McDonalds helps you budget!

[bUU]

I suggest that people prepare themselves to take jobs that aren't teenager jobs. Pretty simple, really. Failing to educate yourself so that you are only a candidate for these low wage jobs is not the fault of the corporations

This resembles the argument you made in that other thread: Trivializing the reality because accepting the reality as it is would repudiate the disrespect you are implying towards those that aren't as fortunate as you are.

Yes. We have lost an awful lot of decent paying blue-collar jobs, and we have gained an awful lot of entry level service jobs. You're saying because the factory with decent wages has closed and moved to <insert foreign country here>, McDonald's needs to pay a living wage. Never mind that they have never done so previously.

No, What I'm saying is that these companies should not be allowed to operate on the backs of the American taxpayer. They should operate on their own, paying their people enough so that they aren't a burden on the taxpayer, just like it was previously, in your little scenario of the past. Teenagers were covered on their parents health insurance previously, so if you're going to hang your hat on what they have done previously then apply that as a requirement, to make sure that they're not actually changing things to their own advantage to the nation's detriment.

I have known many many people with degrees who are unable to find anything besides unskilled jobs that pay right around or just over minimum wage. Most of them went to school for skills that were in great demand at the time but are not any more. Some of them weren't even all the way finished with school when the bubble burst. So now they have tons of student loan debt too and still can't find a well paying job.

Precisely.

In my opinion, requiring businesses to pay a living wage for unskilled labor would solve nothing.

So what would solve the problem in your opinion?

And when things turn around, they will find jobs that fit their education.

Not if, as is the case, industry has found that they're better off exporting jobs to nations where people will work for comparative slave wages, or otherwise switching to production models that require few if any workers. When it becomes just all about the money, then people are treated like garbage. It's not a business' responsibility to worry about that - it is government's responsibility to do so, and to impose constraints on businesses that preclude treating people like garbage.

One has to provide MORE value to the employer than one is paid, or the employer is better off doing without the employee.

A cold, calculating and perfectly business-like attitude. And one that is antisocial, anti-people, and one that only the rich would enjoy living under. The callous disregard for the impact of such a cold, calculating attitude, as applied more and more and more and more widely in society, is short-sighted and foolish.

Oh, that's right! Only "others" should pay more. Not the utopians.

Cut the bull. Everyone should pay for a fair and just society. Everyone. Including you.

BTW, I went to college over 15 years ago, and things have still not turned around in certain industries, so it is pretty doubtful these friends of mine are going to find work in their field of study in the future. If you aren't working in the industry then it's almost impossible to stay current with the skills needed, especially if it involves learning software, coding languages, etc. Some of them have already gone back to college and taken out even more loans to get a different degree.

It's shameful that so many people work so hard to avoid the truth of things such as what you're outlining. Utterly shameful.

[riverwed070707]

I could tell you stories of my own that would sound strange to you, because they likely preceded the reality you lived through. Things Have Changed.

Meaning what? Your link is about industrial jobs in America, hardly relevant to you assuming everyone in a chain restaurant can't support themselves. I think your statement is vastly overgeneralized, and it sounds like you're just picking names from a hat. There are unskilled labor jobs, skilled labor jobs, and professional jobs and you should be paid according to the skills you possess. Its called economics. Doctors and fast food workers shouldn't be paid equal wages.

To the comment about why so many people are offended, I'm not offended but truthfully I'm shocked so many people on here see entry-level positions at McDonalds as a career path. Its a starting place not a hole. If you do well, you move on to shift supervisor or store manager, etc. And yes they do have crap hours... because its a starting place, the newbies always get the shifts no one else wants. What would be the drive for people to fill higher level jobs with more responsibility if they made plenty flipping burgers? I also don't see it as a difference between privlidge. I went to college but I have plenty of friends and classmates who chose to pursue a skilled trade instead -- lots of farmers, linemen, welders, mechanics, etc that didn't necessarily go to school to develop their skills. I don't see how anyone could argue that McDonalds is causing a failing economy by offering entry-level jobs.

[bUU]

There are unskilled labor jobs, skilled labor jobs, and professional jobs and you should be paid according to the skills you possess.

And the jobs available in the economy are to match the corresponding needs of the citizens of the society. That's not me talking - that's the Vice Chair of the fed talking. Our society has failed in that regard, and has unjustly laid the burdens of that failure disproportionately on those for whom living wage jobs are not available.

Its called economics.

Economics is a tool to serve society's needs. When economics fails to do what it is supposed to do, that needs to be fixed, as I'm advocating, not excused, as you're doing.

Doctors and fast food workers shouldn't be paid equal wages.

Correct. And you're including that statement in your comment indicates that you had no idea what it was I was actually talking about (or were engaging in some nonsensical form of rhetorical distraction - I'm not sure which).

