To those saying flipping burgers or dunking fries deserves 15.00 per hour...

[Humorme]

but make a big deal out of paying a little more for a burger so that some child don't end up on welfare, costing you even more?

Other than money, what is the single most important difference between a child being raised in poverty and a child being raised above the poverty level?

What's your point?

 

[Humorme]

Explain why someone HAS to work for min wage. Your type say its all about choices. So make the choice not to apply. With barely a work ethic one can do better. Those co panies are awful places to work.

. Every company in America should be a place that any American wouldn't mind working for temporarily or even full time. Every company in America ought to treat their employees decent and fair. Companies stop with the lying already.

Companies don't open up to provide a livable wage and good benefits. Companies open up to provide a product or service for a profit. Opening up a business is not a social obligation. Opening up a business is for business.

The right always has a talking point until you put them on the spot. If you saw a Mexican behind the counter, you'd be advocating putting the owner in jail as if they had a duty to provide jobs for Americans only.

And, no, I'm not a liberal, so don't give me yet another pre-approved message from Richard Spencer.

Company owners have the obligation to adhere to our laws just like anybody else. There are laws that say you cannot hire illegals.. There is no law stating you must pay anybody a livable wage.

. Isn't there a minimum wage law ?? At one time it was set state by state in accordance with the states cost of living standard in percentage of. For years of doing weird business practices over time, the wage became almost obselete when in reality it needed to be visited again big time. Now who caused this revisiting of the minimum wage laws, and thus brought the raising of the wage back into focus once again ??. You guessed it "the greedy" is who bring these things back into focus. You can't have 17% unemployment, and think that it won't be looked into upon why that is.

Sorry, but your post made no sense to me.

 

[Humorme]

I guess what those who poke fun at that segment of society want is for taxpayers to foot their entire bill since not everybody can learn more to earn more.

Those of us on the right don't want to foot any bill. Cut social programs down to the bare bone, and it will force people to work harder and better themselves.

Pardon me, but that is a silly reply. Lots of people simply can't do what you expect... you know anybody with autism, Downs, or is IQ challenged?

Those people are taken care of by our social programs. They don't need to work if they don't want to. Some of them do I suppose, but it's not a necessity or survival.

By cutting social programs, I'm talking about the many who are physically and mentally capable of working, but don't.

Are you being flippant? Some people can work and want to work, but they can't get beyond a certain level with jobs. They won't be the head of Google or a rocket scientist, but they shouldn't have to work for a check that is less than what they could make on disability.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Then those businesses go to the next county that stays the hell out of their business and that county reaps in the tax revenue.

A few years ago our city was considering a huge minimum wage increase. They wanted it $15.00 an hour. Even the liberal council realized what a grave mistake that would have been. They voted it down because they knew businesses would flee Cleveland and reopen in the suburbs.

Since that was a failure, they tried to get the county to have a $15.00 an hour minimum wage. They too refused to go along with the idea for the same reason.

Asked and answered. If people cannot make a realistic wage, they will qualify for welfare, housing subsidies, AFDC, etc. Taxpayers will either pay higher taxes or 15 cents more a meal for a Big Mac.

You speak from an assumption that taxpayers have a responsibility to provide a certain lifestyle to others. That attitude is increasingly being questioned, and circumstances may well change.

I don't have presumptions about anything. Either those who are only able to work certain jobs are paid for their services OR we will cover them.

If your way was THE way, how come it hasn't been done with a stacked Congress (Senate and House) along with the prez. Maybe, deep down, they don't buy the whole talking point?

Perhaps there are still too many Democrats in the Republican Party.

Charity is not nor has ever legally been the venue of the federal government. It is a usurped power.

Paying someone for their work is not charity. And we do provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.

Being forced to pay someone more than their work is worth is not charity either, but theft.

And yes, we do provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. We are also forced to take care of those who are fully capable of working and providing for themselves.

 

[Ame®icano]

View attachment 164037

Even McDonald's acknowledges that their business was intended for children.
Holding businesses that are created with the employment of kids & college students responsible for the poor choices people make in life is wrong. If you're in your mid to late 20's or higher & working for minimum wage you have no one to blame but yourself. You're poor choices should not result in a 10.00 Big Mac or 4 dollar fry.

Kids have been shut out of these jobs by illegal aliens.

... and by graduates with useless degrees good for f*ing nothing.

