The Mac Donald's Strike

[Keronians]

Their labor skills would be overvalued artificially. Resulting in fewer employees, fewer luxuries in the restaurants, and fewer franchises.

How'd it be overvalued artificially?

How do you measure what labor skills are actually worth then?

Increased wages would allow for people to purchase more products from businesses and eat more expensive things at restaurants, making up for part, if not most or all, of the cost. It'd also allow for those who earn less than $15/hour to lead much more comfortable lives, although they'd probably still be financially insecure.

Because it's being mandated by law. It's like price support programmes.

The last paragraph doesn't make much sense. McDonald's is a business. It's not just going to sit on its surplus cash, because if it does, shareholders will demand that it be paid out as dividends. They will either invest, distribute, or spend it.

[Grenartia]

When you buy shit, don't complain when you get served shit.

That's no excuse, and it CERTAINLY doesn't justify $15.00/hr wages.

Just because I'm not buying at a top-fucking-shelf steakhouse is no excuse for my order, which was clearly stated and clearly repeated back to me, and clearly written on both the receipt I was given at the register and the receipt I was given with the food, to be completely and utterly not what I actually paid money for.

Example:
Ordered: plain cheeseburger.
Received: Chicken Sandwich with Mayonnaise, Ketchup, pickle and God knows what else.

While this is the most extreme example that has personally happened to me, when I order a burger with Bread, meat and cheese only, I should get Bread, Meat and Cheese ONLY. No matter WHERE I order it from. The fact that there are several restaurants that have blown their third chances (no one's perfect, and I'll forgive the first time, overlook the second and on the third time, I WILL stop going to that location.)

As Gauthier so humorously pointed out:

When they fuck up my plain cheeseburger 3/4 times, sure as fuck not $15.00/hr.

If I got paid $15.00/hr I'd make every single cheeseburger into a goddamn filet mignon.

Perhaps, if these employees were making a living fucking wage, they'd have more incentive to get your order right.

[The Victorian Empire]

They should move to Canada.
Minimum wage here is $10.00.
I would know.
I worked there all summer making 80 dollars a day.

No! Our free people will never flee to your damn frozen Commie hellhole! Take your free healthcare anmd eat it you evil Soviet Canuckistanis! DEATH TO THE MOUNTIES!

On a more serious note, I applaud these workers.

[Arumdaum]

How'd it be overvalued artificially?

How do you measure what labor skills are actually worth then?

Increased wages would allow for people to purchase more products from businesses and eat more expensive things at restaurants, making up for part, if not most or all, of the cost. It'd also allow for those who earn less than $15/hour to lead much more comfortable lives, although they'd probably still be financially insecure.

Because it's being mandated by law. It's like price support programmes.

The last paragraph doesn't make much sense. McDonald's is a business. It's not just going to sit on its surplus cash, because if it does, shareholders will demand that it be paid out as dividends. They will either invest, distribute, or spend it.

Where'd I suggest that a business would just sit on its surplus cash?

[Keronians]

Because it's being mandated by law. It's like price support programmes.

The last paragraph doesn't make much sense. McDonald's is a business. It's not just going to sit on its surplus cash, because if it does, shareholders will demand that it be paid out as dividends. They will either invest, distribute, or spend it.

Where'd I suggest that a business just sit on its surplus cash?

You didn't. I said that economic value will still be created if McDonald's uses its surplus cash for its own purposes.

[Distruzio]

If I got paid $15.00/hr I'd make every single cheeseburger into a goddamn filet mignon.

Getting AQ'd.

Their labor skills are a commodity. It's what they sell to employers. Employers are, obviously, not interested in paying too much for a service. Therefore they offer a price they are willing to settle for. Those employees who do not accept this new price take their wares elsewhere.

The employer owns the job. Not the employee.

I like how you totally ignored the valid point Arum made at the end of his post.

Important here to please and you assume the point was valid. It wasn't. I figured that he'd go the "capitalist have all the power" route. The degree of negotiating authority is irrelevant. The fact is that someone who overvalues their labor shouldn't expect government coercion to force the imaginary existence of it.

[Saint Kitten]

Thank you to the 123 people that voted ^_^

[Arumdaum]

Getting AQ'd.



I like how you totally ignored the valid point Arum made at the end of his post.

Important here to please and you assume the point was valid. It wasn't. I figured that he'd go the "capitalist have all the power" route. The degree of negotiating authority is irrelevant. The fact is that someone who overvalues their labor shouldn't expect government coercion to force the imaginary existence of it.

How were the points not valid? It's a question you've been keep ignoring, and you've done little more than to make condescending posts with an air of a feeling of superiority.

