Anyone work in food service?. I'm a strong believer that everyone should work a service job for at least two years of their life so that maybe they can start re
Click to expand

Anyone work in food service?

Anyone work in food service?. I'm a strong believer that everyone should work a service job for at least two years of their life so that maybe they can start re

I'm a strong believer that everyone should work a service job for at least two years of their life so that maybe they can start respecting people.

00 an hour
just to auto
Dickie on .'it." bun
when ', FIJI]
I Angelica ‘shared Right Wing News' s photo.
MIIMII an hour to deal with lines out to the road during times
when the receipts for some orders are long enough to go up to
your forearm, only to be yelled at as you give the customers their
orders because l took too long.
15. 00 an hour to get splashed with hot grease all day.
15. 00 an hour to burn yourself on the grill because you' re
rushing to cook enough product in the middle ofa rush.
15. 00 an hour to spend summer afternoons roasting in a kitchen
where NC doesn' t matter because you' re surrounded by hat
grills and heated tables.
15. 00 an hour to deal with assholes who ask for fries with no
salt and then wonder why they have to wait.
15. 00 an hour to learn how to make at least ten different kinds
of sandwiches and seven different kinds of wraps.
15. 00 an hour to earn close to a living wage with a job that cuts
your hours to barely 12 hours a week.
15. 00 an hour to cater to customers who don' t believe you
deserve a decent wage, even as you give them their food with El
Lastly, let' s not forget the fifteen ******* dollars an hour to put
that pickle on your ******* bun, you ungrateful asshats.
If you don' t think workers deserve a decent wage, be
sure to tell them that before you place your order, you piece of
Mt: Trash.
  • Recommend tagsx
Views: 35363
Favorited: 54
Submitted: 03/07/2014
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to doktorschnabel submit to reddit


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - ubercookieboy ONLINE (03/07/2014) [-]
I don't actually understand why people treat fast food employees like that.

It's quite depressing.
User avatar #25 to #1 - lavitts (03/08/2014) [-]
Just be nice, smile back, and be understanding.
#11 to #1 - Rascal (03/07/2014) [-]
probably because absolutely none of the points he made were ******* valid! oh noess they have to work in hot conditions WAAHHHH OH NO U SPLASHED URE SELF WITH GREASE! be more ******* careful its boiling grease u **** monkey! and OMG learning 17 simple as **** recipes! that sure is hard!! and OMG having to deal with customers!!? wow that must be like the ONLY job that ever has to deal with that! thats a few reasons why the get treated like that!
#18 to #11 - Rascal (03/07/2014) [-]
You forgot to log in faggot.
#16 to #11 - Rascal (03/07/2014) [-]
As someone who works in fast food, I would like everyone to know that poeple that think like you should be dipped in acid dick first.
#24 to #16 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
so then when you go to a waterpark or amusement park dont be assholes to the lifeguards and ride attendants (usually the same thing at a waterpark) making 8.50 an hour to be qualified to save lives just because people are trying to "have fun". fast food isnt the only job that you have to deal with 			********		. congrats you have a rough job. welcome to life.   
sincerely, a waterpark lifeguard with multiples saves
so then when you go to a waterpark or amusement park dont be assholes to the lifeguards and ride attendants (usually the same thing at a waterpark) making 8.50 an hour to be qualified to save lives just because people are trying to "have fun". fast food isnt the only job that you have to deal with ******** . congrats you have a rough job. welcome to life.
sincerely, a waterpark lifeguard with multiples saves
#410 to #24 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
Waterpark lifeguard, so hard. 8C You have to sit on your ass and tell people when it's okay to go down slides.
#146 to #24 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
How about instead of having a pissing match over who has the worst minimum wage job you actually try and do something to get a ******* living wage for those positions? Seriously, no ******* wonder you guys still make $8.50 or less, you won't shut up about "Who has the worst conditions."
User avatar #61 to #1 - cupcakescankill ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
We as a culture see fast food employees as the lowest as the low.

Most of us are raised being told that you should go to school or else you'll end up working at mcdonald's.

Also some people are entitled assholes.
#92 to #61 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
hah, try working as a pharmacy technicion getting screamed at professionally, earning 9 dollars base pay and 12 if you study enough to pass national certification. oh and current culture expects everything instantly so we're required to say "15 minutes or less if you're waiting in the store" regardless of how freakishly busy we are. Screamed at because dr never called script in/script that was called in 5 minutes ago isnt ready/insurance isnt right/something isnt covered/dr denied refill renewal on your vicodin because when you go through a 30 day supply in a week, somethings wrong

have you ever seen the look in the eyes of a woman being told we can't ethically fill her "lost" xanax for the third time this month? its not a comforting look.

i joke with my coworkers about quitting to go to mcdonalds because really they get paid more and we put up with more abusive assholes at the pharmacy
#507 to #1 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
I once was in a queue where there was an asshat at the front taking the piss out of the fast food lady (17, 8/10, petite). She seemed on the verge of tears.

Out of nowhere, this Golem of a man appears out of nowhere, lifts asshat in the air, throws him out, and says to the cashier "Hey madam, you're doing a brilliant job. If you can serve this gentleman (pointing at me) while I have a word with the gentleman that has been defenestrated, that would be brilliant."
#548 to #1 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
Iguess I have no idea where the rage to raise minimum to $15 is. I work as a ****** janitor for a grocery store, my day consists of cleaning up sh*t, puke, cleaning all the floors in a 90000 sq ft store. I get paid $11 per hour, and this is after 6 years of dealing with all this, I started at $6.25. If the minimum is raised that will yet again make all my past work completly usless. I say if u want higher pay work somewhere longer instead of changing jobs every 2 months and expecting more money.
#87 to #1 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
I worked in fast food all through high school and a bit in college. Honestly, all of this **** does happen, but the job is not a $15 dollar job. Yeah, I did not get a raise in 5 years which was ******** , but if you think for a second working at McDonalds means you should make more than someone doing much hard physical labor then you should go do their job before you bitch. Raising your ******* wages to 15 dollars will just mean rasing minimum wage in which all prices will raise to meet it if not higher. This means your raise will just be a self esteem boost and you could be ******* worse off for it.
User avatar #169 to #1 - reginleif ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]

Your waifu is **** , and she's used goods.

Ok now for my completely factual statement. :/ It is my belief (all of which are facts btw) that the reason why we would be treat fast food employees poorly is because....we can.

Before you get on me for stating the obvious, what you think I meant isn't what I meant. We can do many things, but in this case we can do them AND GET AWAY with it. Look at fast food employees, they're the lowest of the low.... they have minimal skills, very few of them useful outside of of a hypothetical ff joint, if they had many marketable skills do you think they'd be working there? for anyone about to be offended chill, im describing a stereotype, what people think . This guy/girl/trannie/asexual carbon based life form/ can't hurt me in any possible way, UNLIKE a DMV secretary or the EVEN SLOWER guy who works at the College Bursar's register who can "lose" my applications... get it?

Ever seen those shows/situations where someone is rude or mean to a stranger on the street and later it turn out to be the new regional manager or something like that? No chance of that at McDonald's he isn't going to hurt or help me in any way other than giving me their McMuffin.

And say I make a big scene.... maybe get my ass kicked out for life? Not a big deal man there's like 4 other Mcdonald's on that street alone, if I want a burger I can get a burger. You think I'd pull this **** at the DMV or at a college? No because not only are they not affected by my lack of purchase of their services (that are either mandatory or important to me) but they're either the only game in town or there's only like 1 or 2 places I can go.

You ever hear this quote?
" If you want to see the true measure of a man, watch how he treats his inferiors, not his equals. "

-JK Rowling Harry Potter.

it's sorta true in this situation.
User avatar #352 to #169 - kombee (03/08/2014) [-]
True. The ting is that a large margin of these people defend this kind of practice, one way or another. It's sad really, but I'm really glad this post happened. I've always thought that people should have an appropriate amount of money in relaation to the amount of work they do (or atleast a fair amount in comparison to what is available). The idea that Fast-Food workers don't deserve a respectable pay simply because it's the lowest in the hierarchy is stupid in my opinion. It's an unskilled labour yes, but it's a hard one that atleast requires a fair pay. This goes for Super Market workers and other unskilled but hard labours as well.
#703 to #352 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
I think 10/hr is a good wage for them. You're right about earning a little more to survive. But when a fry cook earns more than me (I'm an Sheet Metal Apprentice) there's a problem. I mean lunch rush must hard and all but installing 5' by 5' ductwork 30' in the air is probably a lot more difficult and should earn a little more. I started at 10 and worked my way up. They should be able to do the same and get out of a dead end job like that. It sort of boils down to not advancing in their career. It's like some of them almost choose to stay in fast food
#636 to #169 - theplogyr (03/08/2014) [-]
"" If you want to see the true measure of a man, watch how he treats his inferiors, not his equals. "

-JK Rowling Harry Potter. "

The fact that you attribute this quote to JK Rowling shows how little you understand art.
User avatar #669 to #636 - reginleif ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
And surprisingly I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

I googled it, and found it was attributed to one of her HP books. But please feel free to add any commentary.

User avatar #690 to #669 - ccben (03/08/2014) [-]
It was originally Rev. Charles Bayard Miliken. in the 1900's
#607 to #169 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
That's still not an excuse to do it though...

Also don't piss off the people that handle your food. I'm sure if you went in with that attitude you will have an extra "sauce" on your burger.
User avatar #414 to #169 - therollingstones (03/08/2014) [-]
Good point, good quote
#199 to #1 - xboxmeow (03/08/2014) [-]
Mfw its the same 			****		 at my job and all the 			*******		 indian men think theyre always right and wont listen to me whem they ask where 			****		 is. (grocerie store)
Mfw its the same **** at my job and all the ******* indian men think theyre always right and wont listen to me whem they ask where **** is. (grocerie store)
#581 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
>living in greece
>tfw $15/hr sounds like the wage of the gods
User avatar #52 - LtMcG ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
You can be easily replaced as a fast food worker. It's simple. The moment you leave, they can put up a help needed sign and hundreds of others who simply seeking a job (young adults, teens, and immigrants) will take it within a second.

