I get food stamps, and I’m not ashamed — I’m angry

[coloradoatheist]

another big factor in all of this which is one i think is consistently trivialized or overlooked is a cultural perception which i find very, very weird:
why are the jobs that have the biggest direct impact on our lives day in and day out the ones that we as a society deem unimportant, lazy, and deserving of both disdain and paltry wages?

simple fact is that one fry cook at mcdonald's has VASTLY more impact on the quality of my experience as a customer than every executive and corporate VP in the company combined. the cashier at wal-mart does more to influence my perception of the company than every member of the walton's put together. as memes and internet gossip will tell you, the customer service reps at big companies like comcast are seen to represent the entirety of the company as a whole, much more so than any management or executive position.
so why is it that we are so dismissive of these vitally important and tremendously customer-facing positions? it's incredibly common to see yelp reviews or articles or internet comments about people refusing to frequent a given business just on the basis of their interaction with the front line grunt workers... so why the hell do we consider front line grunt workers to be disposable yard trash with no value?

IMO that goes a long way to addressing the problem - our culture sees them as "low-skill" useless drones, and treat them that way.
then, they're *actually* unbelievably important faces of the company and the well-being of the business rides on their shoulders, and we pay them shit for it.

Every company has to make that decision though. Why are you eating at McDonalds and not Ruth Christ's steak house?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Every company has to make that decision though. Why are you eating at McDonalds and not Ruth Christ's steak house?

Is there some kind of imperative that someone always has to eat at the "better" location?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Every company has to make that decision though. Why are you eating at McDonalds and not Ruth Christ's steak house?

Is there some kind of imperative that someone always has to eat at the "better" location?

It's based on what the consumer is willing to pay for the meal.

 

[ksen]

This is news to me.

It's news to you that the rich don't like welfare spending?

That seems implausible, but ok if you say so.

Employers have banded together to stop you from voting in government funded universal health care or a basic government income? Why would they do that?

Who claimed that's what they're doing?

What they're doing is spending a lot of money to make sure people sympathetic to their welfare cutting desires gets into office.

So if they want a near nonexistent social safety net then they are going to have to come through with higher wages.

Why? Why should your employer be morally or legally responsible for your welfare? Your employer is not your mommy. Nor does everyone have an employer.

Maybe you missed the part where I agreed with you?

 

[prideandfall]

Every company has to make that decision though.

i'm not talking about that, i'm talking about the culture that informs that being an option on the decision making list in the first place.

Why are you eating at McDonalds and not Ruth Christ's steak house?

because it's 8:45 and i'm on the way to work and i'm hungry and have 7 minutes to grab something.

 

[coloradoatheist]

i'm not talking about that, i'm talking about the culture that informs that being an option on the decision making list in the first place.

Why are you eating at McDonalds and not Ruth Christ's steak house?

because it's 8:45 and i'm on the way to work and i'm hungry and have 7 minutes to grab something.

But McDonalds just quick and cheap. Is that quickness you mentioned worth $30 for a meal?

 

[prideandfall]

But McDonalds just quick and cheap. Is that quickness you mentioned worth $30 for a meal?

oh, you're trying to imply that there is an inherent and necessary conversion of massive increase in item price if the employee structure for the business isn't actively and maliciously built around the idea of fucking people over - i get it now.
i flat out deny the very foundation of your false argument, because it's specious at best and a ridiculous fantasy at worst.

McD *could* jack up the price of a sausage biscuit to 30 bucks per if they had to pay their staff a reasonable amount of money for the work they do, sure... and then everyone would stop going to McD's and they would shut down entirely.
or, they could jack up the price of a sausage biscuit by 50 cents and it wouldn't have any impact on my patronage. or, they could not jack it up at all and simply adjust their expectations for how much profit they make in a world where we as a species don't collectively endorse or allow the exploitation of massive swaths of society for the sole purpose of making a select few douchebags slightly richer.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

For one, because they oppose the government programs that would alleviate the need for higher wages from them.

