elohiym
Well-known member
Working at a fast food restaurant after "retirement" will shorten their lives, I'm fairly certain.
Fast Food workers protest and demand more money.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Working at a fast food restaurant after "retirement" will shorten their lives, I'm fairly certain.
musterion
Well-known member
For once I agree with you. The people really pushing this couldn't care less about the workers.
PureX
Well-known member
It doesn't matter how old anyone is, or how wealthy their parents are, or if they live at home, or with someone else. What matters is that they are forfeiting their time and attention: a significant portion of their daily life; and that must be respected. Otherwise employment itself will not and should not be respected, as it will be nothing more than exploitation for profit.
And any business enterprise that cannot be made profitable while paying the people engaged in executing it a living wage is NOT WORTHY OF OUR ENGAGEMENT.
And any business enterprise that cannot be made profitable while paying the people engaged in executing it a living wage is NOT WORTHY OF OUR ENGAGEMENT.
musterion
Well-known member
There. That's reflective of reality. And the answer is, because it's true.
so how many unskilled and inexperienced kids do you have working for you?
and how much do you pay them?
A lot of seniors take minimum wage jobs after they retire because they have nothing to do, or they want to supplement their social security/pensions.
My mom is 76, she retired 10 years ago. She was a nurse for over 40 years, and receives a nice pension check each month along with her social security. She works a part time job for minimum wage as a greeter at a funeral home because she was bored.
musterion
Well-known member
Why don't you ask one so he can punch you in your face for being an impertinent punk.
I don't think so.
Sitting around doing nothing will shorten your life quicker than working.
elohiym
Well-known member
No, it's not true.
You are ignoring other factors that could be blamed.
A contraction of credit is beyond an individual's control, for example.
Why don't you do me a real favor and just leave me alone, you demented little nutter?
No one has a gun to their heads.
They are free to quit and work somewhere else that pays more.
Or, they could work hard and hope for a promotion that pays more.
You liberals/Socialists have a really hard time with this concept.
elohiym
Well-known member
Words like "dignity" or "respect" seem to set some people's teeth on edge. When it comes to work, these are not concepts that should be difficult to support.
The important thing is that employers will try to pay as close to a starvation wage to keep as much of the value of the employee's work as they can. Of course, if every employer does that, the economy declines because fewer and fewer people have any discretionary income. The optimum wage would be something above that which people can barely get by on, since the economy needs people who will buy things.
But an even better deal for an employer is for all other employers to pay a good wage while he pays a very low one. That way he gets the benefit of prosperity, but doesn't pay for it.
Hence, cheating pays off. And thus a race to the bottom ensues, as other employers notice and do the same thing themselves.
Theoretical economists were shocked when Henry Ford paid his workers double the going rate. Henry wasn't doing it out of kindness; he was an autocrat, who detested unions.
He simply realized that he could sell more cars, if there were more people able to buy them. This is why the economy repeatedly defies supply-side economists, and doesn't tank each time the minimum wage goes up. In fact, there's no discernible trend at all from raises in the minimum wage.
And of course, why the horrifying stories of employers who imagine all sorts of terrible things if they pay their employees more, never come true. It's a comforting fable for them, but just a fable. In order for the classical economist theory to work, you need a very limited set of constraints. But this is why even economists admit that for the theory, reality is a special case.
But an even better deal for an employer is for all other employers to pay a good wage while he pays a very low one. That way he gets the benefit of prosperity, but doesn't pay for it.
Hence, cheating pays off. And thus a race to the bottom ensues, as other employers notice and do the same thing themselves.
Theoretical economists were shocked when Henry Ford paid his workers double the going rate. Henry wasn't doing it out of kindness; he was an autocrat, who detested unions.
He simply realized that he could sell more cars, if there were more people able to buy them. This is why the economy repeatedly defies supply-side economists, and doesn't tank each time the minimum wage goes up. In fact, there's no discernible trend at all from raises in the minimum wage.
And of course, why the horrifying stories of employers who imagine all sorts of terrible things if they pay their employees more, never come true. It's a comforting fable for them, but just a fable. In order for the classical economist theory to work, you need a very limited set of constraints. But this is why even economists admit that for the theory, reality is a special case.
Stuff tacos or sit in a chair all day? Hmmmmm :think:
elohiym
Well-known member
Okay, you got me there.
I wonder if Taco Bell will take me back.
... after the incident. :noid:
musterion
Well-known member
Good job. Now you know Res will never let that big of whining go.
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
I'm not in the US so i'm not 100% sure, but I think amtrack do something different than sell $16.00 burgers. So its an odd comparison.
I'm not arguing for the nationalisation of burger chains, or a complete command lead economy, they just dont work. The free market is vastly more efficient.
However the free market left to its own devices is not moral. Money goes to those who have spare capital, not necessarily to those who work hard to contribute to society.
The job of government is not to run business but to set a legal framework in which businesses run themselves. The minimum wage is set to stop a rush to bottom in terms of wages and conditions.
The way to prosperity is to education and skills.
But for those without the ability, the economic strength or the strength of character to get there, but are still hardworking and diligent. We need to set a minimum standard by which they should not want for the basics in life.
I'm not arguing for the nationalisation of burger chains, or a complete command lead economy, they just dont work. The free market is vastly more efficient.
However the free market left to its own devices is not moral. Money goes to those who have spare capital, not necessarily to those who work hard to contribute to society.
The job of government is not to run business but to set a legal framework in which businesses run themselves. The minimum wage is set to stop a rush to bottom in terms of wages and conditions.
The way to prosperity is to education and skills.
But for those without the ability, the economic strength or the strength of character to get there, but are still hardworking and diligent. We need to set a minimum standard by which they should not want for the basics in life.
elohiym
Well-known member
You've never worked at Taco Bell, have you?