With Day of Protests, Fast-Food Workers Seek More Pay

[em2nought]

My opinion as to why less people can get by on what they get is that their view of the necessities to live a good life have greatly increased. The greatest generation by and large spent very little, saved a good deal, and paid off their debts quickly. Today people would view that as crazy talk. What no cable tv? Oh, the humanity!

Oh, and there are more lazy people now. I run a mini storage, people that owe money aren't even willing to trade work for rent. So I do the work, and they lose their stuff. From what I saw in the navy about 3 in 10 people worked hard, the rest coasted(even though if asked they think they worked hard) I've go no sympathy. Put the price of my fast food up, and I'll stop eating it, and you'll be out of a job.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

If your gripe is about teacher tenure, then I agree with you. If you are stating that standardized testing is the best method to evaluate teacher performance, I would disagree.

I do not gripe about tenure. I see it as a poor tool that allows teachers to take the A train without any accountability. Standardized testing is not the best method. It was the one best answer the Board of Ed had. I'm not on the Board of Ed and had no say. I do agree that counting in kids with autism and such should not be allowed.

How would you suggest teachers are graded on performance? You are a teacher. If all students did poorly on an exam on a subject that weeks was spent on is it the kids that are the issue or perhaps the teaching method was not getting through?

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

If your gripe is about teacher tenure, then I agree with you. If you are stating that standardized testing is the best method to evaluate teacher performance, I would disagree.

This.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

How would you suggest teachers are graded on performance? You are a teacher. If all students did poorly on an exam on a subject that weeks was spent on is it the kids that are the issue or perhaps the teaching method was not getting through?

You're talking about an exteme case here, but in the case there are likely signs through the teacher's standard classroom evaluations performed by the administration and supervisors that indicate problems with the teacher. I would imagine that no one in the school administration or faculty is surprised at the results. Every teacher and administrator in every building knows who the bad teachers are.

The problem is that the tenure protects poor teachers. Of course, there should be a system in place that protects good teachers from frivolous accusations and complaints. So, I don't know what a good answer is. All I do know is that standardized testing is a poor method for evaluation, as it can damn good teachers as well as bad ones.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

You're talking about an exteme case here, but in the case there are likely signs through the teacher's standard classroom evaluations performed by the administration and supervisors that indicate problems with the teacher. I would imagine that no one in the school administration or faculty is surprised at the results. Every teacher and administrator in every building knows who the bad teachers are.

The problem is that the tenure protects poor teachers. Of course, there should be a system in place that protects good teachers from frivolous accusations and complaints. So, I don't know what a good answer is. All I do know is that standardized testing is a poor method for evaluation, as it can damn good teachers as well as bad ones.

I agree with teachers/admin knowing who the bad teachers are.
I agree that tenure protects bad teachers.
I agree that good teachers should have some protection. Problem is, who determines what a good teacher is?
I half agree with standardized testing. My two daughters display good grades and smiles from teachers that are reaching them. These teachers that are reaching students normally have a great average on the MSA test. I can always tell when a teacher is not reaching my youngest. She voluntarily stays after school for extra help. Her Algebra 1 teacher is on the hook. A majority of the class performed poorly. As a result, who is accountable? An entire year of 60 some odd students now needing to take Algebra 1 over again? Will these students fair better in Algebra 2 with the resulting poor performance in Algebra 1? Why did a overwhelming amount of students fail this class?

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

never meant to provide a living wage

well isn't that the darnedest thing we complain about people living on "the government tit" yet some jobs don't pay a wage you can live on. What are these people supposed to do? Drop a bunch of money for college that *Might* get them a better job? or should they just use some magic spells to make more cash? Lets face it, Either we subsidize people with government money, or we make minimum wage affordable.

I'm one of the minimum wage people, and I assure you It is NOT easy to live on such a low income I'm going to have to make the choice between Buying Food for next or Buying Gas for my car to drive the 200 miles a week I do to get to class

IMO, Minimum wage is a joke. I knew a guy who was hired into my place of work in 2001 at $9.00/hr, while new hires today make the lowest legal

The trouble with you kids is that you expect everything to be handed to you. You don't want to earn your living like every generation that has come before you.

Minimum wage when I was your age was $2.10 per hour. In today's money that is about $6.00. You think I have any sympathy that you can't do it on a third more than that? Well sorry I don't.

Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and quit whining. Yes I expect you to make those choices. I did, so why can't you?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by August

The trouble with you kids is that you expect everything to be handed to you. You don't want to earn your living like every generation that has come before you.

Minimum wage when I was your age was $2.10 per hour. In today's money that is about $6.00. You think I have any sympathy that you can't do it on a third more than that? Well sorry I don't.

Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and quit whining. Yes I expect you to make those choices. I did, so why can't you?

Can I hug you August? I do remember the $2.10 days. I remember basically groveling at my park maintenance job for .05 cent more per hour raise. I was told I needed to take on more responsibility for that exta $2.00 a week.

