Wage Strikes Planned at Fast-Food Outlets

[Spiderman]

What amazes me is that these people are happy to keep people underpaid, and then expect these same people to serve them healthy, sanitary food they will then put in their bodies.

What amazes me is that people will stay in a minimum wage job forever never learn any more valuable skills and then cry that it's not their own fault.

 

[Mac1958]

What amazes me is that these people are happy to keep people underpaid, and then expect these same people to serve them healthy, sanitary food they will then put in their bodies.

What amzes me is that people will stay in a minimum wage job forever nevr learn any more valuable skills and then cry that it's not their own fault.

You never see them talk about this.

It's at the very core of being lucky enough to have been born in this country, but they never talk about it.

It's always someone else's fault.

.

 

[Spiderman]

.

As Pop23 pointed out earlier in this thread, perhaps it's time for those who think they see the big picture to lead the way. Simple as pie:

1. Do what it takes to start and get a fast food business up and running. This will include huge financial risk, ridiculously long hours, little sleep and great frustrations. But remember, you're not building this, someone "else" is, something like that.

2. Start hiring people for your business. Your lowest hourly rate will be $15.00 an hour.

3. Oh, by the way, there will be people who would have made MORE than minimum wage before, such as more highly-skilled people and your managers. So you'll need to pay them $18.00 and $21.00 an hour. It's only fair, right?

4. Run with it. Advertise to the city (advertising is expensive, but you're a rich and greedy business owner, so this shouldn't be a problem at all) that you pay your people $15.00 to $21.00 an hour at your fast food establishment.

5. Keep good track of your progress. I'm sure you'll be able to afford a top-notch CPA, because you're loaded and all.

6. Report back ASAP and rub your magnificent success in our face.


The stunningly simplistic thought I'm seeing by people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about is really quite amazing.

So, who takes me up on this easy deal?

.

Why?

I invested in and ultimately wound up running a business.

Wages were the least of the problems.

I would have gladly paid that in trade for a power grid that didn't go out once a week causing massive hits to my bottom line.

Saying that payroll, usually the single largest expense of a business is no problem is a bit disingenuous and where are you living that you lose power once a week, Somalia?

 

[lakeview]

I guess this deflection means you're not going to take me up on the deal, huh?

Dang, it seems like it would be so EASY.

.

Ever own your own business?

Yes, of course, more than one. I own one now. And I have roughly 30 businesses as clients, and I'm working with them every day.

And seeing what I'm seeing here would be funny if it were not so destructive.

.

So you say...this is the Internet after all and the cred here is worth exactly what you can buy with it. I've never been impressed by guys who try to claim authority by stating what they want others to think they do in real life when it's so much easier to just speak the language. So what are you federally? an S-Corp?

 

[Mac1958]

Ever own your own business?

Yes, of course, more than one. I own one now. And I have roughly 30 businesses as clients, and I'm working with them every day.

And seeing what I'm seeing here would be funny if it were not so destructive.

.

So you say...this is the Internet after all and the cred here is worth exactly what you can buy with it. I've never been impressed by guys who try to claim authority by stating what they want others to think they do in real life when it's so much easier to just speak the language. So what are you federally? an S-Corp?

I was asked a question, and I answered it. And no, we're a C.

I'd just as soon not talk about myself, because this stuff is nothing more than diversion. And indeed, anyone can say anything on the internet, so it's much better to deal with what we all see.

Discuss the issue at hand, and stop diverting.

.

 

[lakeview]

Yes, of course, more than one. I own one now. And I have roughly 30 businesses as clients, and I'm working with them every day.

And seeing what I'm seeing here would be funny if it were not so destructive.

.

So you say...this is the Internet after all and the cred here is worth exactly what you can buy with it. I've never been impressed by guys who try to claim authority by stating what they want others to think they do in real life when it's so much easier to just speak the language. So what are you federally? an S-Corp?

I was asked a question, and I answered it. And no, we're a C.

I'd just as soon not talk about myself.

Discuss the issue at hand.

.

Bullshit, you interjected with the "fact" that you own a business. That brings up a lot of questions...unless you really don't want to go there in which case you should just shut it.

The issue at hand is what is good for the economy, you attempted to inject "authority"...others here actually have that authority...maybe you should shut it.

