Here is how I see it.

I don't want to pay to much for an hamburger, but I don't like to see an employee to be a working poor, so I can get a cheap hamburger or other things cheap.

Oh well what do I know

Markus

California's minimum wage is US$9.00 per hour. Based on a 40 hour week, that's US$360 per week or, over a 52 week year, US$1,560 per month. The average rent in in CA is $US1,957 per month. By these numbers, a person working for minimum wage in CA is, on average, roughly US$400 in the hole. Also, remember, the US$1,560 per month is pre-tax income out of which is automatically deducted Federal and State income taxes and Social Security taxes, leaving a net income of well below the gross...

It is amazing to me how persons earning minimum wage ever manage to make ends meet and survive. To a lot of us, maybe it's just "flipping burgers"; to those who do the "flipping", it's a struggle for basic life...


<O>

Well put, I think that it's partly this and the increase in house prices which is seeing a large section of todays youth living with their parents for longer periods. For a lot of youth, the flipping burgers is their first place after school, especially if they have done poorly at school, whether their school performance is their fault or the school is a topic for another thread so let's not go there, but you'll find that catering and cleaning is where most of the early school leavers go. On the minimum wage on these jobs, even working full-time, they cannot afford to buy or rent a property, so they hang on and wait to see if a better paid job will come up.
Now, law of averages dictates that with millions of kids doing this across a country, there's going to be a lot of people trying to fit into a small hole and that's going to mean a lot of 'Thank you for applying for this job, we're sorry but...' letters in the mail (if they're courteous enough to even bother with such things), and that's going to mean another week flipping burgers.
Who knows how long such a situation would continue for some? It's a numbers game really, and it does absolutely nothing for your self-esteem, especially when everyone else is looking down their noses at you like you're some kind of lower class scum just because you work at McDonalds.
Little wonder so many turn to drink and drugs. :/\\!!

The Grande Tetons d' Napa
 

Not once I open my Twin Peaks Restaurant Franchise in NAPA:rock:(I belive one has just become available:O:) ... then every one will have reservations:doh:

You split rent with others just like I did for years.

Make it yourself at home.

Posting this photo for the benefit of anyone who accidentally mis-read the title of this thread as 'supersize my chick'.

https://criacaodemidias.files.wordpr...ds-critica.jpg

Until we can create an army of intelligent robots to do the crappy jobs for us, someone will always be stuck with those jobs. I don't see why those workers should be punished for it - it could very well be you or me.

It also doesn't make sense to say they should be paid peanuts because when you worked job X, you were paid peanuts too. You're basically saying that you suffered, so everyone else should suffer too.

It shouldn't be possible to work full time and still fail to make ends meet, thru no fault of your own. So they should ask for $15, and maybe they get $12 or 13 - that's the way bargaining works. And then maybe they'll actually be making a living wage.

Of course, the corporation they work for may very well raise prices to offset loss in profits. Because heaven forbid the CEO be able to buy only one island and not two. I don't know what the answer is. Based on their track record, we can only expect the worst from most US corporations. But there needs to be a minimum wage.

It's happening, slowly but surely it is happening.

You see a rise of automation which began in the Industrial Revolution and has continued to this day, which has also helped to contribute to the shift from manual labour into the service sector.
Take for example a manufacturing plant, seventy years ago there would have been a multitude of people working at the plant, now many of them have been replaced by robotics. The people displaced from these jobs have got to go somewhere.
Even now, robotics, in particular computers, are creeping into the service sector. Self-service check-outs at supermarkets are the vanguard of a force which will eventually automate many of these menial tasks...and then whither those employed in these?
And God help us when we actually crack robotics to the level that we can create androids, workers that need no sleep, think faster, that are hard to injure and who (at first) will not need paying? The human workforce is screwed. What will happen to those at the bottom end of the pay scale then? :dead:

Here is an interesting and short history if the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 which formed, in part, the Federal Minimum Wage

http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/flsa1938.htm

The arguments against minimum wages (it will kill jobs) has not changed since 1938

Yep, there's nothing wrong with sharing expense like rent. If you have to do it, then do it.


You know, there's a theme here: if you don't get what you want from the government, then riot or turn to drugs and crime.