I'm shocked so many people on here see entry-level positions at McDonalds as a career path.

Name one poster here who said that.

Making up arguments to argue against, instead of responding to what people are actually saying, isn't a reasonable course of discussion.

Its a starting place not a hole.

I'll say it again: When all that's left are "starting places" what then? If society doesn't do anything in response to calculating strategies to reduce the vast majority of jobs in the economy to "starting places", then society has failed to fulfill its obligations to its citizens.

[Blessed]

Perhaps, and I am certainly one not to say we need a much higher minimum wage, but consider this... many McDonalds insist workers be available to work changing schedules most every day at any time. They don't want workers that have other jobs, because it doesn't allow them to have "just-in-time" employees. Yet their instructions specifically say to get a second job to make ends meet. Basically they are saying to do something they won't allow their own employees to do. That's just not right.

Both of my kids have worked there as have friends and girlfriends. I have a friend whom has worked there part time for 30 years. They have all found them to be very flexible with second jobs.

The friend and coworker that has worked there PT 30 years does so because her full time job is not a field that offers no benefits. That way she can contribute her PT wages to the 401k instead of being limited to the $5k in a IRA. I have actually thought of doing the same.

[Barclay]

There are millions of jobs that go unfilled each and every year. We are a spoiled society that looks down on hard work. Everyone wants to go to college and get a degree and make $200k per year sitting on their behinds all day. We look down on plumbers, electricians, roofers, oil rig workers, etc.

McDonald's pays enough to maintain an employee base.

[Petunia 100]

No, What I'm saying is that these companies should not be allowed to operate on the backs of the American taxpayer. They should operate on their own, paying their people enough so that they aren't a burden on the taxpayer, just like it was previously, in your little scenario of the past. Teenagers were covered on their parents health insurance previously, so if you're going to hang your hat on what they have done previously then apply that as a requirement, to make sure that they're not actually changing things to their own advantage to the nation's detriment.

To make this statement with any credibility, you would first have to prove that McDonald's does operate on the backs of American taxpayers. As for the rest of it, now you are just off on another of your nonsensicle rants. McDonald's is preventing teenagers from being covered on their parents health insurance plans? Umm, no they are not. "My little scenario of the past". Umm, factory type blue-collar jobs have left America for foreign shores. The number of those jobs have shrunk while low-paying service type jobs have grown. This isn't at all something I have fabricated.

So what would solve the problem in your opinion?

As I have already stated, the solution is to acquire skills and/or specialized knowledge which command higher wages.

[Petunia 100]

I'll say it again: When all that's left are "starting places" what then? If society doesn't do anything in response to calculating strategies to reduce the vast majority of jobs in the economy to "starting places", then society has failed to fulfill its obligations to its citizens.

Oh, I see. Providing the opportunity to improve yourself is insufficient, we must instead just grant it with a wave of the wand. People should not have to exert any effort at all.

[bUU]

To make this statement with any credibility, you would first have to prove that McDonald's does operate on the backs of American taxpayers.

Your wish is granted:

In April 2005 the Mobile Register published an article citing data from the Alabama Medicaid Agency on companies in the state with employees whose children are participating in Medicaid. The newspaper obtained a list from the agency of 63 companies whose employees had 100 or more children in the program as of mid-March 2005. At the top of the list was Wal-Mart, whose employees had 4,700 children in the program. Following it were McDonald's (1,931), Hardee's (884) and Burger King (861). The data were similar to information obtained from the same agency by the Montgomery Advertiser two months earlier.

Sources: Sean Reilly, "Medicaid Providing Health Care for Kids of Working Families," Mobile Register, April 17, 2005 and John Davis and Jannell McGrew, "Health Plans Not Family Friendly," Montgomery Advertiser, February 22, 2005, p.B6.

In March 2005 the St. Petersburg Times published a summary of data it obtained from the Department of Children and Families on the employers in the state with the most workers who were enrolled in Medicaid or KidCare Insurance (Florida's version of SCHIP). Leading the Medicaid list was Wal-Mart with 12,300 employees or their dependents enrolled in the program. Wal-Mart also accounted for 1,375 employee children enrolled in Kidcare (second only to Miami-Dade County with 1,518). The other employers with the most Medicaid enrollees were McDonald's (8,100), Publix (7,900), Wendy's (4,100), Winn-Dixie (4,000) and Burger King (3,900). Publix ranked third on the KidCare list with 1,250 and Winn-Dixie ranked fifth (after Broward County Schools) with 379.

