?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 lifeblakfyahking 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?blakfyahking 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.