Accept the fact as a fast food worker, you are dispensable.
#544 to #52 - bobbysnobby (03/08/2014) [-]
While true, its also not a very productive kind of thinking. We have lots of jobs in the US which are only sustainable through the government supporting it. We could look at lots of portions of our agricultural system which would not exist if the government didnt price set, and give incentives to produce. So there is a history of the US supporting industries and workers even when the "market" determines that those things are not worth more.

The reasons given to not raise the wadges are not because of economic pressures, its that it would cut into the salaries and bonuses of the upper management. It is their company they can do what they want within the limits of the law, but lets not pretend things arent as they are.
#45 - erawrozar (03/08/2014) [-]
I still can't believe there's an argument for this. I work at Winners and Homesense and just barely make above minimum wage. The customer pains of fast food is a ******* joke compared to cheap retailers, we have dozens to over a hundred customers in our store during the evening hours all grabbing and throwing our **** all over the place. Which we need to completely clean before leaving at the end of the day. We only have 1 associate in each major area by themselves so it's a constant rush to keep the area in order. Try doing this while customers request your help with something that takes up to 15 minutes of your time and being called up as a cashier when the lines grow too long. It's so bad to the point where you question taking your break cause you know how ****** up everything will be from customers when you come back. While the job requires a lot of work, it doesn't require a lot of skill and I understand that.

You want to be paid $15 an hour for a ******* job that requires a week or 2 at most of training and that almost anyone can get. No **** you're gonna be dealing with stupid customers, almost every entry level job requires you to do that. All those points don't even sound like you want a raise, it sounds more like you want a better job.

MFW "$15.00 an hour to learn how to make at least ten different kinds of sandwiches and seven different kinds of wraps."
#54 to #45 - chipacobra (03/08/2014) [-]
fifteen is steep, honestly if they raised it to twelve fifty an hour i'd be content, we really shouldn't be divided on this though. all entry level jobs suck.
User avatar #62 to #45 - warlordstuart ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
most factory jobs dons even pay $15 an hour. I worked at Honda on night shift 2 days a week making maybe $13.50/hour and managed to budget our enough money for gas, tuition, electric, internet, food, and rent for my wife and daughter. granted, i live in a crappy low budget apartment and we conserve electricity like its water on mars but damnit thats how you have to live sometimes.

$15 an hour is BS, especially for a low skill job.
User avatar #535 to #45 - hoponthefeelstrain ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
In fast food places you have to constantly sweep and mop, and god forbid you turn around for 3 seconds to put up a sign because if you don't put the sign up fast enough, someone will "slip" and sue the building. You have customers constantly leaving their food because they feel like they shouldn't have to throw their stuff away, you have sticky kids running around throwing their food and the parents pretending not to notice. You have filthy toilets (I've had to clean a whole turd off of a toilet once.) Working cashier you have people who order **** then try and tell you they didn't order it. Or the menu is right above them and they've been in line for ******* 15 minutes and still don't know what they want. Customers are **** people
#623 to #45 - kez (03/08/2014) [-]
The thing is though.

Anyone could do that
#34 - hellraizr (03/08/2014) [-]
God dammit, raising minimum wage isnt the answer, that just raises everyones bottom line and the price of goods and services go up as a result, so in the end you have achieved nothing. Tax low income people less, tax rich investors and ceos with multimillion dollar salaries ALOT more. You dont need a ******* marina full of yachts and you sure dont need three summer homes or a private jet when a majority of the people in the country are struggling to make ends meet.
#37 to #34 - theism ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
You understand most companies could afford to charge a good bit less for the products they produce, right?
#38 to #37 - hellraizr (03/08/2014) [-]
Yes, I do, and who is benefiting from the larger profit margin? not the guys on the bottom rung, obviously. Intentionally cutting into their own profits? Not likely to happen.
#39 to #38 - theism ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
What I'm saying is the minimum wage going up wouldn't necessarily make goods more expensive.
#40 to #39 - hellraizr (03/08/2014) [-]
Admitted, but profits is all that matters to the upper echelons. They see a drop in the line graph and some **** is going to hit the fan somewhere in the company.
#41 to #40 - theism ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
But a significant price increase isn't going to help them. If fast food is too expensive people won't buy it.
#55 to #41 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
If minimum wage is higher than the people most likely to buy fastfood will have money to waste on one prices will rise.
#43 to #41 - hellraizr (03/08/2014) [-]
But they have more money as a result of the minimum wage increase. You do realize a hamburger at mcdonalds used to be like fifty cents or something like that? Inflation is inflation, its a cycle and thats how it works. You have more money, you can afford to pay a liiiitle bit more for the royale wi' cheese, but the nickels and dimes and up (for both the consumer and the company) and before you know it youre back where you started. Broke, because you have to pay more than (what i consider to be) your fair share of Uncle Sams bills.
#44 to #43 - theism ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
Well at the moment the minimum wage hasn't risen to match inflation and productivity increases. Very likely a bump to the minimum wage won't significantly affect prices.
#47 to #44 - hellraizr (03/08/2014) [-]
Then raising minimum wage is at best a temporary fix. Even if that is not the case, why should a person be allowed to amass unheard of amounts of wealth while the rest of us toil in obscurity and misery? Working all of our lives to barely (if at all) get ahead while some limp assnuts rakes in the cash for A. Cutthroats business practices B. Playing a god damn game?
Then comes retirement and you dont have any breathing room in your budget, god forbid you should need medical help (affordable care my rotten ass). The point is the better solution is still to take a little more from those who cane afford to lose it and take a little less from those who cant and everyone is a little better off. But with money comes influence so we cant have that now can we?

Also a **** job is a **** job because its a **** job. Its not supposed to be fun or make you comfortable with your life, its supposed to be a stepping stone to greater things in your life. It is most definitely not supposed to make you well off.
#161 to #47 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
How about the idea that people don't choose **** jobs for fun, they choose them because there are no other options. Seriously, it's not a hard thing to understand. The job market is not set up so you can say "Hmm, neurobiologist or busboy? I think I'll go for busboy." you take the work you can get and if your luck is ****** enough that you can't afford a degree, or you can and there are no jobs, you're stuck with whatever menial piece of **** job you can get

I once knew a cap driver who worked near a university. He looked to be about the age of a student, so we asked him if he went to university. He said that he had already graduated with a phD in physics. Physics. There were no positions within miles of the place, and the guy had to drive around just to make ends meet until he could find something.
User avatar #262 to #161 - rattybastard ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
let me give you a hint; people don't get PHDs to make money. You want to make money off a degree, you stop at masters. There are fields where if you get a PHD they can no longer hire you due to your extended education. Physics is one of them. If you are not doing research, or found a place to be a professor, then you are screwed.
#178 to #161 - hellraizr (03/08/2014) [-]
Ill admit you have a point there, although dealing in the extremes of "neurobiologist v busboy" is a little much for my taste.
There are always options, it just depends on how hard you are willing to work for what you really want? If you give up at busboy but are still unhappy, well thats life, either keep trying for something better or deal with it. Im not exactly brimming with funds but i have a job I love on the career path that Ive always wanted and thats a great start for me. Im not complaining, and it took a few years and some hard ******* work to get here (as i feel it should have)
Sometimes you have to travel, especially if you have a particular skillset you are determined to employ that isnt exactly in high demand, i.e. a Ph D in physics.
User avatar #300 to #34 - hawaiianhappysauce (03/08/2014) [-]
Where is Pebar when you need him. The reality is that if fast food people make 15 dollars per hour then that will completely flush out people who are 21 and under from getting a part time job. Businesses will not profit or grow. The reality is that these jobs are NOT MEANT for people who are parents. They were originally for people who are high school kids. But now that the market is absolute **** older people are taking these jobs. And I really mean it when I say the job market is **** , there are no jobs out there (for american's at least).

The reason for this is the H1-B Visas and moving offshore. I've applied to many companies where I've noticed that they have quarters in India and/or China. Basically that means there is no chance in hell you are going to work for that company because they are only going to hire cheap labor from those two countries. They are also going to hire people with H1-B visas because they are willing to work for less.

So when people say "do engineering because you will get a job." It's really ******** . The engineering jobs are getting sucked out of America and moved toward India. The finance jobs are also moving toward India.

So what jobs are left? Nothing that requires a degree.
User avatar #451 to #34 - bitchesbanthymine (03/08/2014) [-]
Yes, dictate what people should need and punish the more successful for earning more money. Taxing the rich a higher percentage than the poor is just tilting the playing field so the ******** team can win.
User avatar #643 to #451 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/08/2014) [-]
>implying the very wealthy in this country earned their money
I love it when the proletariat defend their bourgeoisie masters against those mean old socialists.
#527 to #34 - bobbysnobby (03/08/2014) [-]
Your assumption is that the companies are like operating at nonprofit levels just keeping the water line above the employment costs which is just not true. Walmart for example could pay their employees 20 dollars an hour and the company would have no difficulty with that and they would not need to alter prices, they would need to change some of the places the money goes but when Walmart has to lay off workers yet CEOs and high management are getting bonuses in the multiples of millions you know its not because the company doesnt have the finances for employees.

User avatar #547 to #34 - amsel ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
Raising taxes for the rich doesn't really solve anything either. The richest tax bracket already gets taxed at about 50%, plus most of them are rich because of their stake in corporations, and America has the highest Corporate tax rate in the world (around 35%). Capital gains tax in America is also one of the highest (at around 15%), which means any money made from the stock market is being taxed at 15%. What would be the point of working harder, spending the money upfront to start a business, or investing your hard-earned money in businesses if you know the government will tax everything over a certain amount away from you anyways? And if nobody is investing in new business, we can't support the expanding job market from people working longer before retirement and a growing population. Not to mention, a lot of the poorest people are just lazy. Obviously not all of them; there are people who simply got dealt the shortest straw, but a reasonable portion of the people we support with welfare programs have no intention of trying to support themselves. There's actually a HUGE shortage of truck drivers right now, but not enough people want to drive a truck for a living (despite the ridiculous unemployment rates).

