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' CEO: $15 minimum wage is 'outrageous'

page: 11
34
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
I'm sorry but $15 bucks an hour for fast food workers IS outrageous.

The CEO might be overpaid but he probably went to university and busted his ass at school to at least deserve some of the money he's making.

If these people want to make $15 an hour then they should go to college and get a degree in something useful that's in demand or learn a trade that's in demand.


I know plenty of people who are college educated who are dumb as a box of rocks. Likewise, I know a lot of people who never finished who are extremely intelligent. College is NO guarantee that someone is smarter than their subordinates.

I love this argument though. Salaried office people, who are basically overhead, alway rant that the workers, the people who actually PRODUCE something, are overpaid. A good analogy is 6 obese people sitting in an SUV saying it would go faster if they took the engine out.


And here is a news flash for you. Not everyone has the means to get through college. Not all of us grew up in an Ozzie and Harriet household, and had money generously shelled at us to go get a formal education. And its possible to work your way through college, but that becomes less and less true every day. Especially when the lions share of companies are run by people who don't believe in a living wage, or even a minimum wage for that matter.

I do agree that people should go to college, but we should make it easier to do so for EVERYONE, not just the children of the affluent. But then if we did that, it would level the playing field between the working class and the frat boys, and we do need people to mop our toilets and go die in our wars, right?
edit on 25-7-2015 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Much of the Carter years was reversed, but anyhow what you are saying then is minimum wage has been below pre-Carter standards then for 35 years, so why all the fuss today?


Here's what happened. Prior to 1980 CPI was calculated as the change in the cost of goods per year. If I bought 3 sandwiches in 1978 for $2 each ($6 total) and in 1979 they cost $3 each, inflation would be said to be 50%.

However, in 1980 this was changed to measure the total cost in household spending per year. So if I bought 3 sandwiches in 1981 for $2 each ($6) and in 1982 those sandwiches cost $3 each so I could only purchase 2, it would be seen that I spent $6 in each year so inflation is 0%.

This is how inflation was removed, almost over night. The definition of inflation was simply changed while the underlying causes that decrease purchasing power and really measure inflation were left untouched.

As far as why people are bringing it up now? People have been bringing it up for years, the last time the minimum wage was adjusted it didn't go far enough and everyone recognized it right away, there just wasn't any loud complaining, but it was still there. The whole thing is a result of compounded gradual errors over decades, it's simply reached the tipping point now which is unfortunate because there is no quick fix. A wage hike to $15/hour will not fix the underlying problems.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I agree. It seems like a broken system is the inherent problem instead of a broken work force that won't learn its place.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao
a reply to: Aazadan

I agree. It seems like a broken system is the inherent problem instead of a broken work force that won't learn its place.


Oh please. "System is broken"....you do know that the system worked wonderfully for quite awhile, but was "broken" by the same assholes that keep getting reelected, right?

So the solution to our ails is to have those same folks that rowed us up the river go in and legislate a solution. Why not. Might as well dance with the ones that brought us.

oO



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I didn't know that there was a system that existed before any elected officials that created the same system that the later officials broke.

I suppose I will apologize, which is my SOP.

Six in one, half dozen in the other; though maybe some people believe a human system exists despite humans.

edit on 25-7-2015 by OrdoAdChao because: Dern you, enter!

edit on 25-7-2015 by OrdoAdChao because: clarity as usual



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I didn't know that the system that was created existed before any elected officials that created the same system that later officials broke.

I suppose I will apologize, which is my SOP.


As a 43 year old man, i can remember a few things from my childhood:

- you could make a solid living working with your hands, and not having a trade license. We had a strong manufacturing sector
- electronics cost a little more to purchase, but were made much better and lasted longer (often lasting long past the point of being obsolete, with many still working just fine today)
- you could go to college, then get a job with a solid salary upon graduation.

