- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
December 2013 Moms
That McDonalds may be a little harder to get today!
This discussion has been closed.
Re: That McDonalds may be a little harder to get today!
"Happiness is like a butterfly; the more you chase it the more it will elude you but if u turn your attention to other things it will come & sit softly on your shoulder."
BFP! 04/26/11 - DS born 12/28/11 - BFP #2! 04/02/13 - DD born 12/11/13 -
My Ovulation Chart
And I hate to say it but a machine can replace just about every employee at a fast food restaurant and retail store. (I've worked in both, sometimes in the same day!)
On the other side of the argument. I teach in an economically disadvantaged school district. 85% poverty rate. So many of my students either didn't have the faith in themselves, their education (high school level) hadn't prepared them enough (some took it for granted though), or they didn't have the awareness that they have options to better themselves. It honestly is like a vicious cycle. I made it my business to show them that they could make it in college, they can learn a trade, they can get out of their run-down neighborhoods. I feel like this Minimum wage strike is just another sign that we keep making the wrong moves as a country.
I'm glad that many if not all of you were endowed with the proper tools to succeed in this country, and I'll admit that raising the minimum wage to $15 would be an incredibly tricky task fraught with concerns of economic balance (my biggest question is what happens to existing employees that have worked through prior raises get to ~$15? It can't just be the bottom rung getting the bump up without a massive freak-out.) That being said...
This idea mentioned up-thread that most CEOs "started from nothing" and that anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps is fantasy. Without access to a safe neighborhood school filled with students that perform at grade-level as a whole, access to reasonable housing and food, and a network of supportive adults, your chances of graduating high school, much less getting into ANY college are an uphill battle at best. Throw a lack of citizenship (after having been raised your whole life here) on the pile, and see how that goes. This whole idea that have-nothing "salt of the Earth" types are running America's corporations just isn't realistic. I'm glad that you and your husbands were able to pay for your universities while working at Arby's, but that meant getting into and financing that university to begin with.
As mentioned before, these fast food employees in larger city areas aren't all teenagers saving up to buy cars. These are adults, many of whom are raising children themselves. "Don't have kids if you can't afford them" (a common refrain on this board) is not only mean-hearted, but it's a little too late for most of the people you're yelling at (including many moms-to-be in this online community).
Many of you have mentioned that these people shouldn't be working fast-food jobs. In addition to the obvious “Then what SHOULD they do (given their present skill set and a family to raise)?”, I’d also ask: Who do you suppose SHOULD be working those jobs in lieu of them? What unlucky sector of the economy would you prefer to have flipping your $1-$8 burgers in exchange for less than it takes to get by? Should all McDonald's be run by 16-21 year olds with the exception of the GM at each location? And, If the minimum wage is raised to $15/hr, are all of us ladies going to jump at the chance to fry chicken fingers or work at the ham-packing plant? No?
This “eff you, I have mine!” attitude is icky.
Our success was earned by hard work and on the job training. I stand by that while a degree can open up many doors, it is not the only way to succeed in this world. It depends on the individual and what they want to make of themselves.
"Happiness is like a butterfly; the more you chase it the more it will elude you but if u turn your attention to other things it will come & sit softly on your shoulder."
BFP! 04/26/11 - DS born 12/28/11 - BFP #2! 04/02/13 - DD born 12/11/13 -
My Ovulation Chart
"And I hate to say it but a machine can replace just about every employee at a fast food restaurant and retail store. (I've worked in both, sometimes in the same day!)"
DH and I were just discussing this last night. This is what the CEO said regarding the Bart workers on strike.
"Get ‘em back to work, pay them whatever they want, and then figure out how to automate their jobs so this doesn't happen again.”
Here's the article with more info:
https://www.marketplace.org/topics/tech/bart-strike-reveals-tech-transit-worker-divide
Large corporations will always find a cheaper alternative.
"Happiness is like a butterfly; the more you chase it the more it will elude you but if u turn your attention to other things it will come & sit softly on your shoulder."