In September 2009 the United Food and Commercial Workers announced that it had received data from the state Department of Job and Family Services showing that 15,000 Wal-Mart workers in Ohio were receiving health benefits through Medicaid. In July 2008 Policy Matters Ohio published an updated report on the employers with the largest number of workers participating in the Medicaid, food stamps and Ohio Works First (cash assistance) programs. The report, based on data from the Department of Job and Family Services, showed the following. For Medicaid, Wal-Mart was first with 13,141 employees, followed by McDonald's (11,446), Yum! Brands (6,596) and Wendy's (5,620). For food stamps, McDonald's was first with 9,316, followed by Wal-Mart (8,565), Yum! Brands (5,286) and Wendy's (4,623). McDonald's also led the list with regard to cash assistance with 874 employees. It was followed by Yum! Brands (500), Wendy's (450) and Wal-Mart (305). The same four companies were at the top of the list when the Department of Job and Family Services released its own report in February 2006 in response to requests from Policy Matters Ohio and others.

Sources: Laura Bischoff, "Employees of Big Companies Fill Ohio's Medicaid, Food Stamp Rolls, Report Says," Dayton Daily News, September 29, 2009; online at http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/...ys-323224.html. Policy Matters Ohio, Public Benefits Subsidize Major Ohio Employers: A 2008 Update, July 31, 2008; online at http://www.policymattersohio.org/pdf...s2008_0731.pdf. See also: Julie Carr Smyth, "Ohio Workers Depend on Public Benefits," Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 25, 2006. See also the Policy Matters Ohio initial analysis of the 2006 data at: http://www.policymattersohio.org/pdf...ts_2006_03.pdf

And so on...

As for the rest of it, now you are just off on another of your nonsensicle rants.

Which seems to be your way of saying that I'm raising moral issues that you don't want to address head on, so you employ Tactic #1, i.e., try to distract attention from my comments by trying to label them as nonsensical.

McDonald's is preventing teenagers from being covered on their parents health insurance plans? Umm, no they are not.

And no one said they were. Tactic #2 evidently is to argue against things I haven't written.

As I have already stated, the solution is to acquire skills and/or specialized knowledge which command higher wages.

Tactic #3 is apparently to try to answer a question other than the one that was asked. The problem in question was clearly explained in an earlier comment: "... an increasingly bigger percentage of jobs are the kind of jobs you cannot live on, leaving an increasingly bigger percentage of the population without the opportunity to get a job paying wages that they can live on." I'll give you another shot: What is the solution to that problem? How does society ensure that an increasingly bigger percentage of the population can work jobs that pay living wages?

Oh, I see. Providing the opportunity to improve yourself is insufficient, we must instead just grant it with a wave of the wand.

If you don't want to have a voice in the way our society operates that's your choice, but don't ignore the reality that others do recognize that society has an obligation and the power to make things better for its members. It's not magic. It's called governance.

[riverwed070707]

After reading the lunch thread I'm deleting my comments. No need to fuel the fire.

[Baby_nurse]

These types of jobs will never be "all that's left" because MOST people inherently want to improve their lives and situations. They do that by becoming entrepreneurial and either creating their own path or improving their education so that these types of jobs are not their only choice. I know of multiple business owners, doctors and lawyers who started out working nights and weekends at a minimum wage job (or two if need be).

The basic problem with this thread is the idea that anyone is owed anything just because they draw breath.

[hamchan]

Starting a business requires a great deal of financial risk in most cases. Many people are stuck in a position, for whatever reason, where they cannot afford to take those kinds of risks. For instance if they have health issues that would prevent them from obtaining health insurance without getting it through an employer, or if they have child support obligations that must be paid, or large private student loan payments that can't be deferred. Let's not forget how many new businesses just flat out fail. It's a very risky proposition if you have high expenses or if you have anyone depending on your income besides just you.

[bUU]

Good point, and failure is more catastrophic for those who have practically nothing as compared to those who have plenty. Even contracting with a good lawyer to help you do the best for your family after a business failure is going to be far more difficult for people who don't have any other resources other than those they invested in the failed business.

For that matter, starting a business also requires access to capital in the first place, since those less fortunate generally never can get ahead of the basic cost-of-living to accumulate sufficient seed money to launch a new business. Access to capital is something for which there is a pretty nasty bias in our society.

[Wino]

There's a description for companies that are not "cold and calculating:" Bankrupt

[Petunia 100]

Your wish is granted:

In April 2005 the Mobile Register published an article citing data from the Alabama Medicaid Agency on companies in the state with employees whose children are participating in Medicaid. The newspaper obtained a list from the agency of 63 companies whose employees had 100 or more children in the program as of mid-March 2005. At the top of the list was Wal-Mart, whose employees had 4,700 children in the program. Following it were McDonald's (1,931), Hardee's (884) and Burger King (861). The data were similar to information obtained from the same agency by the Montgomery Advertiser two months earlier.

