Fast-food workers strike, seeking $15 wage, political muscle

[Conservative65]

And you also seem to think lots of qualified applicants raises wages. What is the incentive for an employer to increase wages when they have many qualified applicants?

The incentive is to get the best ones.

They already have lots of qualified applicants. You raise wages when you have trouble finding qualified applicants. Since wages are now stagnant there are few looking to hire skilled workers.

This is what I have been saying. You are very confused thinking the unemployment rate shows what is happening with skilled jobs.

What you said was that more job offerings = higher wages. I never said anything with the unemployment rate and skilled jobs. I said it indicated more jobs, therefore, wages should be higher according to YOU. Now, you backtrack and try to cover your ass.

No I just posted what I was saying. You are just confused. Post my comment that you are taking about.

There hasn't been a good, kick assed strike in this country in decades

It is long overdue. Workers need to start showing some economic muscle if they are going to start getting more of the economic pie

You mean extort because someone won't give them what they want.

If they want more of the pie, do something to earn it.

 

[Brain357]

The incentive is to get the best ones.

They already have lots of qualified applicants. You raise wages when you have trouble finding qualified applicants. Since wages are now stagnant there are few looking to hire skilled workers.

This is what I have been saying. You are very confused thinking the unemployment rate shows what is happening with skilled jobs.

What you said was that more job offerings = higher wages. I never said anything with the unemployment rate and skilled jobs. I said it indicated more jobs, therefore, wages should be higher according to YOU. Now, you backtrack and try to cover your ass.

No I just posted what I was saying. You are just confused. Post my comment that you are taking about.

It starts with post #571. You said companies aren't offering job are wages would be higher. That's saying the more jobs offered, the higher the wages.

There hasn't been a good, kick assed strike in this country in decades

It is long overdue. Workers need to start showing some economic muscle if they are going to start getting more of the economic pie

You mean extort because someone won't give them what they want.

If they want more of the pie, do something to earn it.

Quote it, your sentence doesn't even make sense. What exactly did I say?

 

[Conservative65]

And you also seem to think lots of qualified applicants raises wages. What is the incentive for an employer to increase wages when they have many qualified applicants?

The incentive is to get the best ones.

They already have lots of qualified applicants. You raise wages when you have trouble finding qualified applicants. Since wages are now stagnant there are few looking to hire skilled workers.

This is what I have been saying. You are very confused thinking the unemployment rate shows what is happening with skilled jobs.

What you said was that more job offerings = higher wages. I never said anything with the unemployment rate and skilled jobs. I said it indicated more jobs, therefore, wages should be higher according to YOU. Now, you backtrack and try to cover your ass.

No I just posted what I was saying. You are just confused. Post my comment that you are taking about.

Starts with #571. You said companies aren't offering jobs or wages would be increasing. That means if companies do offer jobs, wages will go up. When I said the Obama administration claims unemployment was going down you said you believed it was. That means more jobs are being offered which, according to your claim, means wages go up. Now you say wages are stagnant.

 

[Conservative65]

They already have lots of qualified applicants. You raise wages when you have trouble finding qualified applicants. Since wages are now stagnant there are few looking to hire skilled workers.

This is what I have been saying. You are very confused thinking the unemployment rate shows what is happening with skilled jobs.

What you said was that more job offerings = higher wages. I never said anything with the unemployment rate and skilled jobs. I said it indicated more jobs, therefore, wages should be higher according to YOU. Now, you backtrack and try to cover your ass.

No I just posted what I was saying. You are just confused. Post my comment that you are taking about.

It starts with post #571. You said companies aren't offering job are wages would be higher. That's saying the more jobs offered, the higher the wages.

There hasn't been a good, kick assed strike in this country in decades

It is long overdue. Workers need to start showing some economic muscle if they are going to start getting more of the economic pie

You mean extort because someone won't give them what they want.

If they want more of the pie, do something to earn it.

Quote it, your sentence doesn't even make sense. What exactly did I say?

