ChairmanMeow
Member
Poe's law? I mean, wtf at just the net / gross split.
Following Wal-Mart, McDonald's in trouble for advise for poor workers.
- Thread starter Rhomega Beta
- Start date
- Status
Poe's law? I mean, wtf at just the net / gross split.
Onion_Relish
Member
I can only imagine the person writing this tripe as a fat, white, balding, mustachio'd man, possibly with a monocle. You can feel the distaste the person has for the lower class in every venomous word.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I see what you're doing here: "well if they can afford any luxuries at all on a living wage then they should be able to afford all the luxuries! What's the difference between having a big TV and beachfront property! They are being paid a living wage, they're just living outside their means by owning cell phones"
eBay Huckster
Member
judging from how many times i've seen him try to make this "argument" whenever the subject of a "living wage" comes up (generally featuring a bizarre strawman, like here, where he decides to bring luxuries into what was explicitly a discussion of basic needs), i'm guessing he's not trolling
Such simplistic thinking.
They could just have minimum wage adjust yearly according to average utility, housing, and transportation prices and be done with it. Setting a dollar amount is like hardcoding a value when you should be using constants.
If that costs $20/hour for McDonald's employees, so be it. Maybe they can't afford to have so many locations in an expensive area, as a result. Maybe they'll cut hours - and those people will have to have two part time jobs that both pay $20 an hour. But having thousands of locations at the cost of those employees being corporate slaves, and using taxpayer money to provide them with benefits the company should be giving them is objectively wrong.
Really late reply on my part, but it's from Spike TV's coverage of the Xbox One official launch event.
SlipperySlope
Banned
What's she doing with kids if she's working at McDonald's making < $8/hr?
Kids, get back in that vagina until mommy get a promotion!
SlipperySlope
Banned
Joke all you want but she clearly made some bad decisions in life.
Her employer made a worse decision by paying less than eight dollars an hour.
makingmusic476
Member
Lemme guess, you're okay with the kids being punished for her (assumed) sins.
Edit: And as mentioned above, this doesn't excuse McDonald's horribly low wages, let alone telling their employees to sell their shit on Ebay to make ends meet.
That's as may be, but you've got to admit it's got to be a bitter pill to be hearing this come from your employer when your employer is a convenience restaurant. Sure, I bet a lot of people work for restaurants they couldn't afford to eat at regularly--but it doesn't seem right for Mickey D's to be one of those restaurants.
SlipperySlope
Banned
That sounds like a great business decision to me. The onus is on her for accepting it.
But that's only half of her issue. The other half is somehow she decided that it was a good idea to rear kids in her financial condition. The fact she has more than one kid is mind boggling. After the first one instead of thinking "Wow, this is expensive, we can't afford this", she thought "Let's have another!"
Boom Boom Pow
Banned
it's things liek this that makes any meaningful discussion here useless.
Yes, if she's making minimum wage, why does she have kids? Kids are expensive. I can understand making one mistake and having 1 kid, but doing it again and having multiple?
Why are rich people rich? Because they tend to only have 1-2 kids. That's why allowing abortion is necessary to prevent poor people from staying poor. like it or not, having more kids, while poor, will most likely make you stay poor.
SlackAdjuster
Member
I make exactly 29.00/hr. and I can assure you I sure as hell couldnt afford to live in a 2600.00 a month house. Mine is currently 950 and you are WAY off on utilities. 200 a month? Lol. Maybe if you walk around by candlelight, take cold showers and heat the house using a propane grill in the living room.
You're also way off on your 3000.00 yr for 2 cars, payments, insurance, gas and maintenance? Wow. Is it 1967 and gas is 13 cents a gallon? Fuel alone for me and my one car is about two grand a year.
User 100115
Banned
I love how we've already moved to blaming poor people for having kids.
Because the poor shouldn't be able to breed. Or something.
Sort of part of the human condition to procreate. Add in a bunch of societal pressure in that regard, lack of sex education, lack of access to women's health care, and gasp, people are going to have kids.
Because the poor shouldn't be able to breed. Or something.
Sort of part of the human condition to procreate. Add in a bunch of societal pressure in that regard, lack of sex education, lack of access to women's health care, and gasp, people are going to have kids.
SlackAdjuster
Member
Oh and where do you live that you can make 60,000 gross and take home 50,000 net?
The lack of empathy for poor people who are struggling is really disheartening. Your stances place no responsibility on the wealthy corporation for underpaying employees and places all the responsibility on the employee to do better. If it is morally wrong to have children while poor why can it not also be morally wrong to pay poor workers so little that they have little choice but to stay poor? I don't see either of you taking McDonalds to task even though they're clearly in the position of power here. Why is that?