TL;DR: It's way more complicated than that. Raising the minimum wage is not the answer, but neither is raising taxes to punish the people who already contribute the most.
User avatar #630 to #547 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/08/2014) [-]
The rich have gaping tax loopholes that allow them to pay far, far less in taxes than the rest of America, so I agree that raising taxes would be useless with them still in place, and it would be far more effective. Additionally, corporate taxes are at the lowest point in recent history in America and companies still aren't hiring people or investing in their businesses, and instead just pocket the extra profit. They also have gaping tax loopholes and tax breaks that usually make their effective taxes lower than what the average American pays. The best solution here would be to close the loopholes and get rid of tax breaks so that these people and entities pay the taxes they are supposed to instead of using their wealth to skirt responsibility.
User avatar #738 to #630 - amsel ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
What? America's corporate tax rates are the highest in the world. Nobody has any loopholes. Whoever is telling you this is trying to convince you of something.
User avatar #746 to #738 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/08/2014) [-]
They're lowest of any time in American history. I didn't say they were the lowest in the world.

There are many loopholes. Deductions from the government for moving expenses, which also covers moving operations overseas, "last in, first out" accounting, where you're only taxed on your profit based off of current market prices, not the actual profit you made, deductions for punitive damages, tax write offs for luxury items such as golf carts, changing your country of residence or country in which the company is based in, offshore tax havens, using separate legal entities to hold your income and property, the list goes on and on. I can post more if you would like.
User avatar #769 to #746 - amsel ONLINE (03/09/2014) [-]
Still not true:

And none of those are loopholes; they're laws that are there to encourage various types of spending. Rich people and poor people can write off the exact same things. And the only reason companies look to relocate overseas is because the tax rate and minimum wage is so much higher here.
User avatar #553 to #34 - undeadwill (03/08/2014) [-]
How will taxing people who invest in business and are well functioning in the economy help those who didn't get a blue collar job because "That's hard work" or learn that by investing and saving they can retire well so long as they never use the money they saved till retirement.
I mean the blue collar field has had major shortages and no matter how hard you think your job is if twelve more people can do for less its not that valuable.

When you tax investors they stop investing leading to companies that help give you the goods and services you enjoy with quality assurance at low prices will be forced else where or to quit.

You need to create wealth not move money around.
User avatar #642 to #553 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/08/2014) [-]
The blue collar field often has huge work shortages because you can't support a family by working those jobs since they pay **** . If you pay a decent wage then people will work there and they will work their asses off to keep the jobs. If you pays **** then you will get **** workers and few people will want to work there as a result. A great example of this is meatpacking: the meatpacking industry used to be an excellent career with good wages that you could support a family on, safe working conditions, a strong union, and great benefits, and everybody wanted to be a meatpacking worker as a result, and their work was excellent because they wanted to keep their jobs. Somewhere along the line meatpacking companies realized (again) that they could pay their workers **** and pocket the profits, and now meatpacking pays **** , is one of the dangerous jobs in America, and only the most poor and desperate take the jobs and do a ****** job at it since the pay isn't worth good work. The same thing has happened to other blue collar jobs since companies realize that they can pay workers **** for a lower quality of work and just pocket the profits. Good luck investing in retirement off of ten dollars an hour, if you're lucky.

This job creator "trickle down" **** has been tried since Reagan and has been proven to not work. Many corporations are posting record profits and have the lowest tax rate in recent history, but they do not hire more people (part of this is that a company won't hire people they don't need), they just pocket the profits. We are creating a lot of wealth in this country, we're just doing it for those who are already wealthy.
#735 to #642 - pebar ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
Thomas Sowell - Tax Cuts For The Rich That "trickle down **** " does not exist. Nobody advocates for that. No economist defends it. No politician pushes for it. It is a straw man argument used by the left to demonize the right. The idea of lowing taxes for the rich is to get rich people to actually pay it instead of driving them away to foreign countries. It's a method to INCREASE TAX REVENUE. It is not giving rich people money so that they can invest.

There is no shortage of blue collar jobs. If there was a shortage, wages would be higher because firms compete for workers. If the job was dangerous, that drives workers away and firms would either have to increase conditions or pay higher wages. When "everybody wants to be a meat packer hue ," that drives down wages because people are willing to work for a lower wage than the other guy.
User avatar #743 to #735 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/08/2014) [-]
Supply side economics, also called trickle down, is heavily advocated for in modern politics. In my opinion, a better way to get the rich to pay the taxes would be to close the loopholes that you could drive a truck through, rather than lowering them so the rich "decide" to follow the law that the rest of the people do. However, your opinion is just as valid that lowering the taxes would be a better incentive.

There's a shortage of blue collar American workers for those jobs due to the low wage and dangerous conditions, which leads many companies like the meatpackers to turn to illegal or migrant workers to fill the shortage, rather than raising wages or improving conditions. Your idea is great in theory, but with the reality of companies freely being able to hire illegals it does not work in practice.
User avatar #747 to #743 - pebar ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
John Stossel - Regulation Strangulation "Trickle down" not supply side economics you ******* .

Supply side economics would be something like simplifying the tax code because a mountain of complex laws increase the cost of business. There a so many regulations new business simply can't deal with it. Government regulation is the reason for the massive inequality because only the rich can deal with it. The unnecessarily high cost of business is the reason for 5% natural rate of unemployment.
User avatar #751 to #747 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/08/2014) [-]
You're not very good at arguing your points. Insulting somebody who disagrees with you is no way to prove you are right, nor does it do anything to convince them that you are.

They're one and the same. Another example of implementing supply side economics would be to reduce taxes and regulations as an incentive to hire and produce more, which is what trickle down economics is. Please explain to me how government regulations have caused income inequality, I don't see how that is possible.
User avatar #754 to #751 - pebar ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
Regulations often come with special privileges from government to people who are well connected.
User avatar #759 to #754 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/08/2014) [-]
I won't deny that that is a frequent problem, but that doesn't make all inherently bad.
User avatar #753 to #751 - pebar ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
There is nothing to argue, your facts are just wrong. There is no such thing as "trickle down" economics
User avatar #755 to #753 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/08/2014) [-]
Trickle down economics are when you lower taxes to encourage people to hire more, invest more in their business, and produce more goods, and supply side economics says to lower taxes, regulations, and other barriers so that people produce more goods, hire more workers, and invest more in their business. It's a different name for the same idea.
User avatar #758 to #755 - pebar ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
Unless you mean letting businesses keep their own money that they can use for expanding, then yes. It's just not using tax dollars (like bail outs) to fund it.
User avatar #757 to #755 - pebar ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
The argument for lowering taxes is to try to get rich people to actually pay them instead of running off to some tax haven. You will actually increase your tax revenue. This happened every time taxes were lower.
The bit about lowering barriers is true. Often times certain industries have government help to keep competition away. It is to get more people into the industry itself. It is not giving companies money that they will spend. No economist supports that. That's cronyism. Pro freedom =/= pro business
User avatar #761 to #757 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/08/2014) [-]
I've seen it used numerous times in the current political climate as a way to make America more appealing to job creators, rather than as a way to get them to actually pay their taxes. As I said before, I feel that closing tax loopholes would be a good way to get the same result.

It is true. A good example is the telecom companies which have the government supporting their oligarchy that crushes most competition. However, lowering taxes for companies isn't giving them money, it's the same mindset as above: if the climate in America is more appealing then they are more likely to do more business here. I did not mean bail outs or anything like that.
User avatar #764 to #761 - pebar ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
Taxing Corporations - Dr. Milton Friedman I think there may be a misunderstanding.
Taxing business =/= taxing the rich

Supply side economics advocates reducing taxes on business. If you haven't watched any of my videos, at least watch this one; it's only 5 mins.
Reducing taxes on the rich is a separate issue.
User avatar #733 to #642 - undeadwill (03/08/2014) [-]
"Wealth" I don't think you understand what that word means.

But is profit a bad thing? And people aren't hiring because government regulation has created monopolies where larger firms have the knowledge and resources to deal with the regulation where smaller firms can not. Leading to the government as the means to wipe out competition.

The issue in America is not taxes, its spending and our declining GDP. Raising taxes along with complicating the tax code only serves to expand the divide between rich and poor.

Again you have not proven how keeping taxes high will solve anything.
User avatar #736 to #733 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/08/2014) [-]
I understand fully what it means.

Profit isn't a bad thing, but an unbridled pursuit of profit is always bad for the people, as history has shown. Protecting your workers and paying them well is bad for the bottom line, so most do not do it.

What regulation is slowing them down? Environmental? Worker protections? A nebulous justification is weak, give specifics.

I hate it when people say one thing is the solution here. This is a crazy idea, but have you ever thought that both closing tax loopholes AND cutting spending is the smartest idea, not doing either or? It would be the most effective strategy to reduce spending and increase revenue. It's unclear as to how closing tax loopholes would increase income disparity.

Cutting revenue won't help anything, and will exacerbate the problem. Any spending cuts will be offset by revenue cuts, which doesn't solve **** and only benefits the really wealthy who would see a significant increase in wealth from a few percent tax cut.
User avatar #748 to #736 - undeadwill (03/08/2014) [-]
This is a crazy idea, but have you ever thought that both closing tax loopholes AND cutting spending is the smartest idea, not doing either or?
That is exactly what I said would work. But as a consequence we should lower taxes as we will not need them if we cut both spending and loopholes.
And whose to say that I don't want tax cuts across the board?
User avatar #750 to #748 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/08/2014) [-]
Ah, I must have missed that point' sorry.. I wouldn't be opposed to possible lowering taxes as well if it was shown that the lowering would be far offset by the increase of revenue from closing the taxing loopholes.
User avatar #740 to #736 - pebar ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
The pursuit of profit in a system of voluntary exchange is the best method to motivate people to work. HISTORY HAS SHOWN that the best economic expansion the world has ever seen came from allowing the pursuit of profit.

