Wage Strikes Planned at Fast-Food Outlets

[depotoo]

Yup. I am serious.

McD's is not gm or enron. Quite difference, me boy. And in the case of enron and gm, it took YEARS. The fact that you just heard about it after the fact had nothing at all to do with what was going on for years, in the case of gm, as they mismanaged their company. But it was going on in the 1970's. And the management who owned stock options {the general public and 401K's do not own stock OPTIONS. They own stocks) had all the time they needed to exercise their options. And make MILLIONS.

Read. It will help. Ignorance is curable.

By the time that gm, for instance, tubed, the vast majority of stock options had been exercised under the control of the investment managers used by the managers who owned the stock options.

after the fact? Really? No, you are being selective in your outrage, plain and simply. And so far as the options versus stocks, you just might want to educate yourself. Because you are wrong.

Read. It will help. Ignorance is curable

What's he wrong about?

You understand the difference between options and stocks?

It's pretty big.

Your assumption he was right in my not understanding stock versus options makes you in the same league as he is. Try educating yourself as well.

 

[depotoo]

Low-wage workers (the poor) spend a larger percentage of any income increase than the wealthy. An increase in the minimum wage at the expense of any profits will increase demand all else being equal.

However, any government with an understanding of economics can increase demand WHENEVER it so desires, so I can see the point where raising minimum wage for the sake of increased demand may not SOLELY be the entire argument for an increase in the minimum wage. It also boils down to public policy.

That's completely wrong and not supported by facts. there was a min wage increase in July 2009 and no corresponding increase in demand.

The private sector won’t hire the additional 250K-300K new workers per month until we have adequate aggregate demand in the economy so they’ll hire new workers. Please explain to me how keeping the minimum wage static, or decreasing it, will help the situation?

Increased wages = increased income which leads to increased consumption resulting in firms hiring more people. Obviously, an increase of even $12 or $15 isn’t going to give individuals the ability purchase a new car or condo on the beach. What if these workers aren’t living in poverty? Are you implying that they wouldn’t spend the additional money provided by an increased minimum wage? I wonder if you’d argue that tax cuts for everyone are unnecessary since most of the individuals who benefit from them aren’t living in abject poverty?

Generally, if people earn more $$$$ through increased wages (as opposed to the vast majority of the one percent, who tend to earn their $$$$ through things like investments and a rigged tax system written by lobbyists to favor capital gains over income) then an increased wage would result in spending more $$$$, creating jobs for others, etc. People could pay their car note, mortgage, get out of debt, etc. People would pay more in taxes, mostly property and sales tax, which would relieve state and local manipulates. The key is higher incomes, not increased debt loads via private credit expansion.

Here’s the bottom line: wages are both an input cost and source of demand. If you decrease wages, demand will tank, which has way more dire consequences than any cost savings as a results of paying workers less. This is definitely the case give our pathetic and laughable minimum wage, which is couldn’t possibly be described as a living wage by any rational human being.

Increased wages only increases the prices of goods and services. Think about that for a minute, amybe more and you might catch on.

 

[depotoo]

FAst food profit margin average before taxes? 6%. So if you spend $10, of that they only see 60 cents on that sale and they still owe taxes on it.

 

[Pop23]

Still amazing how these folks don't understand that raising the minimum will raise all and the bottom rung will be hurt by the inflation that will cause the worst. In no time they are back where they started, possibly in even worse shape.

The solution is a better, less expensive education system and incentives to better themselves.

 

[expat_panama]

The private sector won’t hire the additional 250K-300K new workers per month until we have adequate aggregate demand in the economy so they’ll hire new workers. Please explain to me how keeping the minimum wage static, or decreasing it, will help the situation?

First, demand isn't enough. The jobless want as much or more than they wanted six years ago when they were rich. The difference is now they're broke. So instead of demand what we want to do is increase incomes and spending.

Here's the thing to remember, people are different. Some people can bring in a lot of income to a company and some people can only bring in a little. Lowering the minimum wage would make it so companies could hire more kinds of people. Raising the minumum wage limits the people companies can hire so household incomes fall and joblessness soars:

This is often where ideologues switch from saying "my doctrine makes good things happen" to "the bad things weren't my fault" (or maybe 'correlation doesn't prove causality'). OK, let's notice that raising the minimum wage did not cause increased jobs, incomes, and spending.

 

[Rshermr]

after the fact? Really? No, you are being selective in your outrage, plain and simply. And so far as the options versus stocks, you just might want to educate yourself. Because you are wrong.

Read. It will help. Ignorance is curable

So, let me understand this. You think that gm went down the tube in a really fast manner. And that it was not obvious that they were in trouble for YEARS.
Sorry me boy. You are totally wrong. And that is easily provable.

And you think that those gm ceo's did not exercise their stock options over the years and make tens of millions??? Sorry me boy. You are totally wrong. And that is easy to prove.

And you think that I was wrong about the difference between stocks and stock options?
Sorry me boy. You are totally wrong. Show me a single person who owns gm stock options who is not a member of upper management of gm. You can not, of course. And you can not buy or trade stock options. Get a grip.

