It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dunkin' Donuts Worker's Death Reveals The True Cost Of Our Low-Wage, Part-Time Economy

page: 18
75
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
Unfortunately here in america that roommate has a good chance of being someone from the opposite sex


I never had a female roommate... Wouldn't want one....

So, your whole point is because someone can not be responsible enough to have protected sex then we need to raise minimum wage so everyone can live on their own... geez...
The bottom line is once you go down the poor choice road all bets are off...




posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

It's not a guarantee of a better position in life though. It's a chance of being in the position of making a better choice. As far as things are going, yes our college graduates are going to be in minimum wage positions (if employed at all) for the rest of their lives. The percentage of jobs paying minimum wage is increasing year after year while the number of jobs for college graduates is declining.

It took 2 decades of mismanagement to crash our economy, it's going to take just as long to rebuild it and that's if we actually focus on such a thing. There's an argument to be had that our economy is the way it is now because it's all they could do to keep it from getting worse. Recovery isn't even a goal at the moment, simply stopping the bleeding is. It's why we're STILL doing QE. On top of that we have the derivatives market hanging over our heads like a Sword of Damocles. When that strikes it will likely end up being a complete and total global reset on finances, except some people will own property and others won't. Economically our future really is bleak, and it goes well beyond this administration, the other choices in 2012 lacked solutions, our choices for 2016 aren't proposing solutions either.

On the subjects of labor the more efficient we make society, the less people we need to actually provide for that society. That's not a bad thing, but it does require revising economic policies that are predicated on the idea that everyone works. When there's not enough work to go around some people have to be able to make it when under employed or unemployed.



posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

no I think that any full time job that requires a living breathing person should pay enough to keep that person living and breathing! the business and it's customers are the one profiting from the employee's labor it should be the primary source of the funds not the taxpayer
who doesn't know the employee
has no vested interest in the employee
might not be getting any benefit whatsoever from the employee
and well more likely wouldn't even be aware that employee was missing if he or she happened to starve to death..

and I think that everyone should be given a chance to live on their own in their early adult years because I believe independent living provides learning experiences necessary for maturity.

as far as who people pick to be their roommates well
maybe times have changed but that was how it seemed to be in those hud housing units I used to live in.

and I have two sons sharing a two bedroom apartment now
they both are working full time hours a little over minimum wage
they are both looking for better jobs
they both would like to go to college the only way that could happen is with gov't subsidized student loans
and well they are barely making it financially!!
when my son's car died it was me and his boss along with a few other friends that were providing him with a ride to work till one of his friends got tired of it and decided it was easier to sell him his old car for half of it's value!
so let's see cheapest two bedroom apt available
two full time jobs
can't make it without charity (sorry begging for rides to work everyday is asking for charity!)
so I guess they should just both move a few girls in to share their bedrooms with???
or are we to be like the mexicans we are competing for jobs in and just move about 20 guys into that two bedroom apartment?

ever think that it isn't the people making the poor choices but rather it's the gov't and their corporate friends?
I mean they are depending on the common people to keep the gov't purse full, be their customers, and do the work for them. if there is a disconnect along the way and the money stops flowing well it all falls apart
like it is!
minimum wage earners don't pay much in taxes
and they don't have much left over after the bills to spend at the businesses
they may not even have enough money to eat a decent meal everyday, more than likely they will ignore any signs of illness and show up for work anyways as long as they think they can get through the day.
so in short the employers are getting a lower quality work performance because the employee doesn't have the funds to take care of themselves properly..

but of course it's the person that is the failure isn't it??
it's not the gov'ts failure in that it refuses to use more wisdom in it's spending and restrain inflation
it's not the business that many claim can't maintain a healthy workforce without the assistance of gov't assistance given to their employees
nope
tell ya what I think
any business that can't balance it out and be able to provide a service or product at a price that the customers can and are willing to pay while paying their full time employees an amounts that provides for their needs is working with a failed business plan and needs to reevaluate it along with the accounting numbers.
maybe they can find some expenses that are wasteful somewhere
maybe they can raise their prices some and still have customers
or maybe they just need to change what kind of business that they run if they can't provide a product that the customers will want buy at a price that supports their workforce!

or in other words mcdonalds and the other fast food resturants are not providing the value necessary to the customers to make those businesses viable! or maybe the corp headquarters have just gotten too danged greedy!