"Companies aren't offering jobs or wages would be increasing". Your statement means when they do, wages go up. You also said you believed unemployment was going down. That is a sign of jobs being offered to which you have stated wages would go up. Which one is it? Do job offerings increase wages as you originally said or don't they?

 

[Brain357]

The incentive is to get the best ones.

They already have lots of qualified applicants. You raise wages when you have trouble finding qualified applicants. Since wages are now stagnant there are few looking to hire skilled workers.

This is what I have been saying. You are very confused thinking the unemployment rate shows what is happening with skilled jobs.

What you said was that more job offerings = higher wages. I never said anything with the unemployment rate and skilled jobs. I said it indicated more jobs, therefore, wages should be higher according to YOU. Now, you backtrack and try to cover your ass.

No I just posted what I was saying. You are just confused. Post my comment that you are taking about.

Starts with #571. You said companies aren't offering jobs or wages would be increasing. That means if companies do offer jobs, wages will go up. When I said the Obama administration claims unemployment was going down you said you believed it was. That means more jobs are being offered which, according to your claim, means wages go up. Now you say wages are stagnant.

Do you not know how to quote? They aren't offering well paying skilled jobs. If they were wages would increase. The unemployment rate going down with low wage jobs does not effect what I have been saying.

 

[Conservative65]

They already have lots of qualified applicants. You raise wages when you have trouble finding qualified applicants. Since wages are now stagnant there are few looking to hire skilled workers.

This is what I have been saying. You are very confused thinking the unemployment rate shows what is happening with skilled jobs.

What you said was that more job offerings = higher wages. I never said anything with the unemployment rate and skilled jobs. I said it indicated more jobs, therefore, wages should be higher according to YOU. Now, you backtrack and try to cover your ass.

No I just posted what I was saying. You are just confused. Post my comment that you are taking about.

Starts with #571. You said companies aren't offering jobs or wages would be increasing. That means if companies do offer jobs, wages will go up. When I said the Obama administration claims unemployment was going down you said you believed it was. That means more jobs are being offered which, according to your claim, means wages go up. Now you say wages are stagnant.

Do you not know how to quote? They aren't offering well paying skilled jobs. If they were wages would increase. The unemployment rate going down with low wage jobs does not effect what I have been saying.

That's not what you said in post #571. You said, without any other statements, something that means more jobs = higher wages. Now, you want to throw in irrelevant things.

 

[Conservative65]

They already have lots of qualified applicants. You raise wages when you have trouble finding qualified applicants. Since wages are now stagnant there are few looking to hire skilled workers.

This is what I have been saying. You are very confused thinking the unemployment rate shows what is happening with skilled jobs.

What you said was that more job offerings = higher wages. I never said anything with the unemployment rate and skilled jobs. I said it indicated more jobs, therefore, wages should be higher according to YOU. Now, you backtrack and try to cover your ass.

No I just posted what I was saying. You are just confused. Post my comment that you are taking about.

Starts with #571. You said companies aren't offering jobs or wages would be increasing. That means if companies do offer jobs, wages will go up. When I said the Obama administration claims unemployment was going down you said you believed it was. That means more jobs are being offered which, according to your claim, means wages go up. Now you say wages are stagnant.

Do you not know how to quote? They aren't offering well paying skilled jobs. If they were wages would increase. The unemployment rate going down with low wage jobs does not effect what I have been saying.

You said jobs period.

 

[Brain357]

This is what I have been saying. You are very confused thinking the unemployment rate shows what is happening with skilled jobs.

What you said was that more job offerings = higher wages. I never said anything with the unemployment rate and skilled jobs. I said it indicated more jobs, therefore, wages should be higher according to YOU. Now, you backtrack and try to cover your ass.

No I just posted what I was saying. You are just confused. Post my comment that you are taking about.

Starts with #571. You said companies aren't offering jobs or wages would be increasing. That means if companies do offer jobs, wages will go up. When I said the Obama administration claims unemployment was going down you said you believed it was. That means more jobs are being offered which, according to your claim, means wages go up. Now you say wages are stagnant.