Do you really think that alone, the worker has more bargaining power than the person who employs him? The degree of negotiating authority is certainly not irrelevant. Is only the price the capitalist will pay for someone's labor valid? Or is this all based on your the value you place on labor personally?

How is government coercion any different from capitalist coercion?

If a minimum wage is created, the value of the labor isn't imaginary. The lowest value becomes that of the minimum wage.

[Sabara]

Important here to please and you assume the point was valid. It wasn't. I figured that he'd go the "capitalist have all the power" route. The degree of negotiating authority is irrelevant. The fact is that someone who overvalues their labor shouldn't expect government coercion to force the imaginary existence of it.

How were the points not valid? It's a question you've been keep ignoring, and you've done little more than to make condescending posts with an air of a feeling of superiority.

Do you really think that alone, the worker has more bargaining power than the person who employs him? The degree of negotiating authority is certainly not irrelevant. Is only the price the capitalist will pay for someone's labor valid? Or is this all based on your the value you place on labor personally?

How is government coercion any different from capitalist coercion?

If a minimum wage is created, the value of the labor isn't imaginary. The lowest value becomes that of the minimum wage.

Wait... what?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Important here to please and you assume the point was valid. It wasn't. I figured that he'd go the "capitalist have all the power" route. The degree of negotiating authority is irrelevant. The fact is that someone who overvalues their labor shouldn't expect government coercion to force the imaginary existence of it.

How were the points not valid? It's a question you've been keep ignoring, and you've done little more than to make condescending posts with an air of a feeling of superiority.

Do you really think that alone, the worker has more bargaining power than the person who employs him? The degree of negotiating authority is certainly not irrelevant. Is only the price the capitalist will pay for someone's labor valid? Or is this all based on your the value you place on labor personally?

How is government coercion any different from capitalist coercion?

If a minimum wage is created, the value of the labor isn't imaginary. The lowest value becomes that of the minimum wage.

Incorrect.

It creates a price floor for the employee, it doesn't change the value of that employee. Hence mechanization like that at McDonald's (their automatic drink machines for instance).

[Distruzio]

Important here to please and you assume the point was valid. It wasn't. I figured that he'd go the "capitalist have all the power" route. The degree of negotiating authority is irrelevant. The fact is that someone who overvalues their labor shouldn't expect government coercion to force the imaginary existence of it.

How were the points not valid? It's a question you've been keep ignoring, and you've done little more than to make condescending posts with an air of a feeling of superiority.

Do you really think that alone, the worker has more bargaining power than the person who employs him? The degree of negotiating authority is certainly not irrelevant. Is only the price the capitalist will pay for someone's labor valid? Or is this all based on your the value you place on labor personally?

How is government coercion any different from capitalist coercion?

If a minimum wage is created, the value of the labor isn't imaginary. The lowest value becomes that of the minimum wage.

Im not condescending. I promise you that. The labor value by capitalist employers is valid. The labor value of potential employees is not unless the employer is actively pursuing the potential employee.

Your line of reasoning is irrelevant because you descend into a discussion topic that i did not present. I did not speak of power dynamics. I spoke of imaginary and confused over estimation of the value of services. I cannot blame my employer for failing to pay me $100/hr. Although important certain that i, personally, affect productivity and profit by a significant margin, that meant mean my labor is valued so highly by anyone else.

Moreover, since i earn more than minimum wage, any increase via government fiat relatively diminishes my personal purchasing power. This strike challenges my standard of living. Why should i support it?

[Llamalandia]

Um the world band defines the poverty line as being $1.25 per day and I believe the UN uses the figure of $2 a day. Thus minimum wage in the usa is 3.25x that of the un poverty line per day for working just one hour! if we assume that an average work day is say 8 hours then that means that someone making minimum wage in the usa is making 28x the un poverty line. I would say that's a "living wage"

Implying that the world poverty level and the US poverty level are the same. Which is bullshit.

I challenge you to live on $1.25 a day, in the suburbs of any American city.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism

Nice to see you've ignored my post.

If an increase in wage isn't driven by competition, but artificially inflated, then it raises the question that wages could be artificially raised above the value of the work. Again, I was not talking about incremental wage increases.

Stupid question, but do we actually know how much the average employee at McDonalds is worth?

The wages shouldn't be tied so much to the perceived value of the work that jobs deemed to not be worth much mean that those who work them can't live off the wages.

I'd argue that their work is worth making sure they can fucking live and move up the ladder.

No but i was never suggesting we abolish minimum wage law , I merely offering a counter point that minimum wage in the usa isn't a "living wage". I mean as I pointed out our minmum wage levels is several times greater than the what the world authorities define as the bare minimum of survival.
But additionally the poverty line in the u as of 2013 hhs guidelines is $11,490 per person. a fulltime minimum wage employe makes about 15k a year assuming a 40 hour work week. that means that minimum wage puts a person at about 130% of the poverty line.