Here is the thing, me boy. I am not outraged at all. Why should I be. I just try to help you to understand some of the things that you do not understand. Or, perhaps, that you are simply lying about. I have no way of knowing where your ineptness springs from. Just trying to inform you. But you seem uninterested in truth. Sorry about that.

Just wow! You really seem to want to put words in people's moths. Of cours I know the difference. But you did not educate yourself to find out who all called in their options, buddy.

get back to me when you find out the difference between stock options and stocks.

 

[Rshermr]

after the fact? Really? No, you are being selective in your outrage, plain and simply. And so far as the options versus stocks, you just might want to educate yourself. Because you are wrong.

Read. It will help. Ignorance is curable

What's he wrong about?

You understand the difference between options and stocks?

It's pretty big.

Your assumption he was right in my not understanding stock versus options makes you in the same league as he is. Try educating yourself as well.

Deep is a tool. He is incapable of arguments. Just makes stupid accusations which he can not back up. Asked what I was wrong about, he can not respond. Because I was correct, of course, Deep is just a normal con, making stupid statements.

 

[Rshermr]

after the fact? Really? No, you are being selective in your outrage, plain and simply. And so far as the options versus stocks, you just might want to educate yourself. Because you are wrong.

Read. It will help. Ignorance is curable

What's he wrong about?

You understand the difference between options and stocks?

It's pretty big.

Your assumption he was right in my not understanding stock versus options makes you in the same league as he is. Try educating yourself as well.

You are WAY out of your league. You have NO idea what he said. Really. It is just that you are stupid. Probably not your fault at all.
By the way, do you want to define the new word you used, me boy??? amybe??? Most people stick to english here. Looks like some african dialect.

 

[Rshermr]

The private sector won’t hire the additional 250K-300K new workers per month until we have adequate aggregate demand in the economy so they’ll hire new workers. Please explain to me how keeping the minimum wage static, or decreasing it, will help the situation?

First, demand isn't enough. The jobless want as much or more than they wanted six years ago when they were rich. The difference is now they're broke. So instead of demand what we want to do is increase incomes and spending.

Here's the thing to remember, people are different. Some people can bring in a lot of income to a company and some people can only bring in a little. Lowering the minimum wage would make it so companies could hire more kinds of people. Raising the minumum wage limits the people companies can hire so household incomes fall and joblessness soars:

This is often where ideologues switch from saying "my doctrine makes good things happen" to "the bad things weren't my fault" (or maybe 'correlation doesn't prove causality'). OK, let's notice that raising the minimum wage did not cause increased jobs, incomes, and spending.

Right. That is your opinion, apparently. Do you have any backup, or are you just suggesting we should believe your opinion. Because, of course, no one really does. How about a study from an impartial source.

 

[Rshermr]

Still amazing how these folks don't understand that raising the minimum will raise all and the bottom rung will be hurt by the inflation that will cause the worst. In no time they are back where they started, possibly in even worse shape.

The solution is a better, less expensive education system and incentives to better themselves.

OK. I have not seen support for that anywhere. do you have a source or two??

 

[Rshermr]

The private sector won’t hire the additional 250K-300K new workers per month until we have adequate aggregate demand in the economy so they’ll hire new workers. Please explain to me how keeping the minimum wage static, or decreasing it, will help the situation?

First, demand isn't enough. The jobless want as much or more than they wanted six years ago when they were rich. The difference is now they're broke. So instead of demand what we want to do is increase incomes and spending.

Here's the thing to remember, people are different. Some people can bring in a lot of income to a company and some people can only bring in a little. Lowering the minimum wage would make it so companies could hire more kinds of people. Raising the minumum wage limits the people companies can hire so household incomes fall and joblessness soars:

This is often where ideologues switch from saying "my doctrine makes good things happen" to "the bad things weren't my fault" (or maybe 'correlation doesn't prove causality'). OK, let's notice that raising the minimum wage did not cause increased jobs, incomes, and spending.

By the way, had you noticed you provided a chart for a period of time that included a HUGE RECESSION. You know, the great repubican recession of 2008. Makes your chart useless.
As you well know. And, by the way, you provided a modifiable chart, without definitions of terms. Bad form.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Just wow! You really seem to want to put words in people's moths.

That is all Rshermr does, generates opinions for others that he can attack.

Well, he can also type "meboy" a lot among the usual tired petty insults.

 

[JoeB131]

[


About 80% of McDonald's restaurants are owned by franchisees. Which is precisely why I said "most". I try to choose my words carefully.

And yes, I'm bored. As I said, it's impossible to have an intellectual discussion about business economics with people who are clearly ignorant of the topic. I tried, it didn't work, I continue to see people say things that are demonstrably incorrect with zero understanding of the issue simply because they're emoting, I became bored.

Ya got me on that one.

.

I guess what I get bored with are the plutocrats who destroyed the middle class and the American economy lecturing me about what constitutes good economics.

We had good economics. Most of the work force was unionized and the rich paid their fair s hare in taxes to keep them from accumulating too much of the wealth. And you know what, it worked.