Do you not know how to quote? They aren't offering well paying skilled jobs. If they were wages would increase. The unemployment rate going down with low wage jobs does not effect what I have been saying.

That's not what you said in post #571. You said, without any other statements, something that means more jobs = higher wages. Now, you want to throw in irrelevant things.

Then quote it.

All along I have been saying there are not well paying skilled jobs out there waiting to be filled. We know that because wages are stagnant. That is not effected by the unemployment rate.

 

[Slyhunter]

And you are statistically insignificant in a country of over 300 million.

What I am is just one example of a statistically significant number that have done the same. What I am is someone that has proven it can be done.

Poverty, Wages Remain Stagnant Despite Economic Recovery

What have those in poverty or who make low wages done to better what they have to offer? What effort have they made other than whine that someone should give them more for nothing?

I work two jobs. I support a family that can't support themselves. A sister, mother, and two adult nephews. I pay 1/3 of the bills plus over 1,000 a month on the car. I work every hour I can. This month I bought myself 4 double cheese burgers, 4 or 5 fountain sodas, and a pair of shorts for myself. WTF am I working for. I'm not getting anything out of my effort. I'm putting as much as possible as I can into it. My sister had the nerve to ***** me out for not paying back $700 I borrowed from someone over a year ago. With what money am I supposed to pay him with.

No pizza, no big macs, nothing to make working worth doing or living worth living. And there is nothing I can do to make things better.

You don't support A family, you support members of YOUR family and it's by choice.

If your sister had the nerve to ***** you out when you're the one she relies on for support yet you keep supporting her, that's your fault. If I'm helping someone that won't/can't do for themselves and they try to tel me how to do my finances, they'll do without until that attitude changes family or not.

My sister has Hepatitis C, Liver cirrhosis, enlarged organs, has excessive periods where she leaves blood spots whenever she sits down and has been turned down for disability twice because her doctor says she's functional. She has no medical insurance.

My 18 year old nephew is still in High school. My 24 year old nephew has a job makes a whole 250 a week income and couldn't survive without my help. He's slow, took 24 years to graduate high school with a ged. It isn't his fault he's slow. My mother is retired.

Yes, I play, usually, a Darwinist asshole a lot as a means to pass the time. But my option here is to abandon my family and live on my own and have no reason to live. For me paying the rent isn't a good enough reason to live or work. We need a bigger purpose in life than that to exist or maybe we shouldn't exist. FYI I'm Bi-polar and OCD, also not my fault.

In your perfect world the weak would be left in the streets to die as being unworthy of being helped out while you strive ahead becoming better, stronger, richer. A country can't remain strong if it supports it's weak. But do you really want to live in a country that doesn't?

 

[hadit]

What I am is just one example of a statistically significant number that have done the same. What I am is someone that has proven it can be done.

Poverty, Wages Remain Stagnant Despite Economic Recovery

What have those in poverty or who make low wages done to better what they have to offer? What effort have they made other than whine that someone should give them more for nothing?

Wages are stagnant, what they do won't make much of a difference for most.

You just gave them an excuse to not try and continue to demand something just be handed to them. If they made half as much effort to do better as they did demanding something be given to them, you would be surprised just how much better things would be.

Although you didn't use the exact words, I suspect you consider me one of the lucky ones. To that I say: "I'm a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more of it I seem to have." - Coleman Cox

With stagnant wages they are most likely to be underemployed if they get skills. You seem to be living in a different economy.

Your argument is based on an unsupported supposition. "They are most likely to be". Now, here's a concrete reality. If they do NOT gain valuable skills, they WILL continue to remain at MW and represent no greater value to the company that hired them.

 

[Brain357]

Poverty, Wages Remain Stagnant Despite Economic Recovery

What have those in poverty or who make low wages done to better what they have to offer? What effort have they made other than whine that someone should give them more for nothing?

Wages are stagnant, what they do won't make much of a difference for most.