but it's more than just the fast food workers that are finding their paychecks don't cover the expense of living
it's more than just the minimum wage earners
here's a partial list of occupations that I found people working in that qualify for assistance
factory workers- do you realize that the workers who cut the gaskets a few years back for the navy's jets were making $7 an hour?? skilled printers with over 5 years experience making below $9 an hour. minimum wage workers molding your plastic products?
school bus drivers- at least at the preschool level. you'd think that the convenience of having your kid picked up at your doorstep and taken to school by a trained driver would be worth a livable wage for the driver you are trusting you kid with! I mean how much would you waste in gas getting there yourselves?
teacher's aides- ya we don't value our kid's education enough to provide them either
cashiers and office workers
and the list goes on

in the 80's welfare for a family of four with no one working was paying out the equivalent of $10/hour..
you want to know why we are in the mess we are in??
because we place more value on people who are not participating in the workforce than we do the workers!!!



posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine
I only do it once in awhile on ATS mainly after I have spent far too much time reading other's interpretations as to how I am supposed to be acting ect.




if you can't see where these low wages is causing the very problems that so many conservative rights gripe about constantly then I am willing to bet that you don't want to!


see the word "if' in that sentence?? know what it means? ain't accusing anyone of anything. just stating a fact!



posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Tangerine
I only do it once in awhile on ATS mainly after I have spent far too much time reading other's interpretations as to how I am supposed to be acting ect.




if you can't see where these low wages is causing the very problems that so many conservative rights gripe about constantly then I am willing to bet that you don't want to!


see the word "if' in that sentence?? know what it means? ain't accusing anyone of anything. just stating a fact!



I don't know how you came up with that addled interpretation of my comments--none of which you quoted. ( The "if you can't see..." quote wasn't mine. ) You've either not read any of my posts or not understood them. You've now resorting to quoting yourself and attacking me for something I never said. If you want to continue this exchange, quote the entire previous conversation and comment on it.



posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   

On tonight, live from 10PM Eastern time!

Show thread with listening information



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
no I think that any full time job that requires a living breathing person should pay enough to keep that person living and breathing! the business and it's customers are the one profiting from the employee's labor it should be the primary source of the funds not the taxpayer


Boy, what did we do before the 1970s when there was basically no welfare... You and I are just dickering over how much does it take to keep a person living and breathing. I just suggest that if you make little money then your choices are also limited and you need to find an environment that allows you to live. That environment might be a roommate to pool your resources together so both of you can live a breath. If you happened to be in a minimum paying job and you have a family with your single income then you are in trouble. Doesn't matter if it is 1940 or 2014.




and I think that everyone should be given a chance to live on their own in their early adult years because I believe independent living provides learning experiences necessary for maturity.


Lol ok... I hire you to cook French Fries, but now because I do that I need to also mentor and nourish you with positive life experience, you must be in high school still...

How about you live in a crappy apartment, in a bad part of town, with a roommate that sucks and that motivates you to do better and not live that way... Hmmm



and I have two sons sharing a two bedroom apartment now
they both are working full time hours a little over minimum wage
they are both looking for better jobs
they both would like to go to college the only way that could happen is with gov't subsidized student loans
and well they are barely making it financially!!


Ok, so what... welcome to the real world. We call that "attitude of entitlement". For some reason the world owes your kids a good life, good job, education etc... why? Here is thinking out of the box...how about one of your kids become a plumber appendence and in 5 years is making 100k while the other goes to college and gets 60k indebt to get a job at Burger King because his degree really doesn't equate to a real job.



so in short the employers are getting a lower quality work performance because the employee doesn't have the funds to take care of themselves properly..


So how much should a job pay that takes a few days to learn? It is a proven fact that money is not a motivator to work harder/better. If your son got a 50% raise he would not work 50% more or 50% better. If you always work 100% the best you can you will get promoted or become a desirable asset to earn more money.


in the 80's welfare for a family of four with no one working was paying out the equivalent of $10/hour..


Minimum wage in 1985 in 1996 dollars equaled 4.88 per hour, minimum wage in 2014 in 1996 dollars equals 4.87 per hour, so I'm missing your point...


you want to know why we are in the mess we are in??
because we place more value on people who are not participating in the workforce than we do the workers!!!


