Restaurant workers stay hungry as the food industry feasts o

[Libertarian California]

Restaurants should pay their workers more so that I don't have to when I do my taxes.

[Augarundus]

The only reasonable end to that sentence is "I couldn't possibly be able to create or express an informed opinion, so I'll stop here."

What useful information could the rest of the article possibly give me?

Wait, just read the rest of the article. And? None.

This article is obviously an appeal-to-emotion circlejerk about how much it sucks to be poor. It's not some groundbreaking study on the effects of minimum wage. It's a worlds-smallest-violin sadsong from the Guardian, which has recently turned out to be a second-class newspaper. If OP had published a study from, say, the Brookings Institute, I would bother to read it (and I do bother to read those studies), but not this shitty opinion piece that passes as journalism. Headline may as well have been "Working at minimum wage sucks", and the rest of the article is a regurgitated sobstory that's passed along in every shallow, identical plea for minimum wage hikes.

If I don't have an "informed opinion", then that's not something this article can fix.

[Lyrova]

It would be very helpful if the OP could, at least at the beginning of the post, complete the title that was obviously cut off. It's difficult to get an initial idea of the post with an incomplete title that runs straight into a lengthy, copy-pasted news article.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The only reasonable end to that sentence is "I couldn't possibly be able to create or express an informed opinion, so I'll stop here."

What useful information could the rest of the article possibly give me?

Wait, just read the rest of the article. And? None.

This article is obviously an appeal-to-emotion circlejerk about how much it sucks to be poor. It's not some groundbreaking study on the effects of minimum wage. It's a worlds-smallest-violin sadsong from the Guardian, which has recently turned out to be a second-class newspaper. If OP had published a study from, say, the Brookings Institute, I would bother to read it (and I do bother to read those studies), but not this shitty opinion piece that passes as journalism. Headline may as well have been "Working at minimum wage sucks", and the rest of the article is a regurgitated sobstory that's passed along in every shallow, identical plea for minimum wage hikes.

If I don't have an "informed opinion", then that's not something this article can fix.

Okay, so you're willing to stand by your initial post. I'll go back to that, then.

This seems like a standard that lends itself to a lot of biases...

Perhaps, but it is telling that people who are professionals in the food industry, and might be in a position to judge such things fairly, do not believe that the food that they are given at work is nutritious. However, I'm willing to let that go, and for the sake of argument assume that they're just being ungrateful for the food that they get.

Without reading the rest of the article, I love how people pick out incredibly expensive cities to do their studies in - New York, San Francisco, etc. "I can't afford to live well on minimum wage in New York City" - obviously not, because most people couldn't afford to live well at wages considerably above minimum in New York City. You aren't entitled to live in New York City just because it's cool. If you have a sufficiently low skill set that you can't live in a place where you frankly just aren't economically valuable enough to justify your continued existence,

Emphasis mine. I'll point out this part of your statement once again.

you frankly just aren't economically valuable enough to justify your continued existence

Emphasis mine again.

I'm going to be very cautious here, as it's easy to get bogged down in semantics, but that statement could be interpreted as you saying that a person's entire justification for existing is based upon his or her economic value. If that's the case, then I'm going to say that it's up to you to back up that statement with your reasoning.

move somewhere where you are and try to acquire skills that improve your productivity and justify a higher wage. If you haven't graduated high school and all you can do is operate a cash register, then maybe you shouldn't expect the same quality of life in New York City that you would in, say, Omaha, Nebraska.

Right, but what happens to New York City when the minimum wage and tipped workers--waitstaff, busboys, barristas, non-unionized register operators and the like--are no longer able to afford to live there? If not for the sake of the workers themselves, then at least for the sake of the city, shouldn't the people who work there be able to live there? And if they can't afford to live there (or within a reasonable commute that still allows them some time with their families), then who will take their places?

This is the same sort of logic that justifies women with 15 children saying that "someone needs to be held accountable and be made to pay", as though their circumstances in life are completely beyond their control and they are somehow entitled to unjustifiably high living standards.

Define "unjustifiably high living standards".

While it is true that it's probably not feasible to sustain a family of 17 on minimum wage, that's not a reason (even if we somehow accept the logic of minimum wage increases not impacting unemployment) to raise minimum wage to 800 dollars/hour just so you can sustain your living standards.

Who is suggesting that we raise the minimum wage to such a degree?

It's a reason why you shouldn't fucking have fifteen kids because you're an irresponsible piece of shit.

I don't believe that anyone in the story was mentioned as having fifteen children. Why are you using an article about the food insecurity of restaurant workers to rail against this woman?

If you're a New Yorker who can barely mop floors well enough to justify 7.70/hour, then maybe you should fix that.

How?