 

[Ame®icano]

Oh, ho! So belt it out and explain yourself.

Private laws do just that.

I disagree. Explain which laws, and how they they provide the federal government with such authority when the Constitution is applied to them.

You provide the positive, and I'll quickly respond.

I am on the left.

You need to stop appealing to ignorance of private laws. Do some research.

I am well versed in private laws.

Apparently you are unable to present your argument, as it is with others on the left.

LOL. The right wing is usually just clueless and Causeless.

Private laws affect private persons instead of the general public.

How's that in relation with general welfare clause or commerce clause?

 

[danielpalos]

Private laws do just that.

I disagree. Explain which laws, and how they they provide the federal government with such authority when the Constitution is applied to them.

You provide the positive, and I'll quickly respond.

I am on the left.

You need to stop appealing to ignorance of private laws. Do some research.

I am well versed in private laws.

Apparently you are unable to present your argument, as it is with others on the left.

LOL. The right wing is usually just clueless and Causeless.

Private laws affect private persons instead of the general public.

How's that in relation with general welfare clause or commerce clause?

Capitalism instead of socialism on a national basis.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Oh, ho! So belt it out and explain yourself.

Private laws do just that.

I disagree. Explain which laws, and how they they provide the federal government with such authority when the Constitution is applied to them.

You provide the positive, and I'll quickly respond.

I am on the left.

You need to stop appealing to ignorance of private laws. Do some research.

Leftist never have to explain anything. They just throw shit out and demand that they're right.

I am not the one appealing to ignorance of the law.

Apparently you are, since you cannot explain your rationale.

 

[Ame®icano]

Oh, ho! So belt it out and explain yourself.

Private laws do just that.

I disagree. Explain which laws, and how they they provide the federal government with such authority when the Constitution is applied to them.

You provide the positive, and I'll quickly respond.

I am on the left.

You need to stop appealing to ignorance of private laws. Do some research.

Leftist never have to explain anything. They just throw shit out and demand that they're right.

I am not the one appealing to ignorance of the law.

Actually you do, since you're calling on privacy laws as authorization to the federal government to take cash from my pocket and deposit it to yours. That shows you're clueless and that ignorance is on your side.

 

[danielpalos]

Private laws do just that.

I disagree. Explain which laws, and how they they provide the federal government with such authority when the Constitution is applied to them.

You provide the positive, and I'll quickly respond.

I am on the left.

You need to stop appealing to ignorance of private laws. Do some research.

Leftist never have to explain anything. They just throw shit out and demand that they're right.

I am not the one appealing to ignorance of the law.

Actually you do, since you're calling on privacy laws as authorization to the federal government to take cash from my pocket and deposit it to yours. That shows you're clueless and that ignorance is on your side.

That is what private law does.

 

[Ame®icano]

I disagree. Explain which laws, and how they they provide the federal government with such authority when the Constitution is applied to them.

You provide the positive, and I'll quickly respond.

I am on the left.

You need to stop appealing to ignorance of private laws. Do some research.

Leftist never have to explain anything. They just throw shit out and demand that they're right.

I am not the one appealing to ignorance of the law.

Actually you do, since you're calling on privacy laws as authorization to the federal government to take cash from my pocket and deposit it to yours. That shows you're clueless and that ignorance is on your side.

That is what private law does.

Nope, it doesn't. How about you post the definition of what the private law is, instead of being wart on the butt of life.

 

[Papageorgio]

View attachment 164037

Even McDonald's acknowledges that their business was intended for children.
Holding businesses that are created with the employment of kids & college students responsible for the poor choices people make in life is wrong. If you're in your mid to late 20's or higher & working for minimum wage you have no one to blame but yourself. You're poor choices should not result in a 10.00 Big Mac or 4 dollar fry.

Poverty is a complex issue. To blame it all on laziness is absolutely ridiculous and sends the message that corporations can pay employees wages that are way behind on the rising cost of living for the sake of massive profit that only benefits a small group of executives per company.

No one said anything about being lazy, except you. He spoke of what McDonald's intended employees are. Other than management, the majority of McDonald workers are under 21, which is what Ray Kroc envisioned when he built the franchise.

The goal of McDonald's was to buy the best real estate in the area develop it, have entrepreneurs run it using high school kids. That was always the goal of the McDonald's franchise. Also those that work at McDonald's are not lazy, it is not an easy job, however 95% of the population are qualified to work at McDonald's, it is not a skilled labor position.