I don't look down my nose at a fast food worker, actually I appreciate that they are taking care of my meal, that they are working. I respect them for doing their job. But they have to decide for themselves, do they want to try to make a career out of the lowest paying job they can get, or push to get a better job.

I was a burger flipper in high school. For nearly a year. But I kept moving up, going to a warehouse packager, then working construction building scaffolds in the plant. Since I "retired" from my career job in 2008, I have had no shortage of good jobs, all paying over minimum wage.

When I was the manager of a retail motorcycle shop in Houston, I hired associates for the store. All started out at $1.50 over minimum wage. Yep, I learned first hand there a are a LOT of people who do not want to earn a living, they just want someone to hand them a fat paycheck. I had employees who I hired, and within 2 weeks they stopped showing up. Others would lock into their mobile phones and not do their work. Some couldn't pass the drug test and never made it past orientation. All of it was a huge waste of the store's time and my time. I had one employee of the whole bunch who was worth his salt, he hustled, he was positive, and I respected him greatly (and he was black, for what that's worth). All the rest are probably protesting for a $15 minimum wage now.




Wow, Gargamel, I am shocked, I didn't know EMTs were so poorly paid :huh: I guess I mistakenly assumed that role is critical and there are not a lot of people who have the stomach and nerves for that work (I certainly don't!). That's incredible. You made a wise choice to get out the field and into something that offers reasonable compensation, that's for sure. I guess there are a lot more people willing to be an EMT than I thought. If enough follow your example, surely the pressure for good EMTs will drive the salary up.

In Omaha, a telemarketer's starting wage is higher than a Paramedic's wage.. after about 6 years of schooling.

Why?

Unfortunately, in a lot of cases income is linked to revenue. People who have jobs that generate revenue are often paid more. This is why a sports figure makes millions for playing a game.. because people are making many more millions selling the game play. A slice of the profit from this revenue is passed down to the employee (sports figure)

People in the civil service industry, while doing critical jobs, are not linked to revenue. They are a pure expense to the county/state/country.

When I was an IEMT, I was going good things for society.... but I was not earning anyone any money (no revenue). So there was no profit to be passed down.. only an expense.

Why was I not paid more as an IEMT? Because there are a lot of taxpayers who don't like paying additional tax. The only "input" to the finance chain is taxes. So every time a politician starts yapping about lowering taxes, realize that there is a result. Good people doing good public service won't be paid as much. Something to think about before entering public service. Something to think about before people badmouth public servants. We are not all bad, money wasting burdens on society.

We are hard working people trying to do a good job hindered by crippling regulations that are often conflicting and inefficient.... and compensated for with lower salaries.... But they still go to their job and still try to do a good job. I for one am thankful for my public servants. They are not perfect, not all of them are good, but most of them are just trying to do their job.

It is not right. It is not fair. But is how things work.

@ Neal,
 

And every other truck driver on the forums.
Have you broken down your pay as it pertains to the time you put in on the job? I would wager that you'll discover that you're making much less than minimum wage. :timeout:
I ran team expedited cargo which helped a little because while I was sleeping in the bunk, I was still making money but, I couldn't relax at home with a beer while I was doing it. Eight hours on duty driving and eight hours in the bunk sleeping for twenty-one days at a time gets old really quick.
Living on the road isn't cheap by any stretch of the imagination and our government in their infinite wisdom still chose to screw us over during our first year on the road by not allowing any per diem deductions on the yearly tax forms. Don't even get me started on the DOT regulations for drivers.:-? I was grossing $1000.00 a week on average as a junior team driver. I would suspect that a solo driver makes much less.

The burger flippers should thank their lucky stars that they get to go home every night.

Don't even call me when Im ASEA...errrr sailing!
 

The thing is, who in government is actually listening to these people? To the protesters? :hmmm:

Some do, many don't, most try. Some of them might not have much of a choice.

That's fair dos, and that's how it should work. But in some places it doesn't, in some places it's harder to get out of the bottom rung of the ladder.

I've seen quite a few of the same types come and go where I work.

A fair few of them probably live off Mum and Dads money, and they will get a heck of a shock when that runs out.