Regulation increases the cost of business, plain and simple. Companies can not expand and they cannot employ new workers. Over regulation is a bad thing. This is especially true when only the largest firms can deal with hem because it drives out competition.
User avatar #756 to #740 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/08/2014) [-]
History has also shown that some of the worst worker conditions ever seen came from allowing the pursuit of profit. It's just as likely to produce one as it is the other.

Over regulation is a bad thing, I don't think many people argue otherwise, but that doesn't mean that all regulation is bad. Many regulations, such as environmental and worker protections, are a necessary evil to ensure the safety of Americans.
User avatar #760 to #756 - pebar ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
Not all regulation, no.
Just regulation that unnecessarily increases the cost of business, such as forcing a company to pay for someone's healthcare; all this does is stops a company from hiring because it's too expensive.
Also there is regulation that protects certain industries from outside competition.
The recent financial crisis can be directly blamed on regulation because banks and lenders were forced by regulators to provide housing loans to risky people who could not afford them.
User avatar #762 to #760 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/08/2014) [-]
We're not disagreed there, especially on government protections for companies that artificially support their position at the top of the market.

You're getting into a realm that I don't have much knowledge in, but wasn't the recent financial collapse caused by Clinton passing a bill that removed regulations on subprime lending which freed banks to do so?
User avatar #763 to #762 - pebar ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
It's pretty complicated, but the beginning of the housing thing started before Clinton.

It was a long push to try to increase affordable housing and that drove up prices. As prices were rising, people thought it would be a good idea now to buy because it would be more expensive later; this further drove up prices. This self-feeding frenzy is called a bubble. You often hear news commentators talking about the "housing bubble." When people finally started to sell, the prices dropped. As prices were dropping, people saw that the investment opportunity was over and everybody started to sell at the same time; this sent prices through the floor. This is called the bubble bursting.

The way things are set up, people are allowed to trade loans. Loans are often bundled together and people (not just banks or wall street) will invest on them as a whole. When the housing bubble burst, a lot of people lost a **** ton of money at the exact same time.
User avatar #732 to #642 - undeadwill (03/08/2014) [-]
Oh and pebar, it seems this one needs some education on the workings of business, government and the economy.
User avatar #731 to #642 - undeadwill (03/08/2014) [-]
Then why are they retiring sooner, and getting paid more? I've met many people learned the trade and quickly became a business owner from the trade. And again, blue collar work pays the living wage necessary and you can retire on it.

Meat packing use to be, but soon they could no longer afford all the great union workers and had to close, leading to a massive shortage of meat packing plants, and there were farmers who use to sell directly to meat markets but because regulations were lax. Now regulations are stiff causing farmers to sell to a meat packing plant that can deal with regulations but not, and because of all this the workers are over burdened. Leading to them to try and process more meat quicker which leads to accidents where few use to exist.

Before you point the finger at business try to understand what lead to this change. Because the only thing that has changed was the regulations and government theft but businesses were always trying to pay them as less as possible and still keep them coming to work. So if you are going to claim that greed is something new you are sadly mistaken.
You are so disconnected from business and economics that it is laughable.

Also did you know that we still have train conductors despite not needing as technology basically does their job for them? So why pay them? Because the union demands that they do. So tell me, in a nation where unions have some of the best lobbyists, benefits, authority all while not creating wealth (Something necessary to advance society) how is it they keep losing? Because when a business closes they kill the golden goose.
User avatar #734 to #731 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/08/2014) [-]
I wouldn't call trade jobs blue collar. Electricians, plumbers, and carpenters are all skilled and intelligent labor who almost always have to go to trade school to get their careers.

It wasn't that they could afford it, but they were able to weaken the unions enough to hire cheap immigrant labor since that meant greater profits. When that happened the unions quickly died, along with the quality of the work. Regulations aren't causing increased factory speeds, the desire for increased profits is as greater speed=more money. Again, the drive for increased profits is the cause of the degradation of once lucrative careers.

Government theft? Do you mean taxes? Because those are legal. Greed is nothing new, and a business will always exploit the worker as much as possible unless the workers band together for protection under unions or are provided such protections from the government. If it were not for unions then we would have none of the worker protections that we currently enjoy.

Ah yes, when somebody disagrees with you they don't understand the topic. Don't actually discuss it or consider the possibility that you may be wrong, just stick your fingers in your ears.

Nobody is saying that unions are perfect, but the alternative is zero worker protections and low wages, so they are far better than the alternative for Americans. Unions create wealth by ensuring decent wages to workers, who then consume more products, which increases companies profits, which leads to a healthier economy. You seem to think that wealth creation is only important if it is created for those that already have wealth.
User avatar #744 to #734 - undeadwill (03/08/2014) [-]
Those are blue collar worker, and you don't need to go to school for it.

We always had immigration. And "Quality of work" Excuse me are you saying the immigrants don't work as hard as the people here?

So you are saying that regulations didn't cause more meat packing plants to close? And make it illegal for farmers to sell directly to meat markets?

Capitalism "exploits workers"

"Zero worker protections" The courts are the protection for workers as if someone damages a worker they are to pay that worker damages.

Moving money around does not create wealth. When a company pays more on the cost of doing business, less wealth is created to improve the standard of living, research newer and safer means of working and finally to pay for the expansion of the company.

And yours is to give money to those who do not create wealth, wealth are the goods and services we need when all you do is move money around in an economy it does not create wealth.

You you said "Create wealth in those who are already wealthy" Unlike union bosses who do not give anything to society in the way of goods or services? At least the business creates things of value.
User avatar #737 to #734 - pebar ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
Free to Choose Part 8: Who Protects the Worker Featuring Milton Friedman That "unions and government protect the worker" is horse **** . Competition protects the worker more than unions and government ever could.
Also, there is no exploitation. A company would love to pay a worker as low as possible but they can't. If they did, the worker simply wouldn't work for them they would go to some other company that pays a higher wage.
User avatar #739 to #737 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/08/2014) [-]
Unions (and the subsequent laws they pressured the government to pass) are responsible for the forty hour work week, sick and vacation leave, and a five day work week to name a few. Do those not constitute as protecting the workers?

England in the 1800s was the most anarcho-capitalist economy to have existed, and worker conditions and pay were abysmal. Your point that workers can work at a different company that pays more or treats you better is only valid in periods where there is a worker surplus, which was not the case then and is not the case now. If a worker leaves then he is immediately replaced at the same pay and conditions, and the now jobless person can not find any other work due to so many other unemployed workers. History here supports my views, but not yours.
User avatar #742 to #739 - pebar ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
You have it backwards. Companies continue to try and hire people even at full employment. It is at this time when they raise wages to try and "steal" workers away from other companies.
Being replaced is only true when there is somebody to do the replacing, ie unemployed.

this is called the market clearing
User avatar #745 to #742 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/08/2014) [-]
You didn't actually address my point that unions and the government have made huge strides in worker protections, even though you called the idea "horse **** " earlier.

You're right, and if you reread my comment you will see that I said that your ideas work when there is low unemployment, but unemployment now is very high (the 7% figure is inaccurate since it's just people on unemployment, not all the unemployed) so there is a huge pool of people to replace workers with. A worker surplus means there is no market pressure to raise wages to steal workers or attract them since the workers are going to the companies even with the low wages.
User avatar #749 to #745 - pebar ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
Milton Friedman (the most credible economist you will ever find) addresses that point in the video.

I am aware that the unemployment statistics does not take into account discouraged workers. But it is not always the case that unemployment is so high.
User avatar #752 to #749 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/08/2014) [-]
You'll have to forgive me, but I do not want to spend an hour watching a Youtube video to have one point addressed. Perhaps you would be willing to summarize it for the sake of this discussion.