Sources: Sean Reilly, "Medicaid Providing Health Care for Kids of Working Families," Mobile Register, April 17, 2005 and John Davis and Jannell McGrew, "Health Plans Not Family Friendly," Montgomery Advertiser, February 22, 2005, p.B6.

In March 2005 the St. Petersburg Times published a summary of data it obtained from the Department of Children and Families on the employers in the state with the most workers who were enrolled in Medicaid or KidCare Insurance (Florida's version of SCHIP). Leading the Medicaid list was Wal-Mart with 12,300 employees or their dependents enrolled in the program. Wal-Mart also accounted for 1,375 employee children enrolled in Kidcare (second only to Miami-Dade County with 1,518). The other employers with the most Medicaid enrollees were McDonald's (8,100), Publix (7,900), Wendy's (4,100), Winn-Dixie (4,000) and Burger King (3,900). Publix ranked third on the KidCare list with 1,250 and Winn-Dixie ranked fifth (after Broward County Schools) with 379.

In September 2009 the United Food and Commercial Workers announced that it had received data from the state Department of Job and Family Services showing that 15,000 Wal-Mart workers in Ohio were receiving health benefits through Medicaid. In July 2008 Policy Matters Ohio published an updated report on the employers with the largest number of workers participating in the Medicaid, food stamps and Ohio Works First (cash assistance) programs. The report, based on data from the Department of Job and Family Services, showed the following. For Medicaid, Wal-Mart was first with 13,141 employees, followed by McDonald's (11,446), Yum! Brands (6,596) and Wendy's (5,620). For food stamps, McDonald's was first with 9,316, followed by Wal-Mart (8,565), Yum! Brands (5,286) and Wendy's (4,623). McDonald's also led the list with regard to cash assistance with 874 employees. It was followed by Yum! Brands (500), Wendy's (450) and Wal-Mart (305). The same four companies were at the top of the list when the Department of Job and Family Services released its own report in February 2006 in response to requests from Policy Matters Ohio and others.

Sources: Laura Bischoff, "Employees of Big Companies Fill Ohio's Medicaid, Food Stamp Rolls, Report Says," Dayton Daily News, September 29, 2009; online at http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/...ys-323224.html. Policy Matters Ohio, Public Benefits Subsidize Major Ohio Employers: A 2008 Update, July 31, 2008; online at http://www.policymattersohio.org/pdf...s2008_0731.pdf. See also: Julie Carr Smyth, "Ohio Workers Depend on Public Benefits," Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 25, 2006. See also the Policy Matters Ohio initial analysis of the 2006 data at: http://www.policymattersohio.org/pdf...ts_2006_03.pdf

And so on...

If by "grant my wish" you mean to say you have proved your point, you have not done so. You have shown McDonald's pays low wages. That is not in dispute. Does McDonald's prevent its employees from acquiring skills and/or specialized knowlege? No. Does McDonald's demand skills and specialized knowledge from employees, but then refuse to pay accordingly? No. (In fact, that would be impossble in a free market system). You are a long, long way from proving your point. One could even theorize that if not for McDonald's, its employees would require even more government help, as suggested by your "proof".

Which seems to be your way of saying that I'm raising moral issues that you don't want to address head on, so you employ Tactic #1, i.e., try to distract attention from my comments by trying to label them as nonsensical.

And no one said they were. Tactic #2 evidently is to argue against things I haven't written.

Tactic #3 is apparently to try to answer a question other than the one that was asked. The problem in question was clearly explained in an earlier comment: "... an increasingly bigger percentage of jobs are the kind of jobs you cannot live on, leaving an increasingly bigger percentage of the population without the opportunity to get a job paying wages that they can live on." I'll give you another shot: What is the solution to that problem? How does society ensure that an increasingly bigger percentage of the population can work jobs that pay living wages?

If you don't want to have a voice in the way our society operates that's your choice, but don't ignore the reality that others do recognize that society has an obligation and the power to make things better for its members. It's not magic. It's called governance.

Uh, no. What I am saying is very straightforward: the solution is to acquire skills and/or special knowledge which comand high wages. I can choose to do that or I can choose not to do that; I alone am responsible for the choices I make. If I choose to remain an unskilled laborer, I should not expect McDonald's to pay me higher wages anyway.

I don't have any "tactics".

Sorry for any typos, my keeyboard seems to be sticking.

[Petunia 100]

Starting a business requires a great deal of financial risk in most cases. Many people are stuck in a position, for whatever reason, where they cannot afford to take those kinds of risks. For instance if they have health issues that would prevent them from obtaining health insurance without getting it through an employer, or if they have child support obligations that must be paid, or large private student loan payments that can't be deferred. Let's not forget how many new businesses just flat out fail. It's a very risky proposition if you have high expenses or if you have anyone depending on your income besides just you.

That's exactly right, risk and reward go hand in hand.