BFP! 04/26/11 - DS born 12/28/11 - BFP #2! 04/02/13 - DD born 12/11/13 -
My Ovulation Chart
Our public schools have a LOT of kids whose parents came to the country when they were babies and small children. They have no connection to the countries from which they came, but, due to their place of birth, have much harder times navigating paying for college.
"Happiness is like a butterfly; the more you chase it the more it will elude you but if u turn your attention to other things it will come & sit softly on your shoulder."
BFP! 04/26/11 - DS born 12/28/11 - BFP #2! 04/02/13 - DD born 12/11/13 -
My Ovulation Chart
And for everyone else who is talking about how they overcame shitty circumstances, awesome for you. But don't put down the people who haven't quite made it yet for wanting a shot at it. I bust my ass in school and at home on top of the job I do have and I will get where I want to be eventually but it isn't goin to happen overnight. Right now, yes I am grateful that we are doing well enough to keep up with our bills, but being able to make enough to get off food stamps and Medicaid would be better. No one in their right mind wants to rely on the government to pay for what they need, and yes, it pisses me off that I know that there are people out there making millions of dollars while their employees can't afford a place to live.
And what I really want to say would likely get me banned too, but hey. It is what it is. That's the best thing about the Internet, I don't have to be your friend, and I don't have to pretend to like you.
"Happiness is like a butterfly; the more you chase it the more it will elude you but if u turn your attention to other things it will come & sit softly on your shoulder."
BFP! 04/26/11 - DS born 12/28/11 - BFP #2! 04/02/13 - DD born 12/11/13 -
My Ovulation Chart
"Happiness is like a butterfly; the more you chase it the more it will elude you but if u turn your attention to other things it will come & sit softly on your shoulder."
BFP! 04/26/11 - DS born 12/28/11 - BFP #2! 04/02/13 - DD born 12/11/13 -
My Ovulation Chart
However, that still doesn't account for the rising unemployment rate. Is it really right that some people will be able to live above the poverty line, at the expense of others not having an income anymore at all? IMO, that's still not a just solution.
In the end, I agree with SSS and my original position: It's a complex, multi-faceted problem with no real solution. I think the arguments regarding "better yourself, go to college," aren't very defensible. I think the anecdotal evidence about all of us that did/are working really hard to better ourselves don't really prove anything either. I think that people should live above the poverty line if they're willing to work. But I really strongly believe based on the evidence I studied that raising the minimum wage may help some people, and will hurt others, so I really don't think it's a good solution to the problem.
Today, I bought McDonald's for breakfast. One reason was because it was fucking glorious. The other reason is because this discussion has encouraged me to raise demand for businesses that pay their workers minimum. Increased demand increases the price of the commodity, which in turn means they will either be able to pay their workers more, or they will be able to employ more people. Both of which are fundamentally good and don't have any negative consequences for anyone, so that's the action that I will take towards this problem. I feel like today I made a very small difference by putting my money where my mouth was. I encourage everyone else who cares about the poverty line to do the same.
When you review the pay for the lower earning employees and look at the potential of raising it you need to look at it from multiple angles before making a decision. Any changes create such a ripple effect you need to make sure you can handle the consequences. All positions are paid in relation to their value within the company and their value within society, unfortunately this means that personal circumstances don't come into play in an effort to be fair to everyone doing a certain position i.e. if you are a cashier that happens to have 2 children, this doesn't mean you should be paid any more than someone else who does not, but that has the same skills and level of performance as you do. If the minimum wage was raised all companies would need to then review the pay of everyone who sits up the chain of these positions, as pay is all relative.
In regards to the statement about CEOs making too much money, most CEOs only get this high of a position near the end of their career well after they have paid their dues. They are required to not only have a wealth of experience and knowledge behind them to lead the company, but are also dedicated to the highest extent. All the CEOs I know work long hours and travel quite extensively, they live and breathe the company they work for with very little personal life leftover. Sure, they normally get paid quite handsomely for their roles, but they also take huge risks in their careers. If the company has a bad year, guess who normally gets fired first? Yup, the CEO. It's a very hard job and to be honest, not one I aspire to, I would not be able to handle the stress of knowing so many people's livelihoods depend on me making every single decision in my day 100% correct.