You're right, and when unemployment is low, your ideas will work. However, unemployment is not low, so implementing your ideas would be an ineffective solution to the current problems that we have.
User avatar #566 to #34 - bothemastaofall (03/08/2014) [-]
People worked hard to make those private jets
User avatar #596 to #34 - klina (03/08/2014) [-]
hello there stalin
#765 to #596 - hellraizr (03/08/2014) [-]
Good day to you comrade! Im not exactly advocating socialism here.
jesus titty ******* christ theres been so many replies to this over the course of a day idk if ill even bother catching up.
User avatar #632 to #596 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/08/2014) [-]
"I don't understand what communism or socialism is." -klina
User avatar #633 to #632 - klina (03/08/2014) [-]
I have zero sense of humor. - nigel
User avatar #635 to #633 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/08/2014) [-]
"I didn't recognize your joke." -Nigel
User avatar #63 to #34 - casualbro (03/08/2014) [-]
Maybe they don't NEED those things, but it's their money, so let them spend it however they want, socialist.
#65 to #63 - hellraizr (03/08/2014) [-]
Im not saying everyone has to be broken down to the same level and live in the same size house and drive the same car etc. etc.
You can live just as comfortably on five million after taxes as you can on twenty million after taxes.
As far as MY/THEIR/YOUR goes, I worked hard for MY money, only to have it taken away against my will and given to causes i dont support. Hmmm
User avatar #131 to #34 - citruslord (03/08/2014) [-]
Actually raising minimum wage solves alot of problems, atleast to a point.
A good video on it. It basically says that while it wouldn't solve everything, and like Futurama's global warming solution, doesn't work forever, but generally raising minimum wage increases employment, I guess because people spend the money they make. More people with disposable income not living paycheck to paycheck means a larger economy.
I think one of the problems here is that some major companies haven't adjusted for inflation on their own, like whats kinda supposed to happen in a free market. they've realized they can get away with paying that low because people will still work for them.
But it kind of falls back to your point, that these major companies find it suitable to penny pinch wherever possible, even if it means dropping benefits and wages, so that they can take as much money for themselves. It's kind of a multifaceted problem centered around greed, but I think raising the minimum wage would alleviate alot of poverty. A figure he points out is that raising minimum wage 10% reduces poverty by 2.5%, not too bad of a figure if true. So raising the minimum wage to about 9$ an hour could knock poverty down about 6-7%, you might have to pay 15 cents more for your big mac, but I think we could manage.
#452 to #131 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
Oh wow. You produced a ******* video. I bet you I could produce 6 that sound just as ******* convincing. I bet you I could produce 10 sources that are from people everyone would consider "reliable" because they come from the government or a university or some such thing. But guess what. They don't prove my point. This is a point of debate because neither side can be sure they are right until the action has been taken. I personally find it far more likely that the prices will rise a couple months after minimum wage is risen, effectively making raising the minimum wage a pointless act. They may have double minimum wage, but the value of a dollar will have been halfed without ever even really affecting the money supply.
User avatar #730 to #452 - citruslord (03/08/2014) [-]
Check the description on the video, or my comment number 337 for sources.
#329 to #131 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
Sure it alleviates poverty for some, but it drives others out of work, the companies are not going to take smaller pay checks they're just going to fire some workers to compensate for the raise, or fire most workers and go automated. Is it really worth it to drive thousands of people out of work completely just so some burger flippers can make 15 an hour? **** no it's a low skill job, yes it sucks because people are ass holes but it takes no real skill and the pay should reflect that. Most people who think 15 an hour is ridiculous HAVE worked those crappy entry level jobs but they went on to make more money at a different job after getting that experience under their belt. Even if the bottom line does not increase there will still be a great deal of job loss. Ask one of these minimum wage increases if they're okay with being fired so some one else can make more and see how quickly their tune changes.
User avatar #337 to #329 - citruslord (03/08/2014) [-]
1: I made no argument for 15$ an hour, that is quite ridiculous and I would probably cause a bit of what you are saying.
2: the figures I cited, from here and here suggest that raising minimum wage, to a point of course, does not cause what you say. Companies aren't going to up and fire half of their workers because they have to pay them a few dollars more an hour. They might raise cost of some things, but with people making more, they can spend more and the economy grows.
3: I think the real problem here isn't that a burger flipper deserves the same wage as someone in another skilled position, but that our current minimum wage is maladjusted for our current level of inflation.
#165 to #131 - hellraizr (03/08/2014) [-]
Awesome! Too bad I let emotion cloud my thinking to a fault, otherwise I would come off alot more organized like you did. I like you. No homo (maybe a little) No sarcasm (none)
#170 to #165 - citruslord (03/08/2014) [-]
I used to think something similar, that forcing it would just be offset by rising prices, but that's what studies are for.
I used to think something similar, that forcing it would just be offset by rising prices, but that's what studies are for.
#261 to #34 - areyouawakeyet (03/08/2014) [-]
Actual raising the minimum wage doesn't raise everyone's bottom line.   
Most minimum wage jobs produce inferior goods, goods like fastfood, and because these are inferior goods, they have very elastic demand. This means that because the good isn't something critical to people's lives, they'll readily buy much less of the product if the price rises (likewise, if the price falls, demand for the product shoots up).   
To raise the &quot;bottom line,&quot; businesses would need to pass the costs on to the consumer. However, if they raised the prices of their goods accordingly, demand would fall to the point that businesses would actually make much less than if they had stayed near the original price point. This means prices stay mostly the same (minor increments expected, usually less than $0.30, at first).   
And, because the raise in minimum wage creates a new &quot;middle class,&quot; more money is circulating through the economy. The more money circulating in the economy, the more goods and services demanded, and this demand serves to drive back down the prices that were original raised to help offset costs of raising the minimum wage. Some economists even argue that this boost in demand would put prices at an even lower point than they were before the minimum wage raise. Overall, given the increased buying power of the American people, we would actually see a significant improvement in our national economy.   
Of course this does have it's limits, the effects of raising the minimum wage to something ridiculous like $25 would definitely be catastrophic to all markets.    
tl:dr - raising minimum wage doesn't raise prices or the &quot;bottom line,&quot; and everyone tends to benefit at the individual level.
Actual raising the minimum wage doesn't raise everyone's bottom line.

Most minimum wage jobs produce inferior goods, goods like fastfood, and because these are inferior goods, they have very elastic demand. This means that because the good isn't something critical to people's lives, they'll readily buy much less of the product if the price rises (likewise, if the price falls, demand for the product shoots up).

To raise the "bottom line," businesses would need to pass the costs on to the consumer. However, if they raised the prices of their goods accordingly, demand would fall to the point that businesses would actually make much less than if they had stayed near the original price point. This means prices stay mostly the same (minor increments expected, usually less than $0.30, at first).

And, because the raise in minimum wage creates a new "middle class," more money is circulating through the economy. The more money circulating in the economy, the more goods and services demanded, and this demand serves to drive back down the prices that were original raised to help offset costs of raising the minimum wage. Some economists even argue that this boost in demand would put prices at an even lower point than they were before the minimum wage raise. Overall, given the increased buying power of the American people, we would actually see a significant improvement in our national economy.

Of course this does have it's limits, the effects of raising the minimum wage to something ridiculous like $25 would definitely be catastrophic to all markets.

tl:dr - raising minimum wage doesn't raise prices or the "bottom line," and everyone tends to benefit at the individual level.
#539 to #261 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
actually both of you guys are wrong, it neither raises the bottom line nor helps the economy grow, once you pay one worker the equivalent of 2 worker's wages, it's affordable for you to fire half your staff. you pay workers a lot they need to earn it. raising the minimum wage to 15 bucks will end with tons of people being fired, so yeah, jerry can now afford a slightly better lifestyle, and tom has no job. you'd literally be creating another social class gap WITHIN the lower classes
User avatar #555 to #261 - undeadwill (03/08/2014) [-]
Pebar you want to join in?
User avatar #590 to #555 - pebar ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
increasing demand doesn't lower prices......
#694 to #590 - areyouawakeyet (03/08/2014) [-]
Yupp, looking back I can see I ****** up on that one point. Sorry bout that.
Though the rest of the argument holds solid; the prices can't be raised beyond a certain, very small point without going on to hurt the businesses further.
User avatar #718 to #694 - pebar ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
The minimum wage does not increase the circulation of money. By increasing the cost of business, you decrease their profits which otherwise would've been used for expansion. Businesses spend their money too. At best the velocity of money would be unchanged, but that assumes that no one would be fired.

The argument could be made that rich people do not spend their money as much as poor people and by redistributing, you could increase the velocity of money; however, the minimum wage is not the way to do that. If you hate the rich, then tax the rich (that's a different issue). There are millions of companies that have to comply with the minimum wage law but only a couple hundred that have executives that are so insanely rich.
User avatar #591 to #590 - undeadwill (03/08/2014) [-]
I didn't make the post above.
#449 to #261 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
See, you assume that it matter to the companies what the bottom line is. They are in the business for a profit. Suddenly a whole bunch of people have more money to spend. Suddenly they can afford to charge more for their services because more people can afford that service to cost more. They aren't just going to leave the price the same. They just don't think like that. You are saying this under the assumption that the companies would accept a lower profit margin after raising minimum wage. They want the profit to remain the same or get larger. They will not leave prices the same. An increase in the minimum wage would only help for maybe a couple months, then the act would go 180 and start doing the opposite of what it was meant to. So if you are like Congress and enjoy 6 week solutions to a long term problem, then go for it. If you want an actual solution look elsewhere.
#51 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
work at fast food place that 16 yr old usually start at and expect to get paid 15 are you serious? if your working there and you gunna cry about wages go get another job jesus.....these jobs are usually mad for 16yr olds who live with there parents.
#465 to #51 - killerofcows (03/08/2014) [-]
wait how horrible are american minimum wages really ?
I live in sweden my first job picking off dishes from an all you can eat cristmas food event was when I was 17 and made 90 sek an hour
If I put that with inflation over 7 years I made 99.4 sek an hour or $15,58 an hour
#42 - anonmynous (03/08/2014) [-]
It's not that I think fast food workers don't deserve a decent wage... I just think they deserve the minimum wage. What kind of job takes less qualifications then a fast food position? Who should be getting paid less then fast food workers?
User avatar #104 to #42 - gormless (03/08/2014) [-]
You have failed to understand the situation. They're attempting to raise the federal minimum wage to 15/hr.
User avatar #156 - malhaloc ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
How about if minimum wage goes up to $15/hour then all it means is prices on EVERYTHING ELSE are going to go up as well so stores can afford to pay you that money. So in reality that $15 is going to be worth what $8 is now. Congratulations you just halved the value of our already worthless dollar.
#3 - odinshomeboy (03/07/2014) [-]
$15 an hour is arot of money for all that swag you have
User avatar #562 to #3 - mondominiman (03/08/2014) [-]
I had a buddy I met in college, he worked in McDonald's while he was attending. He now works at some big company in seattle earning a pretty good hourly wage with benefits.
User avatar #646 to #3 - nigeltheoutlaw (03/08/2014) [-]
I'm trying to work my way through college, but it's impossible on minimum wage. Many people in minimum wage jobs are the same as me, or are high schoolers trying to save for college.
User avatar #770 to #646 - odinshomeboy (03/09/2014) [-]
This wasn't directed at college bound or current kids. Settle down. It's for the people that spend their whole lives at those minimum wage jobs. You're bettering yourself and you won't be at minimum wage much longer. I was there too, except I worked at home depot.
User avatar #204 to #3 - littleoctavia (03/08/2014) [-]
Not everyone who works in fast food is an idiot, some are just trying to work/earn money.
User avatar #88 to #3 - hoponthefeelstrain ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
Or a college student trying to work their way through college and be "responsible" or a high school student and this is their first job, not some low life idiot who can't spell apple.
#159 - drewbridge (03/08/2014) [-]
Assembling pre made sandwhich parts and counting change =/= skilled labor   
Shut the 			****		 up you 			*******		 idiots.
Assembling pre made sandwhich parts and counting change =/= skilled labor

Shut the **** up you ******* idiots.
#180 to #159 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
Would you like some dandruff on your sandwich, dick for brains? Or how about some spit?