 

[Ame®icano]

View attachment 164037

Even McDonald's acknowledges that their business was intended for children.
Holding businesses that are created with the employment of kids & college students responsible for the poor choices people make in life is wrong. If you're in your mid to late 20's or higher & working for minimum wage you have no one to blame but yourself. You're poor choices should not result in a 10.00 Big Mac or 4 dollar fry.

Poverty is a complex issue. To blame it all on laziness is absolutely ridiculous and sends the message that corporations can pay employees wages that are way behind on the rising cost of living for the sake of massive profit that only benefits a small group of executives per company.

Where does he blame it on laziness?

And, rise in living cost does not obligate the corporation to pay you more.

 

[JoeB131]

You conflate two disparate issues, as is your frequent practice.

No, they are the same issue, really. If you want to argue that anything a capitalist does to make a profit is okay, and **** the people who are doing the actual work, then you shouldn't whine about illegal labor.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

View attachment 164037

Even McDonald's acknowledges that their business was intended for children.
Holding businesses that are created with the employment of kids & college students responsible for the poor choices people make in life is wrong. If you're in your mid to late 20's or higher & working for minimum wage you have no one to blame but yourself. You're poor choices should not result in a 10.00 Big Mac or 4 dollar fry.

Poverty is a complex issue. To blame it all on laziness is absolutely ridiculous and sends the message that corporations can pay employees wages that are way behind on the rising cost of living for the sake of massive profit that only benefits a small group of executives per company.

No one said anything about being lazy, except you. He spoke of what McDonald's intended employees are. Other than management, the majority of McDonald workers are under 21, which is what Ray Kroc envisioned when he built the franchise.

The goal of McDonald's was to buy the best real estate in the area develop it, have entrepreneurs run it using high school kids. That was always the goal of the McDonald's franchise. Also those that work at McDonald's are not lazy, it is not an easy job, however 95% of the population are qualified to work at McDonald's, it is not a skilled labor position.

I implied poor life choices. If he extrapolated laziesness out of that, well that's on him.
You simply can not say that someone in their 30's flipping burgers for a living didn't make some drastic poor choices when they were younger.

 

[Ame®icano]

You conflate two disparate issues, as is your frequent practice.

No, they are the same issue, really. If you want to argue that anything a capitalist does to make a profit is okay, and **** the people who are doing the actual work, then you shouldn't whine about illegal labor.

Anything capitalist does within the law to make a profit IS okay.

Paying people what their work is worth, and what they agreed to be paid is not "******* people".

And how illegal labor fits into what you just said?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I think we've beat this horse to death two times over.

 

[JoeB131]

So the money they needed to purchase a franchise came out of thin air? Why am I not surprised by your lack of getting it? And you would know the owner how? Do they wear a label, with owner on it.

Oh, you can always tell the owner at a fast food place. He's the fat, middle aged prick in the middle of a lot of working class kids.

 

[JoeB131]

Also those that work at McDonald's are not lazy, it is not an easy job,

And they should be paid more than $7.25 an hour then...

the rest is just bullshit.

 

[rightwinger]

View attachment 164037

Even McDonald's acknowledges that their business was intended for children.
Holding businesses that are created with the employment of kids & college students responsible for the poor choices people make in life is wrong. If you're in your mid to late 20's or higher & working for minimum wage you have no one to blame but yourself. You're poor choices should not result in a 10.00 Big Mac or 4 dollar fry.

Poverty is a complex issue. To blame it all on laziness is absolutely ridiculous and sends the message that corporations can pay employees wages that are way behind on the rising cost of living for the sake of massive profit that only benefits a small group of executives per company.

No one said anything about being lazy, except you. He spoke of what McDonald's intended employees are. Other than management, the majority of McDonald workers are under 21, which is what Ray Kroc envisioned when he built the franchise.

The goal of McDonald's was to buy the best real estate in the area develop it, have entrepreneurs run it using high school kids. That was always the goal of the McDonald's franchise. Also those that work at McDonald's are not lazy, it is not an easy job, however 95% of the population are qualified to work at McDonald's, it is not a skilled labor position.

I implied poor life choices. If he extrapolated laziesness out of that, well that's on him.
You simply can not say that someone in their 30's flipping burgers for a living didn't make some drastic poor choices when they were younger.

Nobody claims people will work for minimum wage their entire life

But it still does not excuse exploiting low skilled labor