Nothing like maggot filled trashcans to empty..and it was more than one. Oh, and the soiled kids diapers stuck in the pools filter system was a fun job to clear. I don't want to talk about the used sanitary napkins left behind in the womens room. What a awesome job for $2.10/hour.

Let's protest. No, lots go find a better job. I did. Started changing tires at Mr. Tire. Worked my way up.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by August

The trouble with you kids is that you expect everything to be handed to you. You don't want to earn your living like every generation that has come before you.

Minimum wage when I was your age was $2.10 per hour. In today's money that is about $6.00. You think I have any sympathy that you can't do it on a third more than that? Well sorry I don't.

Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and quit whining. Yes I expect you to make those choices. I did, so why can't you?

Good question.My grand mother made in 1942 .23 cents an hour that would be $3.13 in modern dollars.I would love to know how many people regardless of income truly live within their means
responsibly that little bit of information would shine a lot of light on the subject of wages.Wants and needs people should be educated on how to live within their means.

There are many things that I want that I do not have but I do have everything that I need to survive and that really is not very much.In the Air Force I had a little side income what I did was loan other people money and changed them a little interest i made a pretty good amount of money doing this thanks to people who get free room and broad,free or very cheap food free medical care yet still can not spend their money in a responsible manner which is fine by me because it just gave me more money and I knew several people that did same the thing such was the market poker players where the best customers.

[mookiemookie]

$2.10 in the 1970s went a lot farther than $7.25 does today. Gas, housing and food was all cheaper on an inflation adjusted basis. Not to mention that in the 70's only about 10% of young people had a college degree. Now it's around 25%. Finding a job that pays a livable wage without a college degree is a lot harder than it was back then.

The idea that "everyone can be rich if they just worked harder" just doesn't work. It's simple math. You can't have a society where every electrician, cop, teacher, construction worker, gardener, waiter, plumber, secretary and everyone else that's needed for society to, you know, function makes $100,000 a year. Telling people that they need to shut the hell up because they're lazy and I pulled myself up by my bootstraps all by myself is a simplistic mindset that ignores the reality of the way the world actually works.

Intentionally conflating the idea of "anyone can be rich" and "everyone can be rich" is bad form.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

$2.10 in the 1970s went a lot farther than $7.25 does today.

No it doesn't. $2.10 in 1977 is the equivalent of $8.02 in 2012 dollars. That's what adjusted for inflation means.

Don't believe me?, punch in the numbers for yourself.

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

[Stealhead]

No one is saying that you become wealthy by working harder but you will gain more income by dong so and if not you should find a job elsewhere because something is wrong with the employer in that case assuming that the worker is even half way decent.


Your second paragraph is invalid because no one is saying that everyone will get rich by working hard/well and there are cops,plumbers and electricians that do make over 100k a year right in our very society.I never once saw August say that he was rich.

You can find many thousands of people did just what August did though.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

No it doesn't. $2.10 in 1977 is the equivalent of $8.02 in 2012 dollars. That's what adjusted for inflation means.

Don't believe me?, punch in the numbers for yourself.

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

The average home price in 1975 was about $38,000, or $163,000 in today's dollars. The average home price today is just under $190,000.

The average cost for a gallon of gas in 1975 was about $0.63 or $2.71 in today's dollars. The average cost for a gallon of gas today is $4.32.

The average cost for a loaf of bread in 1975 was about $0.25 or $1.07 in today's dollars. Today, a loaf of bread is about $2.00.

So $2.10 in 1975 went farther than $7.25 does today.

Give them what they want!
When burgers go up to $10.00 a piece and the place goes belly up cause no one buys them any more?
They can find another job and screw that up as well!

The service is crap nowdays as it is!
Fast food died along time ago anyway because of lazy arsed workers who think they deserve more for less!

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

So $2.10 in 1975 went farther than $7.25 does today.

Assuming that your figures are right and their figures are wrong. Since they base their calculations on the Consumer Price Index and you're basing your calculations on, well I'm assuming you didn't pull them out of thin air.

In any case minimum wage is not and has never been intended to be a living wage, nor has it ever been a living wage in reality. That was true in 1975 and it is still true today.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Assuming that your figures are right and their figures are wrong. Since they base their calculations on the Consumer Price Index and you're basing your calculations on, well I'm assuming you didn't pull them out of thin air.

In any case minimum wage is not and has never been intended to be a living wage, nor has it ever been a living wage in reality. That was true in 1975 and it is still true today.

I as a taxpayer don't like subsidizing WalMart and McDonalds' labor costs. And make no mistake, that's exactly what we're doing when two of the biggest firms in the world, in the richest country in the world, won't pay their employees enough to keep them off of Medicaid and welfare.

Raise the minimum wage to a living wage and people will have more to spend. If people have more to spend, the economy does better. If the economy does better, more jobs are created.