No? Then make all of your own food, you piece of **** .
#226 to #180 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
im glad you are so skilled at assembling sandwiches inside a climate controlled building. that totally deserves more pay than people that actually do real work. we buy from mcdonalds and such because we dont have the time with our actual jobs, that we put forth effort into our education and job performance to get, to make our own food. so we pay the dropouts and highschoolers to do it for us. if you want $15 an hour, get a job doing construction. you'll get the added benefit of free exercise. or how about a call center job? you havnt seen horrible customers until you have to do internet tech support for southeast florida retirement communities over the phone. i did and i was happy to get $10.50 an hour after my one year raise. if you dont like your ****** job, get a better one. if you cant, do something about yourself so that you can. education and hard work are the only way if you werent born rich.
User avatar #183 to #180 - drewbridge (03/08/2014) [-]
I'm PAYING you, you ******* asshole.
User avatar #186 to #183 - Pink Floyd (03/08/2014) [-]
Sandwiches aren't pre-made, ******* .
User avatar #196 to #186 - drewbridge (03/08/2014) [-]
Boo-hoo. The buns, cheese, fries, and I'm sure every other ingredient you have to unwrap was hard on your ******* nails.

Highschoolers do your job.
Get ****** .
#200 to #196 - Pink Floyd (03/08/2014) [-]
Actually, 			********		, onions are not pre-sliced, tomatoes are not pre-sliced, pickles are not pre-sliced. lettuce is not pre-separated, whatever else is not pre-done and wrapped up at a factory. The kitchen isn't some assembly line where a group of people put on a single condiment at a time before it reaches your fat ass. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about because mommy and daddy pay for everything.
Actually, ******** , onions are not pre-sliced, tomatoes are not pre-sliced, pickles are not pre-sliced. lettuce is not pre-separated, whatever else is not pre-done and wrapped up at a factory. The kitchen isn't some assembly line where a group of people put on a single condiment at a time before it reaches your fat ass. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about because mommy and daddy pay for everything.
#233 to #200 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
its still a super-easy, unskilled job. if they want something better, they should go to it instead of demanding it come to them.
User avatar #209 to #200 - drewbridge (03/08/2014) [-]
Oh, sorry. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings, and how tough it is on you. Poor, poor you.

If 16 year olds can do your job, you are nothing special.
#598 to #209 - crimsonsunshine ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
OK well then i guess nuclear Fusion isn't anything special since a 13 year old built a reactor.

FYI most of the people work at McDonalds aren't 16 and if you pay attention to the news at all most of the jobs that pay min wage are fill by persons over the age of 18

When you do try to live off min wage i really hope you can squeeze rent, food, car payment ect. out of 15K a year. You need to login to view this link

Now before you go all hurr durr get better education. I have 9 certifications to install wiring and cabling and am working on getting my federal and state licences to get certs for installing electrical cabling in homes. I have tried applying for jobs at my local cable company but guess what? They don't hire anyone with less than 2 years experience FOR AN ENTRY LEVEL POSITION. So I HAVE to live off min wage for the next year and half while I do these training course that I already know all the info for but am required by state and federal law. Please don't Bitch about min wage unless you have lived off said wage for a year or more.
User avatar #212 to #209 - Pink Floyd (03/08/2014) [-]
Excellent job refuting my points and totally tearing down my argument. Where I work, 16 year-olds aren't allowed to do anything other than make milkshakes. Yet again you've proven yourself to be a complete dumbass.
#650 to #200 - terminalinfinity (03/08/2014) [-]
Its still unskilled ******* labor. The economy is supply and demand. Wages are paid based on how in demand you skill is in comparison with the supply of labor. Thats why NFL Quarterbacks make like 50 million a year: because there's so few people who can do what they do. The reason why the same high school dropout with a plumbing certification can make 50K more than the same dropout at a fast food job. The difference between the fast food worker and the plumber is the labor pool is a lot smaller in comparison to the demand, thus there is less suppression of the value of the work.
The economy isnt some warm fuzzy being where everyone gets a fair wage based on the amount of work you put in. If it was, every woman in Africa would be a goddamn millionare.
User avatar #256 to #200 - Calqless (03/08/2014) [-]
hey cum dumpster, it is in fast food, in a real restaurant some of it is pre sliced also. but a real kitchen is out of context of the OC.
User avatar #192 to #180 - drewbridge (03/08/2014) [-]
You drop it onto a grill and cook it. Everything is pre-sliced and packaged for your convenience.

It's basic labor that doesn't require a degree or really anything.

Would you like some butthurt with that, faggot?
#494 to #192 - bann (03/08/2014) [-]
While it's not necessarily skilled work, it is far more labor intensive than most other jobs short of military or construction. Skilled or unskilled everyone deserves decency and respect. That said, $15 an hour is utter ******** , that would virtually double the payroll of most companies and **** everyone over.
User avatar #216 to #159 - urinarytractinfect (03/08/2014) [-]
omg this is so violent
User avatar #597 to #159 - klina (03/08/2014) [-]
I'd like to put you in between the grill and the sauces and make you cook some sandwiches that are oh so easy as you say they are to make. Then I'll watch you squirm when I ask you to place that to go after you've placed it on the tray along with everything else.
User avatar #641 to #597 - drewbridge (03/08/2014) [-]

..I.........i-I didn't know.
User avatar #420 - etrian ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
I like the part "$15.00 an hour to earn close to a living wage with a job that cut's your hours to barely 12 hours a week."

Maybe that's when the person complaining should get a clue that working fast food probably isn't meant for sustainable living and actually do something with their life. If they barely work 12 hours a week what the **** are they doing with the rest of their time?
User avatar #424 to #420 - learnthisline (03/08/2014) [-]
You're acting like people actually choose to work in the fast-food industry.
How many jobs do you think there are in the world? Not many, and most of them, especially in manufacturing, are being off-shored to SE-Asian countries because the company won't have to pay a minimum wage.

I get your point entirely about "what the **** are they doing with their life". Indeed, they should have paid better attention in school, etc. But think about this: some people are genuinely born more intellectually restricted than others. Add that to the fact they want to some ****** school and you're going to end up with the result of a minimum-wage for life worker.
Not everyone is going to be able to achieve great, **** even decent, things in life, and if their entire existence is going to be consigned to serving other people, then we should at least pay them a decent wage for it.

Also, looking at it economically, it's madness to keep these wages so low. McDonalds/WalMart/etc. workers are paid so low that many are forced to also rely on government subsidies just to get by. That means your tax-money is spent on allowing these corporations to keep their wages so low. Does that sound sane to you? Does that sound like a free-capitalist economy to you?
And think about this: you start paying workers more money, which means they have more money to spend. They start spending more, meaning more business can spring up to meet the demand of increased-consumerism. More businesses means more people employed; more people employed (with a decent wage) means more money into the economy. It's called the "Virtuous Cycle".

There literally isn't a good argument to keep wages this low.
Do you know what the ration was for CEO income and lowest-paid income was 40 years ago? Do you know what it is today?
Those who argue that min. wage should be kept low seriously can't argue that CEOs are working over 40x harder than they were 40 years ago, whilst arguing min. wage workers are working less hard
#510 to #424 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
Your first paragraph is evidence that we need to abolish Minimum Wage. Minimum wage kills jobs and kills the growth of experienced workers. Minimum wage creates poverty. It. IS. SOCIALISM.
User avatar #542 to #510 - learnthisline (03/08/2014) [-]
Right, well that's literally one of the dumbest argument's I've ever heard.
If you'd read the remainder of my argumet, you'd probably understand why.
But I am interested in the justifications there could possibly be to abolish the minimum wage.
Here's my case against it:
Firstly, you abolish the minimum wage, and companies straight away begin paying slave-labour wages. The people that already held the jobs and whom were barely scraping by on the measly wage they already received are now plunged further into poverty.
Secondly, because these people now have less money, and because the rate of inflation won't immediately (if at all) drop, so people can afford less.
Because people can afford to spend less on consumer goods, more companies go bankrupt, because how can you sell products to people who don't have money?
Following this, more "pay-day loan" companies spring up, because banks aren't lending the bail-out money to people (which is already empirical factual). This means more people are now in debt, and can afford to spend even less on consumer goods, meaning even more companies go out of business.

You're going off the assumption that there's a global market for American made products, which there isn't. Most of the manufacturing is done in other countries.
You argue that if you let these companies pay lower wages in America, then they bring back the jobs. But people will have to work more hours to compensate for the decrease in payment, meaning that the products they manufacture (e.g. cars) won't be sold in America, they will be sold globally, and the profits won't be distributed, they'd still go mainly to the CEOs, who don't put money back into the economy anyway.
So not only are less Americans able to buy the products they're making,but they can barely afford to live.

That's not socialism. It's called being a decent-human being who thinks critically about both the social and economic impacts of the minimum wage.

But yeah, I do want to hear your side.
#558 to #542 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
If we abolish minimum wage, it'll create an environment for job creation. Employers could pay what they could afford, even if it is $2 an hour. But when that happens, the cost of living will go down and it'll balance out. It will also allow people who have no job experience, and skills to find a job to get such skills and move on to better paying positions.

When there are more jobs than people, employers will start competing for employees with better pay. Why work here for $3 when this place is offering $6? And wages will go up that way. Competition and the market sets the wages, not the government.
User avatar #578 to #558 - learnthisline (03/08/2014) [-]
"Why work for $3 here when you can work for $6 there"...
Are you mentally unstable?
People on minimum-wage, full time, not just in their 20s, are in that occupation because they lack the skills and education to get better employment.
Sure, it might be their fault for not doing well in school, but should someone be forced to pay for mistakes they made in the early years, when we all make bad decisions?
Do you not believe in redemption? Is it 2-strikes and you're out for you?

Companies will keep their wages at the lowest they can get away with, because there will only be a few corporations left, due to all the small-time businesses going out of business because people won't be able to afford what they're selling.
Do you think people go "Hmm, I could work for WalMart, or I could work for Billy's Home Depot, so I choose to go for the job which pays me so little that I have to rely on tax-payer money just to get by, even though I'm in full-time employment"...?
No, they don't.
They apply for numerous jobs, and go with whichever will employ them. You oblivious hoodlum.
[ thatguyontheright - why aren't you signing in? If you're ashamed of your opinion then maybe there's a reason?]
#586 to #578 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
They made the mistakes, it's THEIR fault they are in such a mess. They should find a way out of it. That's how life is. You do something bad, you face consequences for your actions.