And just in case it matters, I come from a middle class background. I don't have a sobstory to share as my parents worked very hard to make sure I had every opportunity that was available for which I am very grateful.
That said, I admit I got a little overreactive to Kate's post, and took it a bit far. A lot of what she says really rubs me the wrong way and comes off as abrasive. It's not about whether she's honest or not, you can be honest without be harsh. Kate, I shouldn't have called you a bitch, and I'm sorry for that. I'm also sorry for insulting your husband, though that was not my intention. I was in a shitty mood last night and needed to sleep it off, and now with a fresh read over of the thread, I realize I was being a bit of an asshole and did overreact to her comment. I don't have to like someone but I don't have to be a jerk to them either.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I seriously think that the increase in inflation and the fact that people would be fired and unemployment would increase make raising the minimum wage not a good solution. And when I say not a good solution, I mean that literally doing nothing would be more egalitarian.
Also, I don't think it's common for people to work overtime in fast food. Fast food places don't really hire people full time because then they would have to pay benefits. They're really fastidious about that in order to keep costs down. I think it more likely that a particular unit of the franchise would close, firing all of it's workers, before it paid overtime to some, because that's more cost-effective for the corporation. So saying that they're not unionized and they'll end up giving people benefits and time and a half because they'll have to fire some of the crew isn't really the reality. They'll just close shop and fire everyone in one unit, so another unit in the franchise can afford to pay their workers the increased wage.
So, unemployment is still an issue. If they had unions, then the wage increases and thus unemployment. You really just can't get around that fact - the wage goes up, people are going to be fired. The increased wage will mean the same amount of money spread across fewer people. Is that really the solution you want? To me, it all boils down to the same - some people can support themselves with no assistance now, and some people need even more.
In Keynesian Economics, the solution to everything is consumption. If you want people to get paid better at McDonalds, or at any minimum job, consume more of the product. Yet I'm the only one who seems to be agreeing that that's a genuinely good solution.
In American History there was a time when corn was so deflated that farmers made more and more of it just to make ends meet. Increase quantity, increase profit. However, increase quantity drove the price down even more, exacerbating the problem. President Roosevelt created a commission that suggested that the farmers plow under a portion of their crops to decrease supply and raise the price. They did it. It worked, and it contributed to the end of the Great Depression. And I learned this as I was studying economics, along with many many other cases in history when economic principles have proved to be successful in practice.
I don't know what the demographics have to do with anything. I think that men, women, teens, families, everyone has a right to make a living wage. The fact that most of them are women who are of average age 35 doesn't change my position.
You keep conceding that some stores didn't make it through the transition, and that some people will get laid off, but you're not addressing what makes them any less valuable than anyone else. Why is them getting laid off for the greater good? I don't think it helps anyone enough to be considered justifiable.
I feel you're being just as idealistic as I am. You say that I'm holding too fast to the models and that they may not really work that way, and yet in the same breath say that the unemployment problem will just fix itself by better companies entering the market. You can't have it both ways. Either economics will work like it's supposed to, or it won't.
I'm of the opinion that the models will predict behavior of market, at least in part. You don't subscribe to the models, so I don't think I'm going to convince you of anything there. I think the best approach is to increase consumption, which has been proven to drive down unemployment (while having a neutral affect on wages). I choose to prioritize everyone having a job before I try to tackle the problem of magnitude of pay because I feel like unemployment is a major part of the poverty problem as well. And when I see a solution that solves one problem (wages), while making the other worse (unemployment), I don't really consider it a good solution. So, that's my position. Raising the minimum wage is likely a win-lose situation. Supporting business is a win-neutral situation. Win-neutral > Win-lose. That's just what makes sense to me.
ETA: And I still don't subscribe to the they should all get educated/better jobs argument (I've said that many times, too). So saying that helping some have more pay so they can do that, while forcing others to lose their jobs doesn't make sense to me either.