By going to school? That costs money. Even taking out loans, you're still going to need to keep the job to pay the rent...which you can't afford at minimum wage. By moving? Well, it costs plenty of money to do so. And again, if the cost of living gets too expensive in an area, then your service sector is either going to deal with food insecurity, rent insecurity, and other factors that can contribute to poor job performance, or is going to move, leaving you with only the most desperate of workers (who are usually not the most qualified ones).

Of course, there's always the possibility of unionization, strikes, and various work disruptions, but I"m sure that the right, having stomped the unions largely into submission, would not do something as ill-advised as motivating workers to give them a second look.

[Freiheit Reich]

OK, what about the US military? Another good job opportunity many of these servers could take but won't. I took this job after high school and I was able to save 90% of my wages plus I gained experience (resulting in the job in Afghanistan and Iraq).

For those unable to pass the ASVAB test, free study books are available at the library and there are community groups willing to help people improve their reading and writing skills.

Not all poor people qualify for the military but many do.

And for those who do, you're offering them the choice between the dead end job and running the risk of death or maiming in an immoral, unnecessary, and unjust war.

I said the war was unnecessary and unjust but most Americans supported the war (about 51%). Anybody that reelected Bush in 2004 supported the war.

The military is actually quite safe these days (as opposed to during the Vietnam War), especially for those in non-combat jobs. It is probably safer to be a soldier in the US military than being a young man living in the worst neighborhoods of NYC, Washington DC, or Detroit.

Being poor means less options. It sucks but life is not always fair. Besides, being poor in the USA is really not that bad for most people (except those homeless with mental illness and those with serious health problems). Most of the poor (not all) have access to electricity, running water, reasonable housing conditions (4 people in a 1 bedroom apartment is cramped but not awful if everybody keeps it and themselves clean), and free access to public libraries (meaning they can borrow books, music, and movies and often have internet access as well). In St. Louis and Washington DC the art museum, zoo, and a few other museums are free to all so the poor can get plenty of free recreation and cultural opportunities as well.

[Freiheit Reich]

Restaurants should pay their workers more so that I don't have to when I do my taxes.

We could also cut down the welfare system so able bodied workers don't get any welfare which could result in lower taxes. They shouldn't be rewarded for lacking ambition to getting a better job (or being foolish enough to live in an expensive city while making minimum wage).

[The Grim Reaper]

Restaurants should pay their workers more so that I don't have to when I do my taxes.

We could also cut down the welfare system so able bodied workers don't get any welfare which could result in lower taxes. They shouldn't be rewarded for lacking ambition to getting a better job (or being foolish enough to live in an expensive city while making minimum wage).

The better jobs, of course, will reproduce sexually, creating exponentially more CEO positions and funding thousands of mansions, which thanks to reduced building codes, will allow millions of immigrants to live in tightly cramped multi-story mansions, while working as CEOs.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And for those who do, you're offering them the choice between the dead end job and running the risk of death or maiming in an immoral, unnecessary, and unjust war.

I said the war was unnecessary and unjust but most Americans supported the war (about 51%). Anybody that reelected Bush in 2004 supported the war.

The military is actually quite safe these days (as opposed to during the Vietnam War), especially for those in non-combat jobs. It is probably safer to be a soldier in the US military than being a young man living in the worst neighborhoods of NYC, Washington DC, or Detroit.

Being poor means less options. It sucks but life is not always fair. Besides, being poor in the USA is really not that bad for most people (except those homeless with mental illness and those with serious health problems). Most of the poor (not all) have access to electricity, running water, reasonable housing conditions (4 people in a 1 bedroom apartment is cramped but not awful if everybody keeps it and themselves clean), and free access to public libraries (meaning they can borrow books, music, and movies and often have internet access as well). In St. Louis and Washington DC the art museum, zoo, and a few other museums are free to all so the poor can get plenty of free recreation and cultural opportunities as well.

Life may not be fair, but we can minimize the impact to some degree in the interests of social stability (on a practical level) and basic humanity (on what I own up to being a somewhat more idealistic level). Four people to a one bedroom apartment, for instance, is inherently more of a risk to health. Not only does a bug that affects one inevitably affect all (barring the flu, if at least three of the four roommates remember to get their shots, which is a gamble at best), but there is generally more of a risk of poor sanitation even with normal efforts to keep things clean. You're essentially asking some of the hardest workers in society to make do with significantly less than the previous generation. You're telling people who, given their position and average hours, could have likely afforded to at least rent their own room 25 years ago that they're not worth the basic security and dignity of four walls and a door. That tends to breed resentment in a society, and tends to lead to an unhappy workforce. An unhappy workforce tends to breed social disorder. It's not an inevitable outcome, but it happens often enough to be an outcome that one should likely try to avoid.

[European Socialist Republic]

I said the war was unnecessary and unjust but most Americans supported the war (about 51%). Anybody that reelected Bush in 2004 supported the war.