No it is because our current administration has failed and in the short term the cost of living has exceeded minimum wage faster than what minimum wage increases can keep up with... If living expenses go up 30% on the short term you can't expect employers to have some kind of fluctuating scale that changes monthly... things do not work that way.

I make 30% more today than I did in 2008 but my spending capabilities are less... hmmm why is that?





edit on 4-9-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheJourney
You, and many others, are just totally missing the point. All of these 'low-skill' jobs HAVE TO be done. Point blank. bs.


So when you add up all the young/new inexperience workers with little skills and those with no skills but are the secondary providers in a family, and also semi retired workers those are who should be filling those jobs. If a person is in their prime earning years they should not be working for minimum wage and raising minimum wage 2 or 3 bucks an hour is not going to help them very much.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

You kind of miss the whole point And to be honest about it I have to wonder if you are being deliberately thick. You go on how in the 70's there was hardly any welfare, which isn't really all that true. There were fewer people on it. But there were fewer people on it because the minimum wage, wage to productivity ratios and our bad trade policy's hadn't so widely skewed the wage gap as badly as it is now.

You say the American work ethic has changed, and I don't disagree completely. People are starting to get discouraged, four decades of systemic financial abuse has led to it. The workforce is tired of the line if you worked just a little bit harder they'd get more out of it. The corporate elite have not lived up to their part of the bargain in four decades. You want to get us back on track to the way things were the only way to do it is to address the issues that have caused the conditions in the two graphs I have provided you.

The interesting thing is you have no statistical data to prove anything you ramble on about is true. Your argument is purely ideological and has nothing of real substance. You focus on what you think instead of what is. The minimum wage was created to create a certain quality of life. A modest dwelling, the ability to provide the essentials and a small discretionary spending budget. The minimum needed to survive, as with anything else there will be those that want to just survive, everyone else when they are not focused on just having to survive will do what it takes to do more than just survive.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine
no the if quote is my words which I believe you misinterpreted.
like I said I am not accusing anyone of anything
just stating a fact!



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:29 AM
link   
The main reason why there wasn't so many on welfare in the 70's was because it wasn't designed really to help the employed families. It's originally was to help the single moms and was staffed by former welfare recipients at the beginning. The were provided with the training needed to do the jobs....
maybe part of the problem is that now we have higher expectations and instead of hiring the low skilled and unskilled and giving the training we expect them to take out loans for schools and go into debt then we don't pay them enough to live on even let alone pay back that debt and well welfare is there to help them isn't it??
why should the companies pay them a living wage as long as the gov't is willing to make sure they live regardless of the wage they are earning?
welfare has become a crutch to the business sector more than it is to the person!



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Boy, what did we do before the 1970s when there was basically no welfare... You and I are just dickering over how much does it take to keep a person living and breathing. I just suggest that if you make little money then your choices are also limited and you need to find an environment that allows you to live. That environment might be a roommate to pool your resources together so both of you can live a breath. If you happened to be in a minimum paying job and you have a family with your single income then you are in trouble. Doesn't matter if it is 1940 or 2014.


Actually, you could buy a house (with 10% down) on a 20 year mortgage while simultaneously paying 100% out of pocket for college on a minimum wage paycheck in 1955. In 1967 you could still do this but it was tighter. Single family incomes were the norm back then. The whole women wanting to work thing changed the economics of labor by increasing supply which eventually created the situation where women have to work. Which then created the situation where dual incomes are needed for most.

I've written a lot about this in the past with prices, wages, and everything else. The search isn't cooperating too well but I'll try to find it if you want to debate this.


Minimum wage in 1985 in 1996 dollars equaled 4.88 per hour, minimum wage in 2014 in 1996 dollars equals 4.87 per hour, so I'm missing your point...


Only half true. Minimum wage is currently index to inflation using CPI so it is and will continue to be pegged to those rates. The problem is that CPI isn't a true reflection of price increases in the economy. A much better comparison is how many minutes/hours of work it took in 1996 to buy a product and how long it takes in 2014 to buy that same product.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: eManym
I always considered low wage unskilled service jobs as starter jobs for those moving into the job force or older workers using that type of employment to supplement their retirement. Apparently many are choosing these types of jobs as a career choice.


And those jobs are where, and who is getting them?

It's all very well to suggest that people "just work harder", but you seem to base this notion on the false assertion that everyone is given the same opportunities, when that is simply not true.

