45 replies to this topic

[tiagosilva29]

Not in America; not a fast food worker. I have an high-risk job and make around USD$4.81 an hour. Cool story, bros.

SupportGeek said:

Businesses like those simply cannot survive paying $15/hr, the costs of the product would go up over 50%, It already costs about $20 to feed a Family of 3 at McDonalds, business will take a drastic nose dive when the same thing costs $30+ If your "Plan A" was to work at McDonalds to support yourself for the rest of your life as non-management, you REALLY need a "Plan B" These kinds of jobs are not meant as careers, they were meant to utilize unskilled high school level labor, thats why they have internal training for all the basic jobs. Honestly, unskilled labor simply isnt worth $15/hr

The American Dream, eh?

[spenser.d]

technikal, on 01 December 2012 - 02:01, said:

Just taking one of my former employees as an example. McDonald's.

Cursory glance at wikipedia says net income was 5.5 billion. The wikipedia page states 420,000 employees. Doing a rough example of a 2000 hour work year and doing that for all the employees - $5 an hour raise comes to 4.2 billion.

Not really sure where the "going under" part comes in.

It also wouldn't affect all workers. They're asking for this in NYC because of the cost of living there.

It is funny to me that the same people who lash out at these people that are striking for a reasonable wage based on cost of living would also lash out at them for reaping entitlement benefits from the government, which at $9/hr part time in NYC, they most certainly need just to get by.

That said, I do agree with SupportGeek jn that McDs isn't really a viable career choice and shouldn't be thought of as one. These days though, you can get stuck with that for a little while.

[AWKM]

SupportGeek, on 01 December 2012 - 10:04, said:

Stockholders dont tend to like when you gut 4/5ths of your income by giving it away for no return, it means a loss in stock price, and that means stockholders lose money, they sell their shares, and suddenly the comany no longer has enough money to pay back everyone that has money invested in the business.
Hence, they go under.
Its not all about eking out a razor thin margin when you are a publicly traded company.

which kinda highlights a lot of the problems with current society and economics wouldn't you say?

[Lord Method Man]

technikal, on 02 December 2012 - 19:44, said:

which kinda highlights a lot of the problems with current society and economics wouldn't you say?

No.

[rippleman]

MacD@ddy, on 01 December 2012 - 01:51, said:

They get paid almost $9 per hour to serve fast food?!?!?! Sign me up!

Tim

here in Alberta, night time shift worker at Mcdonalds is $20+/hr, and for those that don't have transportation, they even come pick you up for work.

[dead.cell]

tiagosilva29, on 01 December 2012 - 11:55, said:

Not in America; not a fast food worker. I have an high-risk job and make around USD$4.81 an hour. Cool story, bros.

The American Dream, eh?

How is that? I thought minimum wage was $7.25? Or is that state regulated?

Also, I make $8.26 as a sales associate at Best Buy... I'd love to get paid $15 an hour hahah.

[rippleman]

spenser.d, on 01 December 2012 - 13:55, said:

isn't really a viable career choice and shouldn't be thought of as one. These days though, you can get stuck with that for a little while.

When I moved to the city in 1997 when i was 22 years old I had 2 offers to me, a salesman job at a Nissan dealership or swing manager at Mcd's. I WISH i would have took the McD's psoition instead. The guy that was hired the same time I was for McD's is now in Calgary looking after 7 McD's and getting paid $250k a year.

Lets just say i am not at Nissan anymore and i do not make $250 k a year. regrets can be a bitch.

[SupportGeek]

technikal, on 02 December 2012 - 19:44, said:

which kinda highlights a lot of the problems with current society and economics wouldn't you say?

Highlights nothing for society, the economics of it work just fine, if I invest money into a business, I want it to grow, Im not lending them money because Im a nice guy, if your profits as a business fall by 4/5ths it shows that your company is being terribly mismanaged, and as an investor, I would certainly not keep my money there either, chances are, that will be mismanaged as well (or already has been)

Bear in mind the scenario was only for a straight $5/hr increase, which in and of itself likely causes catastrophe for the company, these people also want healthcare benefits, thats going to cost FAR more per employee than a mere $5/hr increase in pay. Even at a modest 10k per employee (and that is VERY low) suddenly they are in the hole 42 billion$ Thats not just a collapse, thats a disaster.