 

[Mac1958]

So you say...this is the Internet after all and the cred here is worth exactly what you can buy with it. I've never been impressed by guys who try to claim authority by stating what they want others to think they do in real life when it's so much easier to just speak the language. So what are you federally? an S-Corp?

I was asked a question, and I answered it. And no, we're a C.

I'd just as soon not talk about myself.

Discuss the issue at hand.

.

Bullshit, you interjected with the "fact" that you own a business. That brings up a lot of questions...unless you really don't want to go there in which case you should just shut it.

The issue at hand is what is good for the economy, you attempted to inject "authority"...others here actually have that authority...maybe you should shut it.

Please refer to post 219, in which Sallow asked me if I've ever owned a business.

That's okay, I won't expect an apology.

And "maybe you should shut it"? How old are you?

And were you planning to keep playing this game of diversion? If so, I won't bother responding to you any more. If you aren't capable of a civil, mature conversation, you're not worth the time.

.

 

[lakeview]

I read Sallow's post...and I read your response. My response to you is Shut It. I don't believe you own a business.

 

[Spiderman]

I read Sallow's post...and I read your response. My response to you is Shut It. I don't believe you own a business.

I believe you are sitting in your mama's basement on your chair stained with various bodily fluids,

 

[lakeview]

The body fluids part might be just a wee bit correct Doesn't change the fact that people who want to pontificate on the economy should know what they're talking about. My point is that ~900,000 jobs from MickeyD's alone that are a net loss due to government programs and low wages aren't really that great and I'd absolutely love to hear Mac justify his earlier statement. I know he's a businessman and all but I feel pretty comfortable calling him out on this issue.

 

[Mac1958]

The body fluids part might be just a wee bit correct Doesn't change the fact that people who want to pontificate on the economy should know what they're talking about. My point is that ~900,000 jobs from MickeyD's alone that are a net loss due to government programs and low wages aren't really that great and I'd absolutely love to hear Mac justify his earlier statement. I know he's a businessman and all but I feel pretty comfortable calling him out on this issue.

If you can keep it civil and mature, I'll be happy to.

First, I don't understand this phrase: "My point is that ~900,000 jobs from MickeyD's alone that are a net loss due to government programs and low wages aren't really that great". Please clarify.

Second, which earlier statement would you like me to justify?

.

 

[JoeB131]

Indeed we do have a serious problem in this country right now. But those who know absolutely nothing about business economics nor economics in general are not helping anything when they (a) fire off simplistic expectations of business based on pure ignorance and emotion, and (b) assume that so many people in this country are absolutely incapable of improving their own lives.

These people are simply (and I do mean "simply") exacerbating the problem.

.

Oh, right. So we should listen to the people who brought us the recession of 2008, because they know how to run the economy.

Here's the thing. We listened to the economic conservatives. We clamped down on raising the minimum wage (It would be about $15.00 if it kept up with inflation). We signed free trade treaties. We cut taxes on the rich. We deregulated everything. We let them bust the labor unions.

How that work out again?

This is why I'd like to tell the economic conservatives to sit down and STFU. Because I don't hear a thing you say anymore.

 

[lakeview]

The body fluids part might be just a wee bit correct Doesn't change the fact that people who want to pontificate on the economy should know what they're talking about. My point is that ~900,000 jobs from MickeyD's alone that are a net loss due to government programs and low wages aren't really that great and I'd absolutely love to hear Mac justify his earlier statement. I know he's a businessman and all but I feel pretty comfortable calling him out on this issue.

If you can keep it civil and mature, I'll be happy to.

First, I don't understand this phrase: "My point is that ~900,000 jobs from MickeyD's alone that are a net loss due to government programs and low wages aren't really that great". Please clarify.

Second, which earlier statement would you like me to justify?

.

Don't ask me to be civil but then play stupid. I've read the thread, so have you and so has everyone else. My comment on jobs that are a net loss is valid, rebuttal?

 

[Mac1958]

Indeed we do have a serious problem in this country right now. But those who know absolutely nothing about business economics nor economics in general are not helping anything when they (a) fire off simplistic expectations of business based on pure ignorance and emotion, and (b) assume that so many people in this country are absolutely incapable of improving their own lives.

These people are simply (and I do mean "simply") exacerbating the problem.

.

Oh, right. So we should listen to the people who brought us the recession of 2008, because they know how to run the economy.