Today, in contrast

- Manufacturing sector? What manufacturing sector? Our economy is supported by service, medical, and mining (oil is mining). And our manufacturing cities are rusting skeletons.
- electronics have lifespans of about a year. And are expensive. I quit buying xbox because they only last as long as a warranty plus 1 week. That $400 computer you call a phone gets annually replaced, and costs more than a weeks salary for your average certified nurses aide. Even your car....falls apart at 100k miles
- My son just graduated with a bachelors degree and is now ecstatic to have earned an entry level supervisors position with Hastings. He'll be in charge of a section of the bookstore during his shift. He's doing pretty well compared to several of his friends that graduated with him.

Its all trade related. And I hate to say it on an international forum. But we need to be much, much more protectionist in our trade policies. Im not talking about pre-depression era fervor....but at least make it cheaper to build cars inside the US, rather than China.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Great their business model is not effective or relevant in today's market. Crappy sugary heart attack food and in order for them to make a PASSIVE investment they have to pay slave wages.

Oh well who cares. It's on the same level as profit prisons to me, I don't care if they go out of business the world will have to adapt to a model that actually works instead of a model we have to make work.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

However, in 1980 this was changed to measure the total cost in household spending per year. So if I bought 3 sandwiches in 1981 for $2 each ($6) and in 1982 those sandwiches cost $3 each so I could only purchase 2, it would be seen that I spent $6 in each year so inflation is 0%.


Except for Beef going crazy I do not see a huge disparity with prices when we look at 1995 compared to today. I pulled a few off the net. It might be a bit low for 7.25 but doubling 4.25 1995 minimum wage and rounding up would put us at 9.00 not 15 as it seems you think even 15 is way to low based on your logic.


................ 1995....................... 2014-15
Ground beef..1.4......................... 4.16
Gas............1.35.........................2.90
Rent...........1BR 900 2BR 1200.........1BR 1300 2BR 1500
Eggs...........1.16.........................2.00
Milk............2.59.........................3.85
Bread..........1.40.........................2.07


edit on 25-7-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

its perfectly relevant in todays market. I don't run donuts shops. I run other types of businesses...but that is how its done. Those are the types of ratios you see in all business models. You can tinker with percentages...but in the end the pie is the pie, and making more pieces just shrinks the size of the other pieces.

No, you don't mean "todays market". What you mean is, "in what i wish it was like in todays market". Problem is, what you want is just not mathematically feasible. Your best bet: learn how to work the system because you won't change it.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Exactly about the manufacturing. Free trade is fine so long as everyone is playing the same game by the same rules, but we are competing against places that undercut us and don't regulate like we do, so it's much easier to manufacture is those places. Seen China's air quality lately?

We either need to accept that we play the same game if we want free trade, or we play protectionism to play the game by the rules we would prefer. But we can't play by our rules here and expect to compete against people playing by different rules that are much less stringent than our own and designed very much to cut us off at the knees.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
....but at least make it cheaper to build cars inside the US, rather than China.


The Government controls all this. Corporations are kind of mindless in they go the direction of most profit, and if you had more profit building in Mexico than China we would have all the plants in Mexico, and if in the USA was more profitable then they would be here.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I agree with you, and since you're a decade older than me, I'll submit to your wisdom.

I work with my hands. The calluses and scars which are invisible on the internet give that away to anyone who speaks to me in person.

I used engineers as an example in a previous post because its hard to outsource my trade - you can't fly in and install multi-million dollar air handlers over the phone or internet.

To that, again, I agree with you. The cost to purchase the equipment is astronomical compared to its cost in labor, even in a union. There is no reason that something as inherently simple as an 30k BTU exhaust system should cost the amount it does in equipment - the labor cost is related to the risks and liability of damaging other equipment previously installed - for example, exhausting new laboratory equipment. The liability is directly related to the outrageous costs of said lab equipment. The labor, by and large, is cheap on the install side, while it is completely inflated on the equipment manufacture.

I find that handy for those who literally dictate the costs of the manufacture of equipment. The equipment is directly related to the trade and the design, material and labor should reflect it. A multi-million dollar piece of equipment (EDIT) should be just as good as those who installed it.
edit on 25-7-2015 by OrdoAdChao because: clarity! AGAIN!