Yeah, there were "McDonalds" jobs for teenagers. It was usually an incentive to get a college education or join a union or sign up for the military so you don't have to do that kind of shit work when you're older.

Today those jobs are worked by 29 year olds, who have to go back to the government for food stamps and medical care. But the Franchisees are making money sometimes, and that's the important thing.

**** the people who actually DO the work.

So, assuming that your final sentence is indeed based on your belief, then thanks for coming clean. We now can all understand what that twisted bunch of drivel that you tried to pass as honest questions was all about. It HAD no meaning. And you HAVE no meaning. Thanks for that.

Obviously sarcasm is lost on you...

 

[Kimura]

The private sector won’t hire the additional 250K-300K new workers per month until we have adequate aggregate demand in the economy so they’ll hire new workers. Please explain to me how keeping the minimum wage static, or decreasing it, will help the situation?

First, demand isn't enough. The jobless want as much or more than they wanted six years ago when they were rich. The difference is now they're broke. So instead of demand what we want to do is increase incomes and spending.

Here's the thing to remember, people are different. Some people can bring in a lot of income to a company and some people can only bring in a little. Lowering the minimum wage would make it so companies could hire more kinds of people. Raising the minumum wage limits the people companies can hire so household incomes fall and joblessness soars:

This is often where ideologues switch from saying "my doctrine makes good things happen" to "the bad things weren't my fault" (or maybe 'correlation doesn't prove causality'). OK, let's notice that raising the minimum wage did not cause increased jobs, incomes, and spending.

Who do you think creates demand? We do, the American public, since we consume real goods and services by firms. Business don't create jobs, nor can they create demand without any consumers. We live in a market economy, and the the public exchanges money $$$$ for real goods and services, which make the consumers the job creators. What do you think would happen if people stopped spending for a week, a month, six months, or a year? This is obviously an extreme example of what's causing our economic problems today.

Also, I'd like to point out that Australia has a minimum wage of like $15.90/HR, that's like US $16.80/HR with today's exchange rate - give or take. Their U3 is like three points less than ours, yet their minimum wage is more than double ours. They also have a way lower unemployment rate for teens.

Minimum wage laws work pretty damn well in real world.

However, with that being said, the macro solutions, long-term, lie with increased deficit spending, not with an added burden to business, so some of the arguments make sense from a macro perspective, but we're ultimately talking public policy.

Here's the problem as I see it. Marginal product of labor decreases with increased unemployed, i.e, labor will eventually reach a point of diminishing returns like everything else. In theory, if we raise the minimum wage to <insert>#</insert>/HR, employers will employ people to the line whereby output of the least productive employee is </insert>#</insert>/HR. And then they won't employ additional people, but again, the real world tells us a different story.

We can solve this with a Job Guarantee, funded by Uncle Sam, but run by 501c(3)s, state, and local municipalities. This would solve the marginal product problem which keeps ringing in my head.

And we should:

A) Eliminate FICA
B) Medicare for All
C) Raise the income tax deduction
D) Increased federal spending on public works/policies which benefit the US
E) Free education for all Americans, including post-grad, for all Americans
F) Stipend for attending school
G) Give very American $5000 per year or give every state $5000 per capita.

My two cents, now I'm burned out.

 

[Rshermr]

Way too rational. and seven whole components. You must remember that the cons hold the house, and they have their own economic policy that they believe in religiously. That policy is:
CUT TAXES.

Way easier to remember. Only one component. And, they could care less about the populace, only about their benefactors (the wealthy). Simple policy for simple minds. And makes their benefactors very happy.

 

[Politico]

Good. Sounds like an opportunity to fire some folks.

 

[Pop23]

Good. Sounds like an opportunity to fire some folks.

It seems that's what they're hoping for?

Cruel, but true

 

[depotoo]

What's he wrong about?

You understand the difference between options and stocks?

It's pretty big.

Your assumption he was right in my not understanding stock versus options makes you in the same league as he is. Try educating yourself as well.

You are WAY out of your league. You have NO idea what he said. Really. It is just that you are stupid. Probably not your fault at all.
By the way, do you want to define the new word you used, me boy??? amybe??? Most people stick to english here. Looks like some african dialect.

General Motors to offer stock options to employees | HULIQ
so, who is stupid here?

 

[expat_panama]

...My two cents, now I'm burned out.

Understood; I got halfway thru and reply last nite addressing your points but it can wait. This debate is important (10 million jobless increase since '07) and it's passionate (re- all the name-calling it brings out) but the debate's still useful --I'm learning a lot working with you.

There really is a lot to it on both sides, and there are many arguments you haven't offered here yet --like (the past decade record not withstanding) there have been times when income and employment soared after min-wage increases, and the fact that a federal law gives individual employees more bargaining power for negotiating raises. These arguments don't convince me but they're still worth looking at.

Please ping me when you get back into it.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Most people stick to english here. Looks like some african dialect.

Since we're throwing stones over language usage, please note both proper nouns and regional adjectives are capitalized.

"Most people stick to English here. Looks like some African dialect."

Just sayin'