Business owners are not, and should not be required to pay a wage that the employee feels they are worth especially after said employee agrees to work for an offered wage.
If the employee doesn't like working for $9/hr, then they should never have agreed to take that job, its not like they hire you THEN tell you what you will be making, keep looking for another job.
If they cant find a job making more than $9 an hour, then they need to develop a skillset that appeals to employers offering a better wage, or get a second job.

[Hum]

dead.cell, on 02 December 2012 - 19:58, said:

How is that? I thought minimum wage was $7.25? Or is that state regulated?

I believe Federal is $7.25 -- but some states like California have a higher minimum.

The minimum wage is $8.00 per hour for most employees in California, with exceptions for tipped employees, some student workers, and other exempt occupations.

But I guess with higher costs of transportation, they wouldn't really be getting more than Fed min. wage.

[pack34]

SupportGeek, on 02 December 2012 - 21:42, said:

Highlights nothing for society, the economics of it work just fine, if I invest money into a business, I want it to grow, Im not lending them money because Im a nice guy, if your profits as a business fall by 4/5ths it shows that your company is being terribly mismanaged, and as an investor, I would certainly not keep my money there either, chances are, that will be mismanaged as well (or already has been)

Bear in mind the scenario was only for a straight $5/hr increase, which in and of itself likely causes catastrophe for the company, these people also want healthcare benefits, thats going to cost FAR more per employee than a mere $5/hr increase in pay. Even at a modest 10k per employee (and that is VERY low) suddenly they are in the hole 42 billion$ Thats not just a collapse, thats a disaster.

Business owners are not, and should not be required to pay a wage that the employee feels they are worth especially after said employee agrees to work for an offered wage.
If the employee doesn't like working for $9/hr, then they should never have agreed to take that job, its not like they hire you THEN tell you what you will be making, keep looking for another job.
If they cant find a job making more than $9 an hour, then they need to develop a skillset that appeals to employers offering a better wage, or get a second job.

They should, however, be forced to pay livable wages. The current federal minimum wage is not a livable one in most, if not all, states. In a place like New York, the price of living will be much higher which would require a higher wage to be able to afford necessities like an apartment and food.

[cybertimber2008]

technikal, on 01 December 2012 - 02:01, said:

Just taking one of my former employees as an example. McDonald's.

Cursory glance at wikipedia says net income was 5.5 billion. The wikipedia page states 420,000 employees. Doing a rough example of a 2000 hour work year and doing that for all the employees - $5 an hour raise comes to 4.2 billion.

Not really sure where the "going under" part comes in.

Net income != profit.
Net income is what is brought in before subtracting any costs.

[Enron]

Are they on strike at McDowells too?

[SupportGeek]

pack34, on 02 December 2012 - 21:49, said:

They should, however, be forced to pay livable wages. The current federal minimum wage is not a livable one in most, if not all, states. In a place like New York, the price of living will be much higher which would require a higher wage to be able to afford necessities like an apartment and food.

No They shouldnt, thats a ridiculous idea.
It should be up to the individual to manage their income and expenses to be able to live, if McDonalds doesnt pay you enough money to live in Manhattan, go look for a better paying job and maybe stop trying to live in Manhattan. If no one accepts McDonalds jobs because they dont pay enough, market forces will cause them to make working there more attractive.
No one should be thinking ever that flipping burgers at McDonalds is ever going to pay the bills and allow you to live on your own, I worked there when I was 15, at no point did I have any delusions that I would be able to move out and live on my own, I knew the pay wouldn't allow for it, but I know how to do simple math.

cybertimber2008, on 02 December 2012 - 21:57, said:

Net income != profit.
Net income is what is brought in before subtracting any costs.

I think you are thinking of Gross income, whish is before all costs.

[ChrisJ1968]

I think their money pains issue is mute since Obama gave McDonalds a free pass exemption on Obamacare. That's a HUGE savings. The issue is, a working wage. a wage people can subsist on. it is a service organization.

[cybertimber2008]

SupportGeek, on 02 December 2012 - 23:43, said:

I think you are thinking of Gross income, whish is before all costs.

Ah, you are correct. I withdraw my statement.