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
....but at least make it cheaper to build cars inside the US, rather than China.


The Government controls all this. Corporations are kind of mindless in they go the direction of most profit, and if you had more profit building in Mexico than China we would have all the plants in Mexico, and if in the USA was more profitable then they would be here.


Exactly. And that is exactly how it should be...you invest to have it maximized. That is called "fiduciary responsibility" and is often something that is sued over in civil suits.

Its the governments job to fix it with tariffs, etc. You don't blame the companies making money. That is what they are supposed to do.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   
The man is right. If a 16yo fast food worker makes $15 an hour, how much should a 25yo college grad make?



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: openminded2011
I love this argument though. Salaried office people, who are basically overhead, alway rant that the workers, the people who actually PRODUCE something, are overpaid. A good analogy is 6 obese people sitting in an SUV saying it would go faster if they took the engine out.

So you think the 16yo high school kid asking if you want fries is America's engine? Really? If you actually think that I can't help you.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: onequestion

Problem is, what you want is just not mathematically feasible. Your best bet: learn how to work the system because you won't change it.


Humans require a lot more than mathematics to succeed. I'll agree to a point. Less humans, the better life is. But your mathematical world does not apply to the current state of humanity unless there is a vast reduction in the number of humans.

So, I must say to your quote: which can be paraphrased as "Get used to the dry f*ing because you won't get any lube":

Learn how to deal with this many people, because you won't change history.
edit on 25-7-2015 by OrdoAdChao because: Clarity, periods and colons. That's a crimson, murky mess!



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: muse7
Muse7,

In an economy where there are a surplus of jobs which would be worthy of a living wage, your attitude is fine. However, those jobs are not broadly available, and whether qualified or not, the fact is that individuals need work, and to have that work be of a decent enough wage that they can rent a home, pay all utilities, pay for their upkeep and that of any dependents they might have, and have a reasonable expectation of being able to save something worthwhile at the end of it. That is what is meant by a living wage.

When my grandfather left the Navy after the end of WW2 he had no qualifications what so ever. He managed to find a job at the Ford motor plant in Dagenham, London. It did not pay a massive amount, but it did pay enough to live on for him, his wife, and his four daughters.

To get the same job now, would be impossible for an unqualified person.

And here is another thing... A persons ability to get a job which pays for their living, should not be dependent on any factor, but their willingness to learn the job, and do it effectively. It should not be dependent on their level of qualification, nor on the type or complexity of the work they do, but SOLELY on their willingness to show up every day, and slog it out.

If you want MORE than your living from work, that is when college comes into the picture. If you want to do law, if you want to be a doctor (both of which should be things one takes up because they are a calling, not a profession anyway, but that's for another thread perhaps), or learn the science of computing, or high level engineering, THAT is when the BIG money comes up, and qualifications should be a concern.

However, a degree should not be a route to merely getting by without assistance from government. It should be a route to much more than that. Gainful employment of the regular sort however, should be capable of paying a working person enough that they do not require, nor receive, government assistance. It should be capable of clothing and feeding that individual, and allow them to move through their lives with the regular things in place, marriage, kids, grand kids, and so on, just because they work at all. People working thirteen hour a day cleaning jobs SHOULD be paid enough, and get enough free time, that they feel as if they have achieved something, and actually get something out of what they do. People stacking shelves so that people have produce to purchase at stores, should be paid for their time, their sweat. Those who scan those items at the checkout, those who take them to the customers car, those who deliver them on haulage vehicles, those who pack the produce at the packing plant, those who contribute their time and energy to making money for businesses, should be paid enough to LIVE on, not just exist.

As it stands, many working people, some of the hardest working individuals walking the face of the developed world, get paid less in a month, than it costs them to live their lives, even though many of them live in sub standard accommodations with structural, and infrastructural problems. These hardy people should not be in a position where their Herculean efforts do not allow them to live in an apartment which is safe for human habitation. They should not be in a position where they have to pick between heat and light, or food and those aforementioned utilities.