[Llamalandia]

That's no excuse, and it CERTAINLY doesn't justify $15.00/hr wages.

Just because I'm not buying at a top-fucking-shelf steakhouse is no excuse for my order, which was clearly stated and clearly repeated back to me, and clearly written on both the receipt I was given at the register and the receipt I was given with the food, to be completely and utterly not what I actually paid money for.

Example:
Ordered: plain cheeseburger.
Received: Chicken Sandwich with Mayonnaise, Ketchup, pickle and God knows what else.

While this is the most extreme example that has personally happened to me, when I order a burger with Bread, meat and cheese only, I should get Bread, Meat and Cheese ONLY. No matter WHERE I order it from. The fact that there are several restaurants that have blown their third chances (no one's perfect, and I'll forgive the first time, overlook the second and on the third time, I WILL stop going to that location.)

As Gauthier so humorously pointed out:

If I got paid $15.00/hr I'd make every single cheeseburger into a goddamn filet mignon.

Perhaps, if these employees were making a living fucking wage, they'd have more incentive to get your order right.

Wait isn't this the argument for tipping, I mean maybe it's time to extend the practice to fast food. I mean that way those who do "get it right" and provides fast courtesy and competent services can be rewarded and those that screw it up "3/4 of the time" don't. Seems like a performance incentive. I guess the tip would have to be like 80-120% but hey maybe it be worth it if the service really was that greatly improved. :)

[Grenartia]

Getting AQ'd.



I like how you totally ignored the valid point Arum made at the end of his post.

Important here to please and you assume the point was valid. It wasn't. I figured that he'd go the "capitalist have all the power" route. The degree of negotiating authority is irrelevant. The fact is that someone who overvalues their labor shouldn't expect government coercion to force the imaginary existence of it.

And somebody who undervalues another person's labor should have to be forced to recognize its proper value.

Important here to please and you assume the point was valid. It wasn't. I figured that he'd go the "capitalist have all the power" route. The degree of negotiating authority is irrelevant. The fact is that someone who overvalues their labor shouldn't expect government coercion to force the imaginary existence of it.

How were the points not valid? It's a question you've been keep ignoring, and you've done little more than to make condescending posts with an air of a feeling of superiority.

Do you really think that alone, the worker has more bargaining power than the person who employs him? The degree of negotiating authority is certainly not irrelevant. Is only the price the capitalist will pay for someone's labor valid? Or is this all based on your the value you place on labor personally?

How is government coercion any different from capitalist coercion?

If a minimum wage is created, the value of the labor isn't imaginary. The lowest value becomes that of the minimum wage.

Indeed.

Implying that the world poverty level and the US poverty level are the same. Which is bullshit.

I challenge you to live on $1.25 a day, in the suburbs of any American city.



Nice to see you've ignored my post.



The wages shouldn't be tied so much to the perceived value of the work that jobs deemed to not be worth much mean that those who work them can't live off the wages.

I'd argue that their work is worth making sure they can fucking live and move up the ladder.

No but i was never suggesting we abolish minimum wage law , 1. I merely offering a counter point that minimum wage in the usa isn't a "living wage". 2. I mean as I pointed out our minmum wage levels is several times greater than the what the world authorities define as the bare minimum of survival.
3. But additionally the poverty line in the u as of 2013 hhs guidelines is $11,490 per person. a fulltime minimum wage employe makes about 15k a year assuming a 40 hour work week. that means that minimum wage puts a person at about 130% of the poverty line.

1. I never said it was a living wage. In fact, I'm arguing quite the opposite.

2. However, the amount you posted is well below the bare minimum for survival her in the US.

3. Most people don't work fulltime. All your fast food workers, Walmart employees, and the like work PART TIME. So they actually end up making LESS than $11.49K a year.

EDIT: To say nothing of the fact that $11.49K a year is a gross underestimation of the cost of living. I mean $11.49K is less than $1000 a month. Sure, one person might barely be able to get by on it (and only just barely), but any more and you and your family are fucked.

As Gauthier so humorously pointed out:



Perhaps, if these employees were making a living fucking wage, they'd have more incentive to get your order right.

Wait isn't this the argument for tipping, I mean maybe it's time to extend the practice to fast food. I mean that way those who do "get it right" and provides fast courtesy and competent services can be rewarded and those that screw it up "3/4 of the time" don't. Seems like a performance incentive. I guess the tip would have to be like 80-120% but hey maybe it be worth it if the service really was that greatly improved. :)

Only problem is, they'd then see their wages cut (just like waiters have), because employers make the justification that "they can get most of their money from tips". But since tips are optional, and the whole model of fast food is order, pay, then scram with your grub, digging out your phone to get the tip calculator app up, then digging out the appropriate amount for a tip will only complicate things, and lengthen lines at the drive thru and counters (which can already be quite long). The chains would see loss of business.