The military is actually quite safe these days (as opposed to during the Vietnam War), especially for those in non-combat jobs. It is probably safer to be a soldier in the US military than being a young man living in the worst neighborhoods of NYC, Washington DC, or Detroit.

Being poor means less options. It sucks but life is not always fair. Besides, being poor in the USA is really not that bad for most people (except those homeless with mental illness and those with serious health problems). Most of the poor (not all) have access to electricity, running water, reasonable housing conditions (4 people in a 1 bedroom apartment is cramped but not awful if everybody keeps it and themselves clean), and free access to public libraries (meaning they can borrow books, music, and movies and often have internet access as well). In St. Louis and Washington DC the art museum, zoo, and a few other museums are free to all so the poor can get plenty of free recreation and cultural opportunities as well.

Life may not be fair, but we can minimize the impact to some degree in the interests of social stability (on a practical level) and basic humanity (on what I own up to being a somewhat more idealistic level). Four people to a one bedroom apartment, for instance, is inherently more of a risk to health. Not only does a bug that affects one inevitably affect all (barring the flu, if at least three of the four roommates remember to get their shots, which is a gamble at best), but you're essentially asking some of the hardest workers in society to make do with significantly less than the previous generation. You're telling people who, given their position and average hours, could have likely afforded to at least rent their own room 25 years ago that they're not worth the basic security and dignity of four walls and a door. That tends to breed resentment in a society, and tends to lead to an unhappy workforce. An unhappy workforce tends to breed social disorder. It's not an inevitable outcome, but it happens often enough to be an outcome that one should likely try to avoid.

And an unhappy workforce leads to revolution and a red October. Red from the blood of the capitalist pig-dogs.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Life may not be fair, but we can minimize the impact to some degree in the interests of social stability (on a practical level) and basic humanity (on what I own up to being a somewhat more idealistic level). Four people to a one bedroom apartment, for instance, is inherently more of a risk to health. Not only does a bug that affects one inevitably affect all (barring the flu, if at least three of the four roommates remember to get their shots, which is a gamble at best), but you're essentially asking some of the hardest workers in society to make do with significantly less than the previous generation. You're telling people who, given their position and average hours, could have likely afforded to at least rent their own room 25 years ago that they're not worth the basic security and dignity of four walls and a door. That tends to breed resentment in a society, and tends to lead to an unhappy workforce. An unhappy workforce tends to breed social disorder. It's not an inevitable outcome, but it happens often enough to be an outcome that one should likely try to avoid.

And an unhappy workforce leads to revolution and a red October. Red from the blood of the capitalist pig-dogs.

Let's not run up the flag and storm the barricades just yet, shall we? Revolutions tend to be bloody, tragic, wasteful, and unpredictable, and it's not hard for the worst people to work their way into positions of power at the end. Also, the name-calling doesn't really add anything to the conversation.

[Vissegaard]

And?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And?

Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately, we have found it a bit lacking in depth for our current needs. Please feel free to submit any more substantive work that you may have in the future.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Life may not be fair, but we can minimize the impact to some degree in the interests of social stability (on a practical level) and basic humanity (on what I own up to being a somewhat more idealistic level). Four people to a one bedroom apartment, for instance, is inherently more of a risk to health. Not only does a bug that affects one inevitably affect all (barring the flu, if at least three of the four roommates remember to get their shots, which is a gamble at best), but you're essentially asking some of the hardest workers in society to make do with significantly less than the previous generation. You're telling people who, given their position and average hours, could have likely afforded to at least rent their own room 25 years ago that they're not worth the basic security and dignity of four walls and a door. That tends to breed resentment in a society, and tends to lead to an unhappy workforce. An unhappy workforce tends to breed social disorder. It's not an inevitable outcome, but it happens often enough to be an outcome that one should likely try to avoid.

And an unhappy workforce leads to revolution and a red October. Red from the blood of the capitalist pig-dogs.

then let's make the workforce even more unhappy. To awaken the proletariat sooner and all.

[Fireye]

Well I read the first part. It wasn't concise enough for me to read anymore.

So that's one sentence you read.

---

*reads thread*

Lying is bad and you should feel bad.

I said thread, not article.

[Cannot think of a name]

Restaurants should pay their workers more so that I don't have to when I do my taxes.

We could also cut down the welfare system so able bodied workers don't get any welfare which could result in lower taxes. They shouldn't be rewarded for lacking ambition to getting a better job (or being foolish enough to live in an expensive city while making minimum wage).

So...you're saying that these jobs shouldn't exist at all? There should be no such thing as waiters, baristas, hotel staff, etc etc?

[Freiheit Reich]

We could also cut down the welfare system so able bodied workers don't get any welfare which could result in lower taxes. They shouldn't be rewarded for lacking ambition to getting a better job (or being foolish enough to live in an expensive city while making minimum wage).

