McDonalds helps you budget!

[Baby_nurse]

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.

You make the presumption that its either work at a job (minimum wage or otherwise) or start the business. Every successful business owner that I know has done them concurrently with the knowledge that about 50 % of businesses go under in the first 5 years.

Yes, people go through tough times with their health, child support and student loans. But I still see nothing in your argument that puts it back on the corporation to make sure you meet your financial obligations. Are there reasons a corporation would choose to pay more than minimum wage? Of course. Perceived value, decreased turn over, lack of available labor pool are just a few. What advantage would a company like Mickey D's (or Wally World, for that matter) get by paying more?

Look no further than recent events in Washington DC. A "living wage" bill was passed specifically aimed at Wal Mart and their plans to build 3 new stores there. In response, Wally World scrapped their plans and the people who would have been employed there now are out of jobs; not to mention the revenue lost to workers who would have built the stores, support businesses (other stores) that would have come in to the same strip centers, etc.

[hamchan]

Yes, heaven forbid that Wal-Mart actually pay anyone a living wage.

Look, my grandparents and great grandparents and many people I know that are in their age group mostly worked in jobs that are today seen as low level unskilled labor. They raised families with those jobs, in most cases on one income. They got regular raises and stayed with the same company their entire adult life. They retired from those jobs with pensions. But things have changed dramatically. Companies aren't content with just being profitable. They want mega-billions. And they do it at everyone else's expense.

[Baby_nurse]

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.

I certainly don't see plumbers, electricians etc as unskilled. They can do a job I have zero ability to complete (without causing myself great bodily harm or even more money!!).

[Petunia 100]

Yes, heaven forbid that Wal-Mart actually pay anyone a living wage.

Look, my grandparents and great grandparents and many people I know that are in their age group mostly worked in jobs that are today seen as low level unskilled labor. They raised families with those jobs, in most cases on one income. They got regular raises and stayed with the same company their entire adult life. They retired from those jobs with pensions. But things have changed dramatically. Companies aren't content with just being profitable. They want mega-billions. And they do it at everyone else's expense.

Wal-Mart has plenty of jobs which pay VERY well; however, those jobs are not the cashier and shelf-stocking jobs.

Plenty of private companies which used to offer pensions went bankrupt; other companies took note.

My parents and grandparents were blue-collar too. Truck drivers and factory workers. Quite a few of my generation (of my family) work at factory jobs today. Those jobs still pay a living wage. They also require a bit more skill than it takes to flip a burger. And let me say that I worked for Burger King for 3 years, and have flipped plenty of burgers.

When I think of my extended family, there are 3 who are without a doubt the most affluent. One started his own construction company, took a big risk, worked hard, and was successful. Another started her own auto paint and body shop business, took a big risk, worked hard, and is successful. The third started his own auto repair shop, took a big risk, worked hard, and is successful. None of them are particularly well educated, none of them began life wealthy. All of them took the time to learn how to build a house, paint a car, or fix an engine. These are not secrets. Anyone with an interest can learn the same.

[breathemusic]

Atlas Shrugged anyone?

[bUU]

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

There are many things that businesses cannot do unilaterally because doing so would be competitive suicide. These things are things that have to be implemented by all competitors at the same time, something that typically can only come about by government regulation.

[bUU]

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.

First: Stop moving the goalposts. What you asked me to prove was that McDonald's represents a burden on the taxpayer. Proven.

Second: Stop trying to avoid points being made by arguing against things that no one has said. I never said anything about McDonald's preventing its employees from doing anything. You're again employing a scurrilous rhetorical tactic to try to evade the discussion.

You are a long, long way from proving your point.

No, I'm not. I've made my point. Evidently that upset you and others who are apologists for the rapacious manner of business that has been permitted over the last 8-10 years. I know you'll wax on and on trying to make it seem like my point hasn't been made because you don't want to admit those points, perhaps not even to yourself. But please stop employing ridiculous rhetorical tactics like this. It is getting boring to have to point out each time you do so.

Uh, no. What I am saying is very straightforward: the solution is to acquire skills and/or special knowledge which comand high wages.

You have already been told about the issues that exist in that regard. Your denials don't make them go away.

I don't have any "tactics".

Yes you do. I've pointed them out specifically.

[Baby_nurse]

Atlas Shrugged anyone?

Isn't it astounding how well Ayn Rand was able to forsee the current situation?

[Barclay]

It seems very simple to me. If you want a good paying job, do something of value that someone is willing to pay for.

If you don't have anything of value, go learn something valuable.

[Gailete]

My first job after college was part time at Arby's. Within a few months I was full time and made a nickel more an hour than minimum wage. I completely supported myself on these wages from the start, although I had to pay room and board at someone's house for several months. I didn't have a car to support and walked a mile to work and a mile home every day plus stood on my feet for most of the 8 hours. I also didn't smoke so saved huge there. But I was willing to make the sacrifices to support myself on what I made.

I didn't bother looking at McD budgeting thing, but anything that will help the employees (usually kids and college students) that are unfamiliar with budgeting, to be able to think these things through is a great idea.

[bUU]

This discussion reminds me of the old yarn:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Seriously: I think the reality is that those who see Atlas Shrugged as anything other than fabricated fiction will probably not see the reality of how things are in our society today, and probably be unable to exhibit empathy and consideration for those less fortunate.

[hamchan]

I think this article is spot on.http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm

[Petunia 100]

First: Stop moving the goalposts. What you asked me to prove was that McDonald's represents a burden on the taxpayer. Proven.

No, you need to show cause and effect.

Fact: I like iced tea.
Fact: It rained yesterday.

Does the first fact prove the second? No, because there is no cause and effect.

People qualify for food stamps because they are impoverished.

If I have a family, am impoverished, and then go get a job at McDonald's, did McDonald's cause my poverty?

If I have no marketable skills, work at McDonald's, and then choose to have a family, did McDonald's cause my poverty?

Second: Stop trying to avoid points being made by arguing against things that no one has said. I never said anything about McDonald's preventing its employees from doing anything. You're again employing a scurrilous rhetorical tactic to try to evade the discussion.

Well, you kind of did though. The only way that your facts prove your claim is if McDonald's were somehow preventing its employees from acquiring job skills and finding better paid work. Since McDonald's doesn't prevent its employees from acquiring job skills, your "proof" falls apart.

It's not a "scurrilous rhetorical tactic", it's one of the basic principals taught in an introductory Logic or introductory Argument course. If you want to use one fact to prove another, you must show cause and effect. Otherwise, your argument is invalid.

[Petunia 100]

This discussion reminds me of the old yarn:

Seriously: I think the reality is that those who see Atlas Shrugged as anything other than fabricated fiction will probably not see the reality of how things are in our society today, and probably be unable to exhibit empathy and consideration for those less fortunate.

A system which makes it possible for people to accomplish whatever they choose is a system which is the very epitome of consideration for the less fortunate.

That "to each according to his needs" philosophy has a long history of crushing the human spirit.

[bUU]

No, you need to show cause and effect.

Cause: Large numbers of workers without health benefits. Effect: High costs to Medicaid in state after state. Proven. Stop the nonsense and deal with the facts.

Well, you kind of did though.

No I didn't, not "kind of" or otherwise. Again, stop the nonsense.

A system which makes it possible for people to accomplish whatever they choose is a system which is the very epitome of consideration for the less fortunate.

I've seen that statement before; it is nothing but rationalization for self-serving exploitation of others. Thanks for modeling the problematic perspective that we're talking about.