How can you claim society is fair and everyone gets a fair shot when the rules for one are completely different than the rules for another, depending on status and wealth?

Someone raised in a wealthy family has FAR more opportunity to succeed in life than someone raised in poverty, this is a fact. So, what is the solution? It's certainly not claiming that it's their own fault for being born.

I would argue that we need to see a law enacted limiting the profits a corporation can make, depending on how they use those profits. Obviously, for a start, corporations need to be taxed far more than they already. It's just not good enough to see people slaving away on less than a living wage, while their employers are ferreting profits out into tax havens and living in luxury.

And before people scream "commie!!!!!" at the notion that corporations be forced to pay more to their employees, It's not "communism" it's basic Human decency and ethical practice.

As a side note, everyone here paying taxes is paying to support people employed in these low-wage jobs. So, not only is that corporation refusing to pay the taxes they should pay, not only are they refusing to pay for healthcare and other benefits for their employees, not only are they paying less than a living wage, they're also being subsidized BY YOU.

Think about that the next time you spend money with any of these massive companies.

This won't continue forever of course, good PR only goes so far. Eventually there will be enough people living in absolute poverty to cause a workers revolution.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Tangerine
no the if quote is my words which I believe you misinterpreted.
like I said I am not accusing anyone of anything
just stating a fact!




I never responded to that silly quote of yours. You just think I did. My comment to you was about you perpetuating stereotypes about people (for example, your comment about women screaming for help when they see a bug). You have serious reading comprehension problems. I'll find the conversation and post it.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Xtrozero

unfortunately here in america that roommate has a good chance of being someone from the opposite sex
after all if you are a guy who would you rather have another guy who is thowing his clothes all over the place and bringing you home a mc donalds burger for supper or would you rather have a gal who will do you laundry and knows how to cook?
if you are a gal well do you want another gal so you can both stand and scream for help because that spider crossed your path or do you want a guy with the guts to smush that spider.
...
but got to tell ya I believe that part of that transition from child to adult can only be achieved through a time of living independently.
we seem to be taking that away from our children in so many ways




Perhaps part of your responsibility as a parent is to drop the offensive stereotypes so that your children grow up not perpetuating them.


Note that my response (ie. "Perhaps part of your responsibility....) had absolutely nothing to do with low wages causing problems as you later claim in the following post)



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Tangerine
why?? when I see such stereotypes being displayed as fact so often on ATS??
and my kids are grown.

the point I made was plain and simple so instead attack me on something that I used to just get the point across instead of the actual point!
got it!

if you can't see where these low wages is causing the very problems that so many conservative rights gripe about constantly then I am willing to bet that you don't want to!






Again, my comment had absolutely nothing to do with low wages. Obviously, you haven't read --or understood--my posts to others throughout this thread. You certainly didn't understand my posts to you. I have little hope that you will become unbefuddled by reading the original exchange between the two of us but having posted the entire conversation may help others to understand.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013


As a side note, everyone here paying taxes is paying to support people employed in these low-wage jobs. So, not only is that corporation refusing to pay the taxes they should pay, not only are they refusing to pay for healthcare and other benefits for their employees, not only are they paying less than a living wage, they're also being subsidized BY YOU.



Not only are taxpayers indirectly subsidizing corporations, tax payers are directly subsidizing corporations through corporate welfare--massive money many corporations receive from the government. We all know where the government gets that money.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: KeliOnyx

The interesting thing is you have no statistical data to prove anything you ramble on about is true. Your argument is purely ideological and has nothing of real substance. You focus on what you think instead of what is. The minimum wage was created to create a certain quality of life. A modest dwelling, the ability to provide the essentials and a small discretionary spending budget. The minimum needed to survive, as with anything else there will be those that want to just survive, everyone else when they are not focused on just having to survive will do what it takes to do more than just survive.


I have provided data, lots of it so here is a repeat...

Minimum wage in 1985 in 1996 dollars equaled 4.88 per hour, minimum wage in 2014 in 1996 dollars equals 4.87 per hour, so I'm missing your point...