Aaron Strife
Banned
Jesus fucking Christ why is this EVER an argument. This has nothing to do with how poorly McDonald's treats their employees.
Try even imagining if she was a single woman. 7.78/hr, let's say she gets 2 8-hr shifts a week, because a) McDonald's won't pay her anymore than 7.78 and b) McDonald's won't schedule her any more hours than that. Her annual salary is a little over 6,000 dollars. She is literally living in poverty.
Why is this okay whether she has 1 kid or 10 kids? Why the fuck does it matter? Why can't poor people have children?
User 100115
Banned
If you have kids, and find yourself in a lower paying job than you expected, you should sell your kids for extra cash to get out of debt.
or eat them
BrightEyedPanic
Member
I have to wonder what people are doing when they're not getting any sort of annual raise.
zero shift
Banned
The fact of the matter is that there just aren't enough well paying jobs to complete support every family out there. College graduates are having a tough time finding middle class level jobs. What about the 70% rest of Americans? If you agree to have a cutthroat job market there are going to be losers. This will include people with families. Its naive to think that these jobs can only be populated by teenagers and early twenty-somethings. The average age for a fast food worker is 29 with over a quarter of them having at least one child.
To be fair children cost money and having a lot of kids keep people poor. But I agree that it really is a stupid argument.
Only to a point. Japan pays CEOs the lowest in the world (CEO of Toyota doesn't even make $2 million) and still has a poverty rate similar to America. Fun fact it also has the least amount of people having kids amongst the world.
What needs to be done is to strengthen the workers say in the economy.
To be fair children cost money and having a lot of kids keep people poor. But I agree that it really is a stupid argument.
Only to a point. Japan pays CEOs the lowest in the world (CEO of Toyota doesn't even make $2 million) and still has a poverty rate similar to America. Fun fact it also has the least amount of people having kids amongst the world.
What needs to be done is to strengthen the workers say in the economy.
youngwerther
Banned
I am picturing the manager dutifully posting the print-out version of this on the store cork-board as the employees sullenly look on without comment, a vacant look in their eyes.
A few pathetic Christmas ornaments hanging from the file cabinet sway as a cold wind blows in from the drive-thru window.
The smells of french fries and mop buckets mingle in the air.
A few pathetic Christmas ornaments hanging from the file cabinet sway as a cold wind blows in from the drive-thru window.
The smells of french fries and mop buckets mingle in the air.
There would be enough well paying jobs if the people at the top all agreed to be slightly less rich.
super duper
Boom Boom Pow
Banned
so basically, what you're saying, a 3 person family needs a lot more than to live on necessity?
Like I said, I was on the underestimate side. So, then, let's say, they'll need 60k net income. That's about, what, 90k gross? Sounds about right. That comes out to be about $43.
So, we should be paying McDonalds worker $43/hour to live on their necessities?
Let's take your argument to a more extreme. Let's say she has 20 kids. She has no education, no real skills, nothing. Whatever job she works at, should pay her well enough to feed, raise, and educate her kids.
Correct?
To answer your questions, kids are expensive. That's a fact. The more kids you have, the more money you need. If you have no real skills that does any value, should whatever job you work at, continually have to double, triple your wage just cuz you got a kid?
So what's your solution to this now that she has 20 kids?
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
It wasn't that long ago that your quip was an actual part of the political discourse. And I don't believe I'm exaggerating when I say that some of the wackiest elements would like to bring it back under the pretense of helping the needy. Just reform adoption laws.
Boom Boom Pow
Banned
If she doesn't have the capacity to take care of them all, take them away, put them up for adoption, and tie her Fallopian tube.
Now, seeing as your extreme also applies to women with one kid. That is, those on minimum wage sometimes struggle with just one kid. Should we do this to poor women before they have kids?
I seem to recall you making about $200k a year and complaining about having to deal with high taxes.
You've got far more to work with in one year, after taxes, than this woman does in 5 years, pre taxes. Do you have no shame?
You are this close to advocating for eugenics. In fact, you basically are - condemning the poor to childlessness and advocating abortions in case of any "accidents."
Meanwhile, when Papa John's had to start paying employee's health care, it turned out to increase prices by pennies per pizza. If you were either paying attention to how the world works, or possessed basic human empathy, you would know better. You are poorer for being absent both of these things.
Because they can't afford them.
I understand everyone has a right to reproduce. I understand that social welfare nets should exist. I understand that minimum wage is too low and should be raised. For some reason though, my brain won't move past 'because they can't afford them' whenever I read this question. I'm 33 and I'm just having my first child because we simply couldn't afford it before now, and me and my partner both earn good wages. I cannot fathom the idea of having a child that I knew full well I couldn't afford to look after. Why would you do that to yourself or the child?