You just gave them an excuse to not try and continue to demand something just be handed to them. If they made half as much effort to do better as they did demanding something be given to them, you would be surprised just how much better things would be.

Although you didn't use the exact words, I suspect you consider me one of the lucky ones. To that I say: "I'm a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more of it I seem to have." - Coleman Cox

With stagnant wages they are most likely to be underemployed if they get skills. You seem to be living in a different economy.

Your argument is based on an unsupported supposition. "They are most likely to be". Now, here's a concrete reality. If they do NOT gain valuable skills, they WILL continue to remain at MW and represent no greater value to the company that hired them.

With wages stagnant they are most likely to be. That isn't a real good incentive to get more skills and then be underemployed.

 

[Conservative65]

What have those in poverty or who make low wages done to better what they have to offer? What effort have they made other than whine that someone should give them more for nothing?

Wages are stagnant, what they do won't make much of a difference for most.

You just gave them an excuse to not try and continue to demand something just be handed to them. If they made half as much effort to do better as they did demanding something be given to them, you would be surprised just how much better things would be.

Although you didn't use the exact words, I suspect you consider me one of the lucky ones. To that I say: "I'm a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more of it I seem to have." - Coleman Cox

With stagnant wages they are most likely to be underemployed if they get skills. You seem to be living in a different economy.

Your argument is based on an unsupported supposition. "They are most likely to be". Now, here's a concrete reality. If they do NOT gain valuable skills, they WILL continue to remain at MW and represent no greater value to the company that hired them.

With wages stagnant they are most likely to be. That isn't a real good incentive to get more skills and then be underemployed.

You said when jobs are offered, wages go up. You said jobs were being offered when you agreed unemployment was going down.

The incentive to not get skills is that morons like you are willing to hand someone a higher wage when the only skills they have is one step above what a monkey could be trained to do.

 

[Conservative65]

Poverty, Wages Remain Stagnant Despite Economic Recovery

What have those in poverty or who make low wages done to better what they have to offer? What effort have they made other than whine that someone should give them more for nothing?

Wages are stagnant, what they do won't make much of a difference for most.

You just gave them an excuse to not try and continue to demand something just be handed to them. If they made half as much effort to do better as they did demanding something be given to them, you would be surprised just how much better things would be.

Although you didn't use the exact words, I suspect you consider me one of the lucky ones. To that I say: "I'm a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more of it I seem to have." - Coleman Cox

With stagnant wages they are most likely to be underemployed if they get skills. You seem to be living in a different economy.

Your argument is based on an unsupported supposition. "They are most likely to be". Now, here's a concrete reality. If they do NOT gain valuable skills, they WILL continue to remain at MW and represent no greater value to the company that hired them.

He does that a lot. He said yesterday that CEO's set their own salary. I asked for proof and he said they "essentially" do.

 

[Conservative65]

What I am is just one example of a statistically significant number that have done the same. What I am is someone that has proven it can be done.

Poverty, Wages Remain Stagnant Despite Economic Recovery

What have those in poverty or who make low wages done to better what they have to offer? What effort have they made other than whine that someone should give them more for nothing?

I work two jobs. I support a family that can't support themselves. A sister, mother, and two adult nephews. I pay 1/3 of the bills plus over 1,000 a month on the car. I work every hour I can. This month I bought myself 4 double cheese burgers, 4 or 5 fountain sodas, and a pair of shorts for myself. WTF am I working for. I'm not getting anything out of my effort. I'm putting as much as possible as I can into it. My sister had the nerve to ***** me out for not paying back $700 I borrowed from someone over a year ago. With what money am I supposed to pay him with.

No pizza, no big macs, nothing to make working worth doing or living worth living. And there is nothing I can do to make things better.

You don't support A family, you support members of YOUR family and it's by choice.

If your sister had the nerve to ***** you out when you're the one she relies on for support yet you keep supporting her, that's your fault. If I'm helping someone that won't/can't do for themselves and they try to tel me how to do my finances, they'll do without until that attitude changes family or not.