Here's the thing. We listened to the economic conservatives. We clamped down on raising the minimum wage (It would be about $15.00 if it kept up with inflation). We signed free trade treaties. We cut taxes on the rich. We deregulated everything. We let them bust the labor unions.

How that work out again?

This is why I'd like to tell the economic conservatives to sit down and STFU. Because I don't hear a thing you say anymore.

Again, I'm not even sure where to begin.

Evidently you think that blame for meltdown can be put in one place. Holy crap, that thing was decades in the making, and the list of culprits is long and deep. So I really don't know what to say there, where to start. I've explained it to my kids, and they get it, but I was willing to spend more time with them.

As I've mentioned in other threads, I actually don't have a problem raising the minimum wage, as long as they're not creating a net negative. Nor do I have problems with unions, as long as they're not creating a net negative. The problem is that people who are absolutely naïve and ignorant about business economics are basing their "arguments" on nothing more than emotion, and that is not helping.

So you're emoting to the wrong guy. And it would be easier to take your posts seriously if you would spend any time whatsoever in demonstrating a belief that people can improve their own lives in America.

.

 

[lakeview]

Indeed we do have a serious problem in this country right now. But those who know absolutely nothing about business economics nor economics in general are not helping anything when they (a) fire off simplistic expectations of business based on pure ignorance and emotion, and (b) assume that so many people in this country are absolutely incapable of improving their own lives.

These people are simply (and I do mean "simply") exacerbating the problem.

.

Oh, right. So we should listen to the people who brought us the recession of 2008, because they know how to run the economy.

Here's the thing. We listened to the economic conservatives. We clamped down on raising the minimum wage (It would be about $15.00 if it kept up with inflation). We signed free trade treaties. We cut taxes on the rich. We deregulated everything. We let them bust the labor unions.

How that work out again?

This is why I'd like to tell the economic conservatives to sit down and STFU. Because I don't hear a thing you say anymore.

Again, I'm not even sure where to begin.

Evidently you think that blame for meltdown can be put in one place. Holy crap, that thing was decades in the making, and the list of culprits is long and deep. So I really don't know what to say there, where to start. I've explained it to my kids, and they get it, but I was willing to spend more time with them.

As I've mentioned in other threads, I actually don't have a problem raising the minimum wage, as long as they're not creating a net negative. Nor do I have problems with unions, as long as they're not creating a net negative. The problem is that people who are absolutely naïve and ignorant about business economics are basing their "arguments" on nothing more than emotion, and that is not helping.

So you're emoting to the wrong guy. And it would be easier to take your posts seriously if you would spend any time whatsoever in demonstrating a belief that people can improve their own lives in America.

.

I'm going to jump in here because Joe is going where I'm going and you just said he's being emotional about this. I don't think he is. He brought up a very good point, we've been told that the way to deal with this is to "support business". How do you do that when people don't have the money to do so? I guess this comes down to whether you think supply drives demand or demand drives supply.

 

[Mac1958]

The body fluids part might be just a wee bit correct Doesn't change the fact that people who want to pontificate on the economy should know what they're talking about. My point is that ~900,000 jobs from MickeyD's alone that are a net loss due to government programs and low wages aren't really that great and I'd absolutely love to hear Mac justify his earlier statement. I know he's a businessman and all but I feel pretty comfortable calling him out on this issue.

If you can keep it civil and mature, I'll be happy to.

First, I don't understand this phrase: "My point is that ~900,000 jobs from MickeyD's alone that are a net loss due to government programs and low wages aren't really that great". Please clarify.

Second, which earlier statement would you like me to justify?

.

Don't ask me to be civil but then play stupid. I've read the thread, so have you and so has everyone else. My comment on jobs that are a net loss is valid, rebuttal?

Okay, since you refuse to clarify, I'll try to answer. If my answer does not address your question properly, please let me know.

So you're saying that 900,000 McDonald's jobs have been lost, and that those people are now on government programs, costing the taxpayer?

Sure, people on assistance are a net cost to taxpayers. That's easy. But I'm not sure on whom you're pinning the blame. McDonald's?

Is that what you're talking about?

.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Again, I'm not even sure where to begin.

Evidently you think that blame for meltdown can be put in one place. Holy crap, that thing was decades in the making, and the list of culprits is long and deep. So I really don't know what to say there, where to start. I've explained it to my kids, and they get it, but I was willing to spend more time with them.