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

I am tired of bickering sorry

here is a suggestion that would probably improve things!
lower the benefit amount given to the "poor"--(value of all those benefits) or better yet just drop the 20 or whatever different programs and have just one single benefit of x amount of dollars
raise the minimum wage a tad so that it matches net pay in a 40 hours week
and place the income qualification at the same level and let the economy sort itself out
but hud paying $1000 for a rat infested 4 bedroom apartment that most of the people wouldn't be able to afford and those who could wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole isn't doing anything but driving up the cost of living!
and this was a real situation in syracuse ny in the 80's not a made up thing! at the same time we were forced out of our housing because the landlord thought that since he installed gas in his apartments and therefore hud was willing to pay more well we should also and we couldn't afford the rent hike!



No it is because our current administration has failed and in the short term the cost of living has exceeded minimum wage faster than what minimum wage increases can keep up with... If living expenses go up 30% on the short term you can't expect employers to have some kind of fluctuating scale that changes monthly... things do not work that way.


and if they had done something like what I am suggesting to begin with it wouldn't have been allowed to get this far out of hand would it?

in the 80's welfare for a family of four with no one working was paying out the equivalent of $10/hour..
in order for a person to get any help from the gov't that family of four would have had to make less than I believe it was $8-$9 dollars an hour.
that isn't motivating anyone to improve their earning potential! that is motivating them to call in sick every week or avoid the overtime at whatever cost or find a different job and if you can't find one paying at least that $10 an hour then settle for a minimum wage job because the kids have to at least eat and have a roof over their head!!!
we place more value on people who are not participating in the workforce than we do the workers!!!


attitude of entitlement--
how about desire for sanity???
how about I got really sick and tired of pitching in and helping a bunch or people have crap that we couldn't afford to have (and my husband is a journeymen machinist!) when I felt that it wasn't really our job to help them or at least we are way down on that list of people who should be helping them!
after all we don't know most of them we will never have to depend on them for anything might never run across them!

people should be getting the funds from one of two ways either from employment or from their own business ventures. I am pretty sure that you would agree that that is the best method???
if those people happen to fall short once in awhile they next line of defense should be friends and families. still think that you are with me on this! but then they should also have the possibility of being able to pay these people back.
then comes charity but well that isn't really for long term maintainence either is it??
and way down on my list is the gov't and their programs with our taxmoney!

to me the first ones showing that attitude of entitlement is the employers who are counting on the taxpayers to support their employees so they can show a great profit!



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I have provided data, lots of it so here is a repeat...

Minimum wage in 1985 in 1996 dollars equaled 4.88 per hour, minimum wage in 2014 in 1996 dollars equals 4.87 per hour, so I'm missing your point...


Have you ever thought about where those dollar comparisons come from? They come from the official inflation rate which is calculated through changes in the CPI. Minimum wage as of a few years ago is now automatically indexed to this rate and most pushes for a federal minimum wage increase have always adhered to CPI as a guide. The problem is that CPI hasn't been measured accurately for many years now

Originally, it calculated the real change in the cost of goods and tracked the changes in the cost of goods over time. Now it instead calculates the change in spending. Lets say it's the year 2010 and you have two cars a Mercedes and a Volkswagen the Mercedes costs 40,000 while the Volkswagen costs 20,000. The prices are next measured in 2011 and the cars cost 50,000 and 25,000. This would be marked down as an inflation rate of 25%. What CPI has done however is it has started taking purchasing decisions into account. What this means is that if all of the Mercedes buyers switched to buying Volkswagens in order to save money their costs went from $40,000 in 2010 to $25,000 in 2011. CPI records this as a deflation rate of 37.5% even though the price of the good in question still went up 25%.

To put this in other terms lets use some groceries, inflation from CPI from 2003 to 2013 is 26.61%. This means if your bag of Tyson frozen chicken cost $4 in 2003 and $6 but you switched to buying the store brand that only cost $5, even though the good you were purchasing went up in price by 50%, because you accepted a reduction in quality inflation was only measured at half that.

You can see this at work all over the place with minimum wage now buying less than it used to. In 2000 the the price of a supersized McDonalds meal was $4.00. Today the person instead purchases the value menu cheeseburgers, the medium fries, and a medium drink. This meal costs $6, which CPI measures as a 33% inflation rate (the actual rate for this time period is 35.3%) over 10 years. It doesn't account for the fact that the person is also purchasing a lower quality substitute good. If the price was comparing goods of the same relative quality for their time periods the meal would be closer to $10 which is an inflation rate of 150% while minimum wage is pegged to the 33% inflation marker.
edit on 5-9-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
75
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join