My sister has Hepatitis C, Liver cirrhosis, enlarged organs, has excessive periods where she leaves blood spots whenever she sits down and has been turned down for disability twice because her doctor says she's functional. She has no medical insurance.

My 18 year old nephew is still in High school. My 24 year old nephew has a job makes a whole 250 a week income and couldn't survive without my help. He's slow, took 24 years to graduate high school with a ged. It isn't his fault he's slow. My mother is retired.

Yes, I play, usually, a Darwinist asshole a lot as a means to pass the time. But my option here is to abandon my family and live on my own and have no reason to live. For me paying the rent isn't a good enough reason to live or work. We need a bigger purpose in life than that to exist or maybe we shouldn't exist. FYI I'm Bi-polar and OCD, also not my fault.

In your perfect world the weak would be left in the streets to die as being unworthy of being helped out while you strive ahead becoming better, stronger, richer. A country can't remain strong if it supports it's weak. But do you really want to live in a country that doesn't?

Despite all that, it's still your choice. If you choose to do it, no problem. However, since you do, don't whine when they ***** you out and take advantage of you. YOU allow it to happen.

I do see one pattern among your writings. No one who gets your help is at fault for anything they do.

 

[Brain357]

What have those in poverty or who make low wages done to better what they have to offer? What effort have they made other than whine that someone should give them more for nothing?

Wages are stagnant, what they do won't make much of a difference for most.

You just gave them an excuse to not try and continue to demand something just be handed to them. If they made half as much effort to do better as they did demanding something be given to them, you would be surprised just how much better things would be.

Although you didn't use the exact words, I suspect you consider me one of the lucky ones. To that I say: "I'm a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more of it I seem to have." - Coleman Cox

With stagnant wages they are most likely to be underemployed if they get skills. You seem to be living in a different economy.

Your argument is based on an unsupported supposition. "They are most likely to be". Now, here's a concrete reality. If they do NOT gain valuable skills, they WILL continue to remain at MW and represent no greater value to the company that hired them.

He does that a lot. He said yesterday that CEO's set their own salary. I asked for proof and he said they "essentially" do.

I linked how actually. I'm surprised you didn't already know they do.

 

[Brain357]

Wages are stagnant, what they do won't make much of a difference for most.

You just gave them an excuse to not try and continue to demand something just be handed to them. If they made half as much effort to do better as they did demanding something be given to them, you would be surprised just how much better things would be.

Although you didn't use the exact words, I suspect you consider me one of the lucky ones. To that I say: "I'm a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more of it I seem to have." - Coleman Cox

With stagnant wages they are most likely to be underemployed if they get skills. You seem to be living in a different economy.

Your argument is based on an unsupported supposition. "They are most likely to be". Now, here's a concrete reality. If they do NOT gain valuable skills, they WILL continue to remain at MW and represent no greater value to the company that hired them.

With wages stagnant they are most likely to be. That isn't a real good incentive to get more skills and then be underemployed.

You said when jobs are offered, wages go up. You said jobs were being offered when you agreed unemployment was going down.

The incentive to not get skills is that morons like you are willing to hand someone a higher wage when the only skills they have is one step above what a monkey could be trained to do.

With stagnant wages there are obviously not better paying skilled jobs going unfilled. If there were wages wouldn't be stagnant.

 

[Conservative65]

You just gave them an excuse to not try and continue to demand something just be handed to them. If they made half as much effort to do better as they did demanding something be given to them, you would be surprised just how much better things would be.

Although you didn't use the exact words, I suspect you consider me one of the lucky ones. To that I say: "I'm a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more of it I seem to have." - Coleman Cox

With stagnant wages they are most likely to be underemployed if they get skills. You seem to be living in a different economy.

Your argument is based on an unsupported supposition. "They are most likely to be". Now, here's a concrete reality. If they do NOT gain valuable skills, they WILL continue to remain at MW and represent no greater value to the company that hired them.