It's news to you that the rich don't like welfare spending?

That seems implausible, but ok if you say so.

You didn't say the rich. You said employers. The rich in general would oppose welfare spending because they know that it will be funded by taxes and they want to pay as little as possible. But employers are a special case here. If you demand that employers pick up the tab for welfare, then these employers are being asked to shoulder what would otherwise be shouldered by all of the rich (and all of society), including those who are not employers. It would be news to me that they would be for this added burden put upon them.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But McDonalds just quick and cheap. Is that quickness you mentioned worth $30 for a meal?

oh, you're trying to imply that there is an inherent and necessary conversion of massive increase in item price if the employee structure for the business isn't actively and maliciously built around the idea of fucking people over - i get it now.
i flat out deny the very foundation of your false argument, because it's specious at best and a ridiculous fantasy at worst.

McD *could* jack up the price of a sausage biscuit to 30 bucks per if they had to pay their staff a reasonable amount of money for the work they do, sure... and then everyone would stop going to McD's and they would shut down entirely.
or, they could jack up the price of a sausage biscuit by 50 cents and it wouldn't have any impact on my patronage. or, they could not jack it up at all and simply adjust their expectations for how much profit they make in a world where we as a species don't collectively endorse or allow the exploitation of massive swaths of society for the sole purpose of making a select few douchebags slightly richer.

You are making that false assumption that the $.50 increase won't affect sales. McDonalds has tried to introduce higher costing items on their menu and they have failed.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a different topic, but what types of welfare do rich oppose?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I do not find it profitable to live in a society that does not actively work to lessen poverty.
I do not find it patriotic to live in a country that values its citizens by the size of their paychecks.
I do not find it moral to blame the victims of a social condition for their suffering under said condition.

Working is a good thing, a noble thing, an act worthy of respect. Remunerations that amount to starvation wages, lessen the social value of work and worker alike.

But maybe that is the point. I suppose there is a social value to having a class of people that others can look down on, at least it is a value to someone.

 

[prideandfall]

You are making that false assumption that the $.50 increase won't affect sales. McDonalds has tried to introduce higher costing items on their menu and they have failed.

that is an apples to oranges comparison, because introducing a new "premium" item to a menu is not the same as an across-the-board price increase.
the McD's dollar menu used to be the "under a dollar" menu - 15 years ago i could get a quarter pounder for 75 cents. prices go up and as time moves forward, that is the nature of economy and yet McD's still does brisk business.

 

[prideandfall]

But maybe that is the point. I suppose there is a social value to having a class of people that others can look down on, at least it is a value to someone.

i think it's more about an understandable yet obsolete system in the human brain that basically results in hording behavior.
if you have more money than any single person could ever possibly spend in a lifetime even if you're being ridiculously extravagant, why the hell do you need to perpetuate the existence of a near slave labor class in order to squeeze out just a bit MOAR money?
why are shareholder's profits from the company held as a sacrosanct concept while worker profits from pay from the company are viewed as a barely tolerated concession?

it all basically comes down to human beings greedy self important shitbags.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I do not find it patriotic to live in a country that values its citizens by the size of their paychecks.

Remunerations that amount to starvation wages, lessen the social value of work and worker alike.

Are you calling yourself not patriotic? You appear to be valuing citizens by the size of their paychecks.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

oh, you're trying to imply that there is an inherent and necessary conversion of massive increase in item price if the employee structure for the business isn't actively and maliciously built around the idea of fucking people over - i get it now.
i flat out deny the very foundation of your false argument, because it's specious at best and a ridiculous fantasy at worst.

McD *could* jack up the price of a sausage biscuit to 30 bucks per if they had to pay their staff a reasonable amount of money for the work they do, sure... and then everyone would stop going to McD's and they would shut down entirely.
or, they could jack up the price of a sausage biscuit by 50 cents and it wouldn't have any impact on my patronage. or, they could not jack it up at all and simply adjust their expectations for how much profit they make in a world where we as a species don't collectively endorse or allow the exploitation of massive swaths of society for the sole purpose of making a select few douchebags slightly richer.