All working people, should be paid enough that they can actually live a life, and pay their own way through it. Otherwise a number of things happen, not least of which is that government have to step in, and hand out money to people who are actually employed to keep them afloat. The very same people who often complain about governments subsidising the lives of the poor, are often those who bitterly object to a living wage, but these people need to accept that one or the other scenario must always be the case.

Either the working poor are paid enough that they no longer need assistance, can save for their meagre retirement, and feed their families meanwhile, or they will have to have some assistance with their living. It is very simple, and all that remains is to pick which of these two one happens to prefer. There is no third option.



Actually I have no problem whatsoever with people in the manufacturing industry and auto plants receiving a reasonable wage.

TrueBrit, you and I usually agree on everything but on this issue we will have to disagree.

Minimum Education + Minimum Skill = Minimum wage.

Most jobs in the fast food industry are entry level jobs that require minimum skill. People working in the manufacturing industry running machines or calibrating industrial furnaces don't even make $15 an hour. Secondly how will it be determined what is a living wage? A living wage is different for everyone, a wage of $12 an hour might be a living wage for a single person living within their means, but not for a person with 5 kids and a wife to support.

We have to be realistic here. For as much as I want everyone to receive a living wage, I still know that these are corporations that answer to share holders and profit is all that matters. That's the economic system our country runs on. If fast food workers are getting payed $30,000 a year with full benefits then you should be ready to pay 15 dollars for a burger. They will make up the lost profits somehow.

You honestly believe a burger flipper should be making the same amount as an emergency medical technician?

Instilling the mentality that entry level jobs that require no skill, that don't even require a high school education will get you a wage that will enable you to live comfortably and raise a family, pay your mortgage, and pay your car payment might be one of the single greatest mistakes we can possibly make.

What made our country great was hard working people continuously working to improve their situation, if we suddenly give low skill entry level positions a significant wage increase then we will be removing every incentive for them to improve themselves.

What makes life fun is working your ass off and not stopping until you've made it.

Millions of people have made it before.
edit on 25-7-2015 by muse7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: OrdoAdChao

The way business models operate will only change from 2 things:

- someone who is a genius comes along and hunts differently, revolutionizing the operational models of today (which are, themselves, honed slowly over the last 100 years)

- government change the way it regulates business (i.e., does its job).

Me? I am a smart guy who is adaptable and innovative. If the government DOES decide to do its job, ill quickly adapt and continue to be successful.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan


So there it is. If you presume an average check of $10, that is 138 covers/customers a day. Each spending $10 apiece. On breakfast.

Note: while this includes a 30% factor for benefits (PTO accruals, insurance, workers comp) and a 20% factor for payroll taxes, it does not include personal/real property tax. That could depend on the area. I'd expect a donut shop in this town to have an average annual tax burden of about $15k, since the property values are low and they'll likely be able to argue down the personal property.

ETA: also note that this does not include Ceneral Liability insurance. I shudder to think about operating a business without GL insurances. At my place we pay around 70k/year for GL and flood. Id expect a donut shop to be much lower, in the 20k/year range.



Now raise the prices 30% to cover costs and profits rise to about $160,000. That the way it needs to work. Those at the bottom need to be lifted to a living wage(100% plus) and the rest get a cost of living adjustment (30%). One big reset. Give it a year to get ready for conversion and then let the free market roar. Some may need to raise prices only 10%, others 50%, but like in any free market those that can produce at the lowest costs will get the most work. It just has to be in accord with the living wage mandate.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So we wait for a genius or wait for the government to change? There is no direct effect that we, as workers, can impose to shift the latter into something more towards the well being of the many versus the few.

We should just lay back and take it.

I really don't think that's what you're suggesting; I hope not, at least.
edit on 25-7-2015 by OrdoAdChao because: ? to . and clarity...




top topics



 
34
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join