So...you're saying that these jobs shouldn't exist at all? There should be no such thing as waiters, baristas, hotel staff, etc etc?

They can exist but maybe people shouldn't try to make a career out of these jobs. If they want to, it is fine. However, don't whine about your low pay.

[Cannot think of a name]

So...you're saying that these jobs shouldn't exist at all? There should be no such thing as waiters, baristas, hotel staff, etc etc?

They can exist but maybe people shouldn't try to make a career out of these jobs. If they want to, it is fine. However, don't whine about your low pay.

What exactly do you mean by 'career'? Like, support themselves, or perform them until retirement?

[Freiheit Reich]

They can exist but maybe people shouldn't try to make a career out of these jobs. If they want to, it is fine. However, don't whine about your low pay.

What exactly do you mean by 'career'? Like, support themselves, or perform them until retirement?

Perform them for several years, possibly until retirement.

My first job was being a McDonald's 'chef' which was fine for while I was in high school. However, I didn't want to do that for the rest of my life. Also, I didn't whine about my pay. Nobody forced me to take the job and the company was completely honest about my pay.

Perhaps the poor people should complain about New York's high state tax. If they cut the tax down to 3% the state could still function well (as several states manage to do with this rate-or less). This would mean more money in poor people's paychecks.

[Cannot think of a name]

What exactly do you mean by 'career'? Like, support themselves, or perform them until retirement?

Perform them for several years, possibly until retirement.

This confuses me. What part of the article indicates that this issue is one of long term employment? Further, how does this address the needs of the people doing the job for the shorter period prescribed?

My first job was being a McDonald's 'chef' which was fine for while I was in high school. However, I didn't want to do that for the rest of my life. Also, I didn't whine about my pay. Nobody forced me to take the job and the company was completely honest about my pay.

While interesting, I guess, I'm not sure what the relevance of this autobiographical aside.

Perhaps the poor people should complain about New York's high state tax. If they cut the tax down to 3% the state could still function well (as several states manage to do with this rate-or less). This would mean more money in poor people's paychecks.

Generally speaking the poor do not make enough to actually rate a tax, at best you'd be managing to eliminate the refund check, which...sure, collecting $400 to give to me in March is kind of a hassle, but I don't really see this making the difference you seem to imply.

[Freiheit Reich]

Perform them for several years, possibly until retirement.

This confuses me. What part of the article indicates that this issue is one of long term employment? Further, how does this address the needs of the people doing the job for the shorter period prescribed?

My first job was being a McDonald's 'chef' which was fine for while I was in high school. However, I didn't want to do that for the rest of my life. Also, I didn't whine about my pay. Nobody forced me to take the job and the company was completely honest about my pay.

While interesting, I guess, I'm not sure what the relevance of this autobiographical aside.

Perhaps the poor people should complain about New York's high state tax. If they cut the tax down to 3% the state could still function well (as several states manage to do with this rate-or less). This would mean more money in poor people's paychecks.

Generally speaking the poor do not make enough to actually rate a tax, at best you'd be managing to eliminate the refund check, which...sure, collecting $400 to give to me in March is kind of a hassle, but I don't really see this making the difference you seem to imply.

I meant that if I can get a better despite starting with a menial job so can they.

[The Black Forrest]

So...you're saying that these jobs shouldn't exist at all? There should be no such thing as waiters, baristas, hotel staff, etc etc?

They can exist but maybe people shouldn't try to make a career out of these jobs. If they want to, it is fine. However, don't whine about your low pay.

Hmmm maybe the free market shouldn't make them career jobs when exporting jobs overseas?

Every look at teenage unemployment rates? They would take the jobs as starter jobs but they are hard to come by......

[Cannot think of a name]

This confuses me. What part of the article indicates that this issue is one of long term employment? Further, how does this address the needs of the people doing the job for the shorter period prescribed?

While interesting, I guess, I'm not sure what the relevance of this autobiographical aside.

Generally speaking the poor do not make enough to actually rate a tax, at best you'd be managing to eliminate the refund check, which...sure, collecting $400 to give to me in March is kind of a hassle, but I don't really see this making the difference you seem to imply.

I meant that if I can get a better despite starting with a menial job so can they.

I'm not sure how your anecdotal personal experience applies directly. Are you suggesting that everyone's situation is exactly identical to yours?

[New Cyyro]

Make the family meals bigger and actual meal size, done.

[Cyyro]

Make the family meals bigger and actual meal size, done.

Agreed.

[Gauthier]

Make the family meals bigger and actual meal size, done.

Agreed.

So, larger portions of salt, sugar and fat will solve the problem then? I didn't know we had ants instead of humans working in restaurants.

And puppetwanking is very, very sad.