You are making that false assumption that the $.50 increase won't affect sales. McDonalds has tried to introduce higher costing items on their menu and they have failed.

You are making that false assumption that McDonalds has never raised prices. McDonalds has raised prices continually over the years and their recent drop in sales is not attributed to these price increases, but people frequenting other establishments such as Chipotle. The items they introduced they introduced to attract new customers not the customers they currently have.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

But maybe that is the point. I suppose there is a social value to having a class of people that others can look down on, at least it is a value to someone.

i think it's more about an understandable yet obsolete system in the human brain that basically results in hording behavior.
if you have more money than any single person could ever possibly spend in a lifetime even if you're being ridiculously extravagant, why the hell do you need to perpetuate the existence of a near slave labor class in order to squeeze out just a bit MOAR money?
why are shareholders profits from the company held as a sacrosanct concept while worker profits from pay from the company are viewed as a barely tolerated concession?

it all basically comes down to human beings greedy self important shitbags.

Well part of the bigger problem is the shift from pensions to individual stock-based retirement which fuels the shareholder value beast.

 

[Playball40]

I think that the living wage should be based on what a single person would need. If someone has children, then the government should subsidize them for the kids based on their income levels, but the rate which businesses pay shouldn't factor that sort of thing in.

Why should the taxes I pay subsidize people who make irresponsible choices to have children they can't afford any more than I already do through all the various tax breaks people with children already receive? I am talking deductions, EITC and the child tax credit, the latter two being "refundable" (i.e. they can result in refund being higher than withholding resulting in negative effective tax rate). All those tax breaks is something the writer of the OP article didn't mention.

I do see a point here. Should we increase the EITC and child care credit as part of our taxes or should we push that expense on to employers? I think it's a fair question as to who has the responsibility. If we are saying it's a societal responsibility then isn't the fair thing that our taxes should increase?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Why should the taxes I pay subsidize people who make irresponsible choices to have children they can't afford any more than I already do through all the various tax breaks people with children already receive? I am talking deductions, EITC and the child tax credit, the latter two being "refundable" (i.e. they can result in refund being higher than withholding resulting in negative effective tax rate). All those tax breaks is something the writer of the OP article didn't mention.

I do see a point here. Should we increase the EITC and child care credit as part of our taxes or should we push that expense on to employers? I think it's a fair question as to who has the responsibility. If we are saying it's a societal responsibility then isn't the fair thing that our taxes should increase?

Most economists would agree with expanding EITC because of its less distortionary affects. But that's why I asked which welfare to rich people oppose.

 

[Axulus]

Vietnam has gdp per capita of $1,911

It has a population of 90 million people

Workers in the cities have an average monthly salary of under $150

Life expectancy is 76 years, just 3 years behind the United States, and well past retirement age

Government social safety net is minimal, the government doesn't receive much revenue per capita.

How do these people manage to live given that they are paid so far below a "living wage"?

Why don't we see bodies piling up on the streets? Why don't we see every worker in these cities out on the streets and homeless?

Or, by "living wage", do we really mean not the wage needed to survive and live well into retirement, but rather a "living well" wage?

 

[ksen]

Conservatism: Trying to make the US more and more like Vietnam

 

[Axulus]

Conservatism: Trying to make the US more and more like Vietnam

Progressivism: when inconsistent use of terminology is pointed out, deflect and evade

Wasn't it you who said employees would starve if they aren't paid a living wage?

Do Vietnam workers earn a living wage ($150/month)? Are they starving?

Stop deflecting and evading and try engaging instead by answering the two above questions directly.

I'm guessing you mean something entirely else by the use of the term "living wage", and yet you sneak in the "starvation" definition whenever it suits your purposes.