There are jobs out there, that will take you and train you and when you are done you can be making more than $15 an hour...but you have to fight tooth and nail to get them...and they are jobs you have to work long hours for, so people who work and McDonalds are disinterested. THAT is what is holding them back. Risk is the name of the game, and they don't want to take a risk.
User avatar #619 to #586 - learnthisline (03/08/2014) [-]
thatguyontheright (you ******* coward).

What do you think the meaning of life is?
To slave away, working your bollox off just to get a job that pays minimum wage? To dedicate your entire existence to paying bills, to serving fat and lazy people their food?

I don't.
There's so much beauty in the world, and I'm extremely fortunate in being able to travel and teach English after I've finished my (unrelated) Politics and History BA.
Sure, I could go and work for the civil-service, which I already been asked to do, or I could go out and experience life.
But most people aren't that fortunate. And it's clear to see that you can't even comprehend the human condition, nevermind emphasize with it.

People make mistakes. It's part of human nature. Not everyone can be born perfect, or be born with enormous ambition and drive. But that should relegate them to your servants, living out their life hand-to-mouth, serving you in the day-time, then working another job at night.

People are born with equal status and rights, but we are not born with equal capabilities. And I can see why you don't understand that, and I can guarantee you'll never have a fulfilling existence either.
Not a single person has ever been able to achieve happiness whilst holding his fellow humans with such contempt. When all you care about is money, you become addicted to it. All you care about is getting more and more, and soon you end up just like the crack-fiend; never content with what you have, always lusting after more.

Well, brother, try to have a happy life. I'm just relieved that people like you will never be able to implement your totalitarian programs. The Republicans do remarkably well at swindling the masses, but there's tough economic times coming for everyone, and once the American people are forced through circumstance to open their eyes to your sadistic philosophies, they will never vote you in again, no matter how much you spunk on TV campaigns.
#549 to #542 - thatguyontheright has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #564 to #549 - learnthisline (03/08/2014) [-]
That's an extremely flawed argument, and hypocritical beyond measure.
I'm assuming you abhor the Soviet Union and their work-policies?

1. How dare you subjugate the most vulnerable of society to a life of slave-labour! Working for $2 in "the land of the free"? How can you justify that.
As I explained, the cost of living won't go down immediately, if at all. Unless the Government steps in to regulate prices, which it won't, and even if it did, it would hold the same effect as raising the minimum wage.
So, because the cost of living won't go down, these people you've negated to slave-labour won't be able to afford to buy anything, and most of them will end up working as many hours as they can. And once you abolish the minimum wage, the 6-day working week maximum will also be abolished, meaning that the poorest members of society end up working 7 days a week just to get by.
I don't think you value the existence of life. What's the point in living is it's spent entirely on living hand-to-mouth?
Would you want to live a life like that? Where you get up, go to work, come back to your freezing living quarters to eat the cheapest food, just to go back to work the next day? Not only that, but working in a job that has no meaningful purpose. Making products that you, yourself cannot afford, even if you saved up your entire life?

2. Do you really think these extremely greedy companies will lower the prices of their products willingly? Do you genuinely believe they will start raising their wages once the law that forced them to pay a certain minimum is abolished?
You plan is going to throw 100,000s into abject poverty, and supposedly in the country's that's the "bastion of freedom".

3. I know for a fact that you've not experienced first hand what poverty is like. I know you aren't comprehending just how depressing it is living a life that's entirely subservient to those born into wealth, in a supposedly equal country.
I, myself, do not live in such conditions, but a good...
User avatar #572 to #564 - learnthisline (03/08/2014) [-]
[thatguyontheright] of my friends and people i'm acquainted with do live such lifestyles.

4. The market for American-made products, as I've already stated would not be local, it would be international, mostly to the new Asian/Mid-Eastern markets.
The profits from these ventures, as proven by empirical historical and economic fact (90% of the economic recovery in America since 2008 has gone to the 1%, so BOOM! There's your argument about 'trickle-down economics' completely destroyed), would not be distributed out among the wage-tiers, it would rot in the hands of the few.

5. It seems to me that you're masking the true reason why you believe that we should remove the minimum wage - you're inherently self-centered and extremely selfish, or you're ignorant beyond belief.
Do you know why CEOs want to abolish the minimum wage? So they can keep more money. It's not to provide more people with better jobs and "eventually" higher wages and living conditions.
They literally have no need nor use to oppose raising the minimum wage and tying it to inflation.
Do you think the Walton family need to keep any more of their earnings? They could literally hand over their entire earnings for a year to be distributed among their workers, who, as I've already stated, are on such a low wage that they have to rely on Government subsides just to get by, and many of them work 2 jobs!
They don't need any money, and it's killing the economy what they're doing. They are hording the money in circulation, meaning it's not getting invested back into the economy, meaning less jobs are being created.
How can you be arguing for their case? It would be beneficial to 99% of the population to raise the minimum wage, but you can't see that because you're blinded by perpetual greed and a loathing of the underclass.

The money they are hording could be used to fund public education, to create a new class of educated youth, willing and able to get employed in more meaningful jobs.
#575 to #572 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
Public education is also bad. In fact, I would define it as child abuse to willingly send your kids to public school instead of making it possible for them to go to a charter or even a private school.
User avatar #594 to #575 - learnthisline (03/08/2014) [-]
You are a vile creature.
I'll tell you what's child abuse: determining whether or not someone receives the best education available entirely dependent on which family they are born into.

I went to a private school, on a part-scholarship (my parents are still in debt from putting my brother and myself through that school). And it's disgusting the environment there. I only got in by virtue that I was born slightly smarter than other children. I didn't chose to be born with any of my attributes, they were just a part of me. I was a pretty troubled kid, but being in private school meant I was given a better start.
What if I hadn't been born with my mental attributes? I would have been written off and thrown into the public school near me, where a lad took his pitbull in and had it rape someone who owed him £50.

You are ignorant of your surroundings.
The Libertarian world-view would work if there wasn't such a massive inequality casam that's engulfed the world.
It would work if people were all on an equal playing field. But they're not. And the tyrants that currently hold America and England in a death-grip will never be willing to allow people to get on their level.
#680 to #594 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
We obviously come from two conflicting view points. You see the rich as evil and greedy, and the government should force them to pay someone what they aren't worth. While I see wages as something to be earned, and not given to you just because you showed up.

If someone earns $15 an hour, cool beans...but McDonalds workers often lack the initiative and drive to better themselves so they are stuck in fast food. If they did not lack the initiative and drive, they would not be at McDonalds for years complaining about low wages. Complaining can only get you so far, actually putting forth an effort to better ones self is rewarding.

If they want more money, they should work for another job. Minimum Wage was never meant to be a wage to raise a family on. It was always meant as a wage to get job experience at, where you can get your foot in the door at better places of employment at better wages. Springboard jobs I call them.
User avatar #691 to #680 - learnthisline (03/08/2014) [-]
You're right, the minimum wage wasn't mean to be a wage to raise a family on.

You're too ignorant to understand that there are a plethora of factors that lead to people raising their family on minimum wage.

And you haven't given me a decent response to my argument about the Virtuous Cycle, possibly because you don't understand, more likely because you can't.

You clearly don't view other human beings as your equal, and for that, I take some solace in the fact you'll never be truly happy.

I don't want more money. I don't want any money. What can money even bring you now-a-days? Trading off time that could be spent living for time spent working for a faceless corporation? **** that, there's so much more value to life, and I nearly pity you, knowing that you're going to live a life that's already been lived a million times before, stuck in the rat-race, all whilst holding the poorest members of your society in contempt. That may be fine for you, but for me, that's the worst way to live.

I'm taking a year out for traveling, then going to live in a eco-village where we all put equal work into growing food and have an equal share of everything we produce. Not only that, but we're building houses for the poorest citizens of Venezuela, so we're giving back to the community. It's a village which doesn't contribute to the destruction of the environment either, so, for me, it's the best way to live. Living in a community surrounded by your fellow man, all working together in a sustainable way.

But kudos to you brother. You've set out your life plan, and i hope you can get as far up the social ladder as your possible can, even though the middle-rungs have been taken away by those at the top, so you can only ever get a few rungs ahead the absolute bottom. But if that's how you want to live, then do it mate. Find whatever makes you happy and do it twice, that's my advice.
#573 to #564 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
I have experienced poverty, and I learned to pull myself up by my bootstraps and work to get out of it. It isn't slavery to work for $2 an hour. It isn't beneath you. $2 is better than nothing. I will not advocate that people work for nothing, but $7.25 is far too high a wage for entry level positions. Welfare, food stamps, unemployment are tools to keep the people enslaved to the government.

Like I said, once we get a good job environment going, wages will go up in competition. They need employees, but there aren't enough so they raise wages to attract people who have experience etc. Once people get experience, they can work in above poverty jobs.
User avatar #587 to #573 - learnthisline (03/08/2014) [-]
[ thatguyontheright ]
You've literally just undermined your own argument!
" Welfare, food stamps, unemployment are tools to keep the people enslaved to the government. "
You do realize that the majority of recipients of these welfare subsidies are those in full or part-time employment!?

If you RAISED the minimum wage then they wouldn't have to rely on the ******* Government!

Where are your responses about what it's like to live a life that's entirely in service to people richer than you?

You are a coward for not signing in, and you clearly don't understand the reality of the situation.

I doubt you were ever in poverty, because I've never come across someone who said "yeah, I just pulled by bootstraps up, herp derp."
Actually, i tell a lie, I have heard someone use that argument before. Bill O'Reily on Fox "News", et al Republican retards.

Reply to this argument:
You raise wages, more people have more money. More people have more money, the more products they can buy. The more products they buy, the more jobs are created. The more jobs that are created, more people are employed. More people are employed, with higher wages, the more products they can buy.
Eventually, people can save up and create their own business, employing more and more people.