As I've mentioned in other threads, I actually don't have a problem raising the minimum wage, as long as they're not creating a net negative. Nor do I have problems with unions, as long as they're not creating a net negative. The problem is that people who are absolutely naïve and ignorant about business economics are basing their "arguments" on nothing more than emotion, and that is not helping.

So you're emoting to the wrong guy. And it would be easier to take your posts seriously if you would spend any time whatsoever in demonstrating a belief that people can improve their own lives in America.

.

Oh, we all at fault. It wasn't those 1%ers at all, who hoarded 43% of the wealth and still didn't think it was enough. They are too big to fail and too big to jail.

Hey, how come you never think that causes a "negative".

Free Trade was a negative.
Big Tax Cuts were a negative.

We did everything the assholes said, and we got a train wreck.

 

[Mac1958]

[
Again, I'm not even sure where to begin.

Evidently you think that blame for meltdown can be put in one place. Holy crap, that thing was decades in the making, and the list of culprits is long and deep. So I really don't know what to say there, where to start. I've explained it to my kids, and they get it, but I was willing to spend more time with them.

As I've mentioned in other threads, I actually don't have a problem raising the minimum wage, as long as they're not creating a net negative. Nor do I have problems with unions, as long as they're not creating a net negative. The problem is that people who are absolutely naïve and ignorant about business economics are basing their "arguments" on nothing more than emotion, and that is not helping.

So you're emoting to the wrong guy. And it would be easier to take your posts seriously if you would spend any time whatsoever in demonstrating a belief that people can improve their own lives in America.

.

Oh, we all at fault. It wasn't those 1%ers at all, who hoarded 43% of the wealth and still didn't think it was enough. They are too big to fail and too big to jail.

Hey, how come you never think that causes a "negative".

Free Trade was a negative.
Big Tax Cuts were a negative.

We did everything the assholes said, and we got a train wreck.

We're way off track here, I sure wish we weren't, but let me try this:

I think, since incomes have exploded on the top end, that we should add two new progressive marginal tax rates, at 44.9% and 49.9%. Assuming, of course, that we see some progress on efficiencies in the government so that we're not pissing those extra dollars away.

What say you?

.

 

[lakeview]

If you can keep it civil and mature, I'll be happy to.

First, I don't understand this phrase: "My point is that ~900,000 jobs from MickeyD's alone that are a net loss due to government programs and low wages aren't really that great". Please clarify.

Second, which earlier statement would you like me to justify?

.

Don't ask me to be civil but then play stupid. I've read the thread, so have you and so has everyone else. My comment on jobs that are a net loss is valid, rebuttal?

Okay, since you refuse to clarify, I'll try to answer. If my answer does not address your question properly, please let me know.

So you're saying that 900,000 McDonald's jobs have been lost, and that those people are now on government programs, costing the taxpayer?

Sure, people on assistance are a net cost to taxpayers. That's easy. But I'm not sure on whom you're pinning the blame. McDonald's?

Is that what you're talking about?

.

You really want to resort to the "I refuse to clarify" game? Alright. I asked you two specific questions but I guess I'm the one who doesn't want to "clarify", whatever. I'll have fun watching Joe dissect you. And I still don't believe you own a business and stop trying to claim authority that isn't yours to claim.

 

[Mac1958]

Don't ask me to be civil but then play stupid. I've read the thread, so have you and so has everyone else. My comment on jobs that are a net loss is valid, rebuttal?

Okay, since you refuse to clarify, I'll try to answer. If my answer does not address your question properly, please let me know.

So you're saying that 900,000 McDonald's jobs have been lost, and that those people are now on government programs, costing the taxpayer?

Sure, people on assistance are a net cost to taxpayers. That's easy. But I'm not sure on whom you're pinning the blame. McDonald's?

Is that what you're talking about?

.

You really want to resort to the "I refuse to clarify" game? Alright. I asked you two specific questions but I guess I'm the one who doesn't want to "clarify", whatever. I'll have fun watching Joe dissect you. And I still don't believe you own a business and stop trying to claim authority that isn't yours to claim.

Okay, I tried.

And you certainly don't have to believe anything about me. I don't believe you're an adult, so I guess we can go on our merry ways.

Thanks.

.