With wages stagnant they are most likely to be. That isn't a real good incentive to get more skills and then be underemployed.

You said when jobs are offered, wages go up. You said jobs were being offered when you agreed unemployment was going down.

The incentive to not get skills is that morons like you are willing to hand someone a higher wage when the only skills they have is one step above what a monkey could be trained to do.

With stagnant wages there are obviously not better paying skilled jobs going unfilled. If there were wages wouldn't be stagnant.

YOU said that if jobs were offered, wages go up. YOU also said that unemployment was down, a sign that jobs were being offered. Now, YOU say it's only good, skilled jobs.

 

[Brain357]

Only in the world of politics could you hire a unqualified, inempt community organizer a position of leadership..

But Brian in the real world of the private sector you can not just hire a burger flipper to opperate a CNC say.just because you can not find anyone else.

Yes in the real world if you can't find a Cnc operator for the wages offered, you offer more. People see how much is offered and get the proper training. Right now wages are stagnant because there aren't lots of Cnc jobs going unfilled.

To a point but not to the point of someone that is. If there are 100 jobs among how many ever companies that require skills only 50 have, those 50 will make more in wages for having obtained those skills. To a point, anyone going and getting the qualifications will make more.

CNC jobs aren't the only jobs in the world. I bet you think what you believe is the same across the board. That's not the case.

So with stagnant wages the companies aren't out there looking for jobs. If they were wages would be going up. That is my point. They are not gong up so the jobs aren't out there.

Companies don't look for jobs. Potential employees do. Companies offer jobs.

That doesn't change the point at all. Companies aren't offering jobs or wages would be increasing. See doesn't change it at all.

So the above is 571. And as you can see you took it completely out of context. I was discussing CNC jobs. Companies aren't offering CNC jobs or wages would be increasing. No wonder you wouldn't quote it. So dishonest.

 

[Brain357]

With stagnant wages they are most likely to be underemployed if they get skills. You seem to be living in a different economy.

Your argument is based on an unsupported supposition. "They are most likely to be". Now, here's a concrete reality. If they do NOT gain valuable skills, they WILL continue to remain at MW and represent no greater value to the company that hired them.

With wages stagnant they are most likely to be. That isn't a real good incentive to get more skills and then be underemployed.

You said when jobs are offered, wages go up. You said jobs were being offered when you agreed unemployment was going down.

The incentive to not get skills is that morons like you are willing to hand someone a higher wage when the only skills they have is one step above what a monkey could be trained to do.

With stagnant wages there are obviously not better paying skilled jobs going unfilled. If there were wages wouldn't be stagnant.

YOU said that if jobs were offered, wages go up. YOU also said that unemployment was down, a sign that jobs were being offered. Now, YOU say it's only good, skilled jobs.

Yes skilled jobs as I just showed with my last point Learn how to read moron.

 

[Conservative65]

Yes in the real world if you can't find a Cnc operator for the wages offered, you offer more. People see how much is offered and get the proper training. Right now wages are stagnant because there aren't lots of Cnc jobs going unfilled.

To a point but not to the point of someone that is. If there are 100 jobs among how many ever companies that require skills only 50 have, those 50 will make more in wages for having obtained those skills. To a point, anyone going and getting the qualifications will make more.

CNC jobs aren't the only jobs in the world. I bet you think what you believe is the same across the board. That's not the case.

So with stagnant wages the companies aren't out there looking for jobs. If they were wages would be going up. That is my point. They are not gong up so the jobs aren't out there.

Companies don't look for jobs. Potential employees do. Companies offer jobs.

That doesn't change the point at all. Companies aren't offering jobs or wages would be increasing. See doesn't change it at all.

So the above is 571. And as you can see you took it completely out of context. I was discussing CNC jobs. Companies aren't offering CNC jobs or wages would be increasing. No wonder you wouldn't quote it. So dishonest.

You didn't mention CNC jobs until after that. Such a liar.

By the way, Cnc jobs aren't the only job around. You want to base your entire argument around ONE profession. So ******* stupid.