Still, as I said, everyone has the right to reproduce and ultimately it's on society to foot the bill. It is for the greater good and there aren't any feasible alternatives.
Wait wait wait. Why are people blaming some woman for having children.
Isn't that what all those politicians in the US want women to do? I mean, they certainly don't like people having abortions, so what do they expect to happen?
Seriously, why are we blaming her for having children while being poor. Why does it have to be a 'mistake'?
What is with this "well what if she had 20 kids, that's okay right?" thing. If she had 20 kids, I presume she'd be getting government support. People with that many kids in the UK certainly seem to get it, for better or worse.
Why is one kid okay, but not multiple kids? Anyway?
Let's try some maybes for this situation that don't mean she's at fault for having a terribly paid job and children at the same time:
Maybe she had twins and both kids came along at once.
Maybe she's anti-abortion and ended up with one more child than expected.
Maybe she used to have a better paying job, lost it, and now can only get a job at McDonalds.
Maybe she has an education and was expecting to get a better job, but can't get one in the current climate because there are very few jobs.
Maybe she lived with their father for years, they've had a divorce, and now she struggles to support herself financially. Maybe when they were together he was the prime earner and she was a stay at home parent less qualifications / job experience.
Maybe she still lives with the father (because he isn't mentioned), but his job doesn't pay well either so they still struggle.
Or, you know what? Maybe she just chose to have children. I don't actually see why she should be penalised for that, especially considering the fact that she is actually working to try and support them (which they certainly don't always bother doing here).
Empathy, people :|
Maybe you should stop piling on the woman for daring to have children in the plural, and instead attack the company refusing to pay her properly and making her so desperate for money that she's forced to consider herself lucky if they deign to give her 20 hours of work. A company run by people who've probably never had to think about money seriously in their lives, but who feel it is okay to recommend people stop whining, eat stale food and not heat their homes to save money, but who somehow think those same people will be able to take two vacations a year to 'reduce their stress'
Isn't that what all those politicians in the US want women to do? I mean, they certainly don't like people having abortions, so what do they expect to happen?
Seriously, why are we blaming her for having children while being poor. Why does it have to be a 'mistake'?
What is with this "well what if she had 20 kids, that's okay right?" thing. If she had 20 kids, I presume she'd be getting government support. People with that many kids in the UK certainly seem to get it, for better or worse.
Why is one kid okay, but not multiple kids? Anyway?
Let's try some maybes for this situation that don't mean she's at fault for having a terribly paid job and children at the same time:
Maybe she had twins and both kids came along at once.
Maybe she's anti-abortion and ended up with one more child than expected.
Maybe she used to have a better paying job, lost it, and now can only get a job at McDonalds.
Maybe she has an education and was expecting to get a better job, but can't get one in the current climate because there are very few jobs.
Maybe she lived with their father for years, they've had a divorce, and now she struggles to support herself financially. Maybe when they were together he was the prime earner and she was a stay at home parent less qualifications / job experience.
Maybe she still lives with the father (because he isn't mentioned), but his job doesn't pay well either so they still struggle.
Or, you know what? Maybe she just chose to have children. I don't actually see why she should be penalised for that, especially considering the fact that she is actually working to try and support them (which they certainly don't always bother doing here).
Empathy, people :|
Maybe you should stop piling on the woman for daring to have children in the plural, and instead attack the company refusing to pay her properly and making her so desperate for money that she's forced to consider herself lucky if they deign to give her 20 hours of work. A company run by people who've probably never had to think about money seriously in their lives, but who feel it is okay to recommend people stop whining, eat stale food and not heat their homes to save money, but who somehow think those same people will be able to take two vacations a year to 'reduce their stress'
"Fuck you, got mine" - SlipperySlope et all.
What about people who can no longer afford to support their children due to death of a spouse/injury/illness/corporate downsizing/bad investments? Can we take away their children too? I'm assuming you will gladly donate a generous amount of money and fervently support higher taxes to pay to feed and shelter all these children while they await adoption.
MilesWebber
Member
Zoe
Member
I could be wrong, but based on the registration page this seems to be for corporate employees, not franchise workers... You'll find wellness stuff like this at any corporation. Are they not allowed to provide this stuff because they have a service industry side?
Roland1979
Junior Member
I't's clear MC Donald's wants them to accept poverty and not resist low payment. They should all go on strike a few weeks nation wide. See what that will cost MC Donald's.
Rhomega Beta
Member
McDonald's will just fire them and hire other unemployed people.
Roland1979
Junior Member
Then they should hinder all the entrances or occupy them (i know easier said then done).
How vile.
Sad to see how many people seem to truly believe that this guy
is the obstacle stopping them from being super-rich and a greater threat to their way of life than this guy
Do you think that McDonald's is most people's first choice as an employer?
- Status