Eh, colour doesn't really come into this discussion, but I understand. You make a fair bit of generalisation about the average mentality of a fast-food worker though, and in that way you do kind of look down your nose at the job, seeing it as a menial job for the lower worker. It isn't even intentional, I know that much, but it's something that society has programmed into people, that burger flippers are the lower rung of life and those who stay there probably don't have the wherewithal to progress any further.
Perhaps this is true, I've never worked in a fast-food joint so I couldn't say, but my job isn't exactly at the CEO side of the scale, and is probably only a few rungs away from Burger King, and honestly I couldn't say for certain if there is a job out there which I will do well at. I spent a lot of my youth working towards a job that I cannot take due to my eye-sight and since then I have absolutely no idea what my career goal is, I'm rather envious of those who do know if I'm honest.
Getting back to the matter at hand though, I think the problem is the difference between the minimum wage and the living wage.

When you were a burger flipper, what was your accommodation status? Did your job pay for your rent and living expenses? If not, then why not? Why should a job at the lowest end of the market not pay enough to live with?
Would it encourage people to just have a menial job and stick to it? Not really, because the social stigma of being a 'burger flipper' will mean that they will always want to advance up into jobs with less of a stigma, or perhaps they will be perfectly happy as a burger flipper for the rest of their lives. Surely it should be their choice, not a forced choice because of low pay.
Would it mean that the price of a McDonalds would go up? Perhaps, but it wouldn't go up very far because then the market law would indicate that if the price goes up too far then people will stop buying it, so instead they would absorb any damage through the profit margin, which was about $1.7b last year.
It would save the US government some money too, since the employees would not need to claim public assistance to help with their low income.
I do find it hard to sympathise with a company though which recommends to their employees that:

That's the sort of suggestion that would come from a 19th century work house. :nope:

Lincoln DID NOT abolish slavery...
 

Oberon, your summation is spot on but, also consider that the government types may see poor and stupid as the desirable state for their constituents.
Kind of like the former USSR's paradigm that encouraged keeping the workforce on the bare edge of existence, just to discourage protests and uprisings from the rank and file.

All very good points, Neil. Your last paragraph sums up my own observational experience over the last 15 years working in retail. I think it all boils down mentality, how people think and how they regard themselves. At the end of the day, to earn a reward, you have to work for it. If you aren't prepared to do that, your of no use in any employers book.

There is a caveat, and I think this is something that is specific to the UK, and that is the seriously poor worker/management relationship that bedevils this country.

To take an example, I work for one of the UK's largest supermarkets and have done for over 15 years. In that time I have noticed some distinct changes in the staff/management relationship. To be honest, it hasn't been for the better.

When I started, if you were an experienced worker, managers and team leaders would actually pay attention to any advice or observations you wished to share. You could even become what was called a "Role Specialist", receiving more advanced training so you could develop in your role. Quite often that led to the lower tiers of management. In other words you were a precious source of knowledge and talent.

Now, things have completely changed. Managers and team leaders will not listen to any advice that may be proffered, expecting you to "do as I say" with no questions asked or allowed. You no longer receive any advanced training only whats known as foundation, with any intermediate training depending on your role. Instead of being a person, you are literally just a set of hours on a schedule at best, at worst, a vacancy waiting to happen. This has happened across the retail sector, so it's not something that's specific to my employers.

I have considered having a go at retraining, and do something completely different, but I don't believe I would get a job as I'm now in my mid thirties and effectively considered as "too old" by the vast majority of employers. Indeed, I've given up trying to advance up the ladder where I am as they only seem to be interested in promoting people in their early twenties. Most of whom don't stay very long before leaving for a better job!

All in all, I think there is a deep malaise in British society which nobody seems to know how to fix. Indeed, even trying to identify the root cause appears to be beyond those in power.

Mike.

Actually, the opposite is true. The really good ones stay in the field far longer than we should. We do that job because we love it, not for the money. It's a calling, a life, a profession. The crappy ones quickly learn they aren't cut out for that line of work and get out early. Plus, it's a popular career path (at first), so supply greatly outweighs demand for medics, which drives down salary.

Unless Omaha requires a graduate degree for medics, you got something amiss there. Medics usually require 2 years of training, but if you REALLY hustle, it can be done in one. 100-200 hour course for EMT, and then 800 for paramedic.



And while I worked for the 911 service, you're right, I was not a revenue provider. But every spot I worked in, was a revenue generating (ie billable) service for the parent company.