[Vetalia]

Perhaps, if these employees were making a living fucking wage, they'd have more incentive to get your order right.

It'd be easier and more economical just to replace them with machines...

[Grenartia]

Perhaps, if these employees were making a living fucking wage, they'd have more incentive to get your order right.

It'd be easier and more economical just to replace them with machines...

Thus raising unemployment to massive numbers, and killing economic growth.

[Gauthier]

How were the points not valid? It's a question you've been keep ignoring, and you've done little more than to make condescending posts with an air of a feeling of superiority.

Do you really think that alone, the worker has more bargaining power than the person who employs him? The degree of negotiating authority is certainly not irrelevant. Is only the price the capitalist will pay for someone's labor valid? Or is this all based on your the value you place on labor personally?

How is government coercion any different from capitalist coercion?

If a minimum wage is created, the value of the labor isn't imaginary. The lowest value becomes that of the minimum wage.

Incorrect.

It creates a price floor for the employee, it doesn't change the value of that employee. Hence mechanization like that at McDonald's (their automatic drink machines for instance).

Except the fast food business is inherently a pesonal service-oriented industry. People are going to be required to serve customers short of a company burning money and research into creating a fast food automat.

[New England and The Maritimes]

It'd be easier and more economical just to replace them with machines...

Thus raising unemployment to massive numbers, and killing economic growth.

The world is more complicated than that. It'd also employ factory workers to create these machines and maintenance workers who periodically repair them, truck drivers to deliver them, etc. Not saying it would be net-positive, but interactions within a society are not small or isolated. They ripple throughout the society.

[Distruzio]

Important here to please and you assume the point was valid. It wasn't. I figured that he'd go the "capitalist have all the power" route. The degree of negotiating authority is irrelevant. The fact is that someone who overvalues their labor shouldn't expect government coercion to force the imaginary existence of it.

And somebody who undervalues another person's labor should have to be forced to recognize its proper value.

Indeed. I agree with you there. But to what degree? I don't favor a one size fits all answer to the dilemma. That distorts market activity far too greatly.

[Grenartia]

Thus raising unemployment to massive numbers, and killing economic growth.

The world is more complicated than that. 1. It'd also employ factory workers to create these machines and 2. maintenance workers who periodically repair them, 3. truck drivers to deliver them, etc. 4. Not saying it would be net-positive, but interactions within a society are not small or isolated. They ripple throughout the society.

1. Not as many as the jobs the machines would fill. To say nothing of the fact that the factory itself could use machines to create the machines.

2. Again, not as many as the jobs lost to fast food mechanization.

3. See above.

4. It would be a net loss, and without massive demand for former fast food workers by some other sector, you'd still see economic decline from millions of jobs being lost.

[Distruzio]

It'd be easier and more economical just to replace them with machines...

Thus raising unemployment to massive numbers, and killing economic growth.

Economic growth doesn't hinge on the existence of human labor in the market. Have you forgotten about the automotive industry? It thrives without human labor. In fact, it grew to unprecedented heights the more autonomous the industry grew.

[Gauthier]

The world is more complicated than that. 1. It'd also employ factory workers to create these machines and 2. maintenance workers who periodically repair them, 3. truck drivers to deliver them, etc. 4. Not saying it would be net-positive, but interactions within a society are not small or isolated. They ripple throughout the society.

1. Not as many as the jobs the machines would fill. To say nothing of the fact that the factory itself could use machines to create the machines.

2. Again, not as many as the jobs lost to fast food mechanization.

3. See above.

4. It would be a net loss, and without massive demand for former fast food workers by some other sector, you'd still see economic decline from millions of jobs being lost.

Automats declined the first time they were tried. Lack of human interaction will not go in favor of the employers.

[Gauthier]

Thus raising unemployment to massive numbers, and killing economic growth.

Economic growth doesn't hinge on the existence of human labor in the market. Have you forgotten about the automotive industry? It thrives without human labor. In fact, it grew to unprecedented heights the more autonomous the industry grew.

The automotive industry is not inherently personal service oriented.

[Helios Corporation]

Yes, because you deserve 15 bucks an hour for cooking burgers.

[Gauthier]

Yes, because you deserve 15 bucks an hour for cooking burgers.

Why aren't those parasites and looters out getting those available high paying jobs instead of flipping burgers expecting 15 an hour eh?