I want to hear your rebuttal to this.
#588 to #587 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
You raise wages, and the cost of living goes up, meaning they still will not benefit. If they want more money, they should find a new job. What good is a $15 an hour job if the price of bread jumps to $5 a loaf?
User avatar #606 to #588 - learnthisline (03/08/2014) [-]
You're basing your assumptions on the notion that we should allow a few people to hold the majority of a nation's wealth.

The companies that make bread would have to stop making such huge profits. They already live a life of luxury (I went to school with a Warbuton's child), so why should we allow them to rake up the price of bread just so they can continue to make their massive profits?
For Example: Let's say company A's CEO is making £1,000,000 a year in 1970, and their lowest paid worker is making £15,000. And the price of bread is £1.
You raise the minimum wage, so they end up making £30,000 a year. The CEO, who is working no harder, decides that he MUST keep making a much higher wage that his lowest-paid employees, so to recuperate his losses, he passes the costs onto us, the consumers. Now bread costs £3.

You're that ignorant and limited in your thinking, that you think it's acceptable. No. What should happen is the consumer decides to go to another bakery and get bread there, which is still £1.

However, you're forgetting the scale of monopolies in America. There isn't another bakery in town, and if there is, it's just another subsidiary of the original bakery, so the price of bread is still £3.

See. You need to think about the totality, not just the limited aspects, in the way which the elites want you to think.
Do you really think there's a free-market in America? Did you Know Pepsico sell 40% of the world's snack foods alone!

We've ended up with socialism that benefits the few. These companies aren't in competition with another; they're colluding together, fixing prices and, under your plan, wages.
Unlike in true Socialism (not Dictatorship of the Proletariat, e.g. China, Russia, Cuba), where we could hold these people accountable, and change the prices ourselves, we are being dictated to by a minority, who aren't accountable to us, and whom we cannot influence, or even impact in the market, since the dominate it.

How are you so simple?
#639 to #606 - Rascal (03/08/2014) [-]
Socialism benefits nobody. All socialist nations devolve into Communism.

The market must be a completely free market. No government intervention. This is how capitalism works. And Minimum wage is nothing more than government intervention and wealth redistribution.
User avatar #709 to #639 - learnthisline (03/08/2014) [-]
1. Socialist countries devolve into Communism...
- A: Socialism is the dilectical step that precludes Communism. So it would have to evolve, not devole.
- B: Well, look at the Scandinavian countries: they have a high minimum wage, public healthcare, education, etc. And they're much more economically stable than America, and they rank higher than America on the "Freedom"index. So that point alone proves how ignorant your entire worldview is.
- C: If you're talking about the USSR, then you're failing to understand the magnitude of their economic achievement, that was accomplished via the 5-Year Plans. (From a sociology POV, it was a disaster, but economically, it brought them into the modern era in less than 30 years.)

2: America doesn't have a free market though. There's significant monopolies, you dense **** . Like I said previously, PepsiCo sells 40% of the world's snack foods - does that sounds like a free market to you?
- Also: NAFTA! That's trade-embargoes, etc. which is literally the opposite of free-markets. Do you know anything about the political-economy of the world?
- Moreover, if TPP goes through, then America won't even be able to pretend it's got a free market. I suggest reading some news brother, you've clearly got a limited understanding of how things work, and this can be remedied through education.

The minimum wage is Government intervention, but so is the court system, the Constitution, the police, the ******* roads! How ignorant are you!? Seriously, I would love to have a face-to-face chat with you, where I can show you all the case studies which undermine every opinion you've put across.
User avatar #441 to #424 - etrian ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
I'm currently unemployed due to health issues, thanks to the temporary work I was doing before hand I didn't make enough to pay my medical bills and instead decided to stop maintaining my regular thyroid check-ups. I made minimum wage working 12 hours a day on some of those jobs, and that got me enough to scrape by before I started getting exhausted.

It's frustrating when people who are employed doing grunt work with low hours think they're entitled to more than they actually do. I'd be a whole lot more understanding if it was 12 hours a day, not barely 12 hours a week. With the rest of all that time they had which they spent complaining online they could be finding more suitable work.

I'm not the best person to argue over this subject due to my circumstances. The current minimum wage got me where I am now, sitting at home most of the time too exhausted to do anything. I just feel fast food jobs are pretty much place holder jobs while you actually use the rest of that spare time to improve your living standards. Yet most people get hired onto fast food and stop as if that is the best they can do.

I'm pretty sure a CEO is working more than just 12 hours a week though, keeping a company running properly take a lot of human resources. CEOs have to manage relationships with a lot of other people. I don't think they're getting their massive checks from just sitting in their office playing office golf, we would have a lot more fast food chains if that were the case.

#385 - lilraylikdam (03/08/2014) [-]
It's pickles THEN bun, asshat.
#56 - tomahawkkit ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
one thing I never got is how someone could complain about minimum wage being too low, while simultaneously complain about jobs being outsourced to other countries. If you complain about big corporations not paying you enough, don't complain about someone somewhere else willing to do the same job for less.
User avatar #440 - crim (03/08/2014) [-]
< makes 15$ an hour. certified nurse aide cardiac unit
6 months of college and up to 1500 dollars in testing certification fees and tuition.

deal with people at their absolute worst sleepy, cranky, sick, and in pain.

Death is always just around the door for those you are caring for and befriending

kindness and courteousness to people even after they just punched you in the face or drop kicked you because they are confused, then giving them a pointy utensil so they can eat...

Ever wonder what rotting humans smell like?

In terms of skill sets aids do everything a nurse does short only of passing medication and a few select tasks.

there's no way ill believe a burger flipper deserves my wage. Get two jobs you uneducated **** .....

User avatar #545 - krazzykyle ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
I worked my ass off at a McDonald's for 3 years. We were on a major highway in Ohio and we served up to 8 school buses at times. I made $7.55 to start and ended at $8.50. Lets see why her list is ******** . Spoilers to save space.

Busy doesn't mean slow if you have half a clue about what you're doing. And most people are pretty cool about it if you're slammed. ******** .
Getting splashed with grease happens. A little drop here and there is at most a minor inconvenience. Minor inconveniences aren't worth $15. ********
No reason to burn yourself if you are doing your job right. Worked grill most of my 3 years and never once got burned. ******** .
I've worked grill in August with no AC. **** does suck. I'll concede this point, but not for $15. Trace amounts of ******** .
Again, not every single person is a dickhead because they have to wait for fries. In fact, a lot of people know asking for no salt means fresh fries. ******** .
Sandwiches aren't that complicated. I know putting a little effort into learning is a task for some people, but for ***** sake its just a sandwich. ********
If you are any good at your job, hours won't be cut. Bust your ass and act like you care and you'll see hours. I was at a busy store, so I had plenty of hourst. I'll go 50/50 ******** here.
I dont give a **** what the customer thinks. Be polite, smile, do your job, and get yours. If they have nothing better to do than stare down their nose at you, their opinion doesn't mean **** anyways. ********
Putting pickles on buns goes back to knowing how to make the food your paid to make. Redundant ******** .

tl;dr working at McDonalds might suck, but its not $15 worth of sucking.
#401 - kisman ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
i work at mcdonalds and think we dont deserve to be paid 15$ an hour, and i have to deal with said 			********		, i think it sucks working there but hey its the easiest job to get hired at and thats why the pay is 			****		 because they will hire anyone
i work at mcdonalds and think we dont deserve to be paid 15$ an hour, and i have to deal with said ******** , i think it sucks working there but hey its the easiest job to get hired at and thats why the pay is **** because they will hire anyone
User avatar #389 - threeeehuggings (03/08/2014) [-]
I'm pretty sure there's enough people in america that would do the job for less than 10$ an hour, though.
#391 to #389 - nicknb (03/08/2014) [-]
i make 11 and im responsible for a whole lot more than just food
User avatar #418 to #391 - thelastamerican ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
I work as a hazmat responder at UPS and make 11.99 an hour. Sign me up for not being in danger AND getting paid more. I've worked in fast food before. I traded up for a better job is the only difference. I decided to do something about my situation instead of wait for someone else to do something for me.
User avatar #394 to #389 - lolollo (03/08/2014) [-]
I'm pretty sure that's because people without a job are willing to work for any money compared to not work for no money, not because the people who are currently working are thinking "You know what'd be just fine? Doing exactly what I'm doing for a lot less money!"
User avatar #387 - rummler (03/08/2014) [-]
>Been working in a restaurant environment for past 4 years
>Been making $7.25 for all 4 years, not a single raise
>Never complain
>Steady hours, pays the bills
>Grow the **** up, work hard, stop complaining
Don't like your life? ******* change it and get a decent education.
User avatar #395 to #387 - lolollo (03/08/2014) [-]
How bitter you seem makes me want to question that third one. I want to say you complain a lot...mostly on how nobody ever lives up to any of your standards, and how you're the only one who doesn't suck at life.

That seem to fit any?
#388 to #387 - autoxx (03/08/2014) [-]
Wholeheartedly agree.
I work my ass off at any job I do.
Ran bobcat for a company nearby because they needed an operator, same thing, work my ass of despite not needing the money.
When jobs disappear and people are getting laid off, guess who will always be able to find work? The guys that try hard in every job.

I'm an inventor now. Patents, fabrication shop, etc. but when I was still building log homes my customers were always happy.
User avatar #390 to #388 - rummler (03/08/2014) [-]
Yeah, my mom always told me this growing up:
"Work smart not hard, use your head, and save your ass."
And thus I'm an aspiring computer hardware engineer.
#396 to #390 - autoxx (03/08/2014) [-]
I'm the other way. I work hard but keep my costs low.
Last year I "worked" for nearly 30 days and had 6 vacations.
I live in a tiny one room house, spend almost all of my money on tools and now I can make nearly anything (sintered metal 3D printer or a good TIG welder is next on my must have list).
User avatar #376 - superpokekid (03/08/2014) [-]
I hate this kinda **** , I'm in the armed forces and I don't make 15$ an hour. The reason why you make minimum wage at those ****** jobs is because literally anyone can do it. Its called grunt labor for a reason.
User avatar #374 - dashunicorn (03/08/2014) [-]
Y'all get 15 dollars an hour.... lucky....
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)