ManagingPrime 0 #76 August 30, 2013 I'm going to wade into this because I don't see, what I feel, is the crux of the issue being addressed. The workers going on strike are in markets that have a high cost of living. See McDonalds budget here: http://www.practicalmoneyskills.com/mcdonalds/documents/McD_Journal2.pdf Let's say the average worker makes $7.50/hr and works 25 hours a week. That's $812/mo pre-tax. Let's say they have a second job making the equivalent amount and now they are at $1,600/mo pre-tax...making no overtime and with no health benefits. Please tell me how someone in a major metro market is paying rent, eating, buying clothing, paying for a phone, etc. In Lebanon, OH someone could probably just barely get by on those wages, but not in any major city. In reality, these workers become public liabilities. I support the employees right to go on strike. If McDonalds want's to fire the striking employees and replace them, or all employees for that matter, with robots...more power to them. Personally, I'm all for employees being able to unionize, it's closer to my ideal of cooperatives, but I'm not a real fan of a minimum wage. I don't see how minimum wage is relevant to this particular discussion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,051 #77 August 31, 2013 quade We USED to be a country that manufactured things. Most of those jobs are now gone for good and are NEVER coming back. The ONLY part of the economy that is actually healthy and there is significant job growth is the service industry. Used to be true. They are back with a vengeance. http://www.nam.org/Statistics-And-Data/Facts-About-Manufacturing/Landing.aspx The skills gap is expected to take the biggest toll on skilled production jobs, and will likely widen as time passes. When asked where the skills gap is likely to hurt the most as respondents look to the future, they identify skilled production jobs by a wide margin. Fully 80% of respondents indicated that machinists, operators, craft workers, distributors, and technician positions will be hardest hit by retirements in the upcoming years. At the same time, companies expect the skilled production group to be the hardest to find in the job market. http://www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/Research/Skills-Gap-in-Manufacturing/2011-Skills-Gap-Report/2011-Skills-Gap-Report.aspxNobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #78 August 31, 2013 quade***And that value dropped because people were selling at a rate that was lower than before. Oh . . . so close you almost have it. No. The price dropped because the computers were programmed to value the stocks less because of a mathematical model which said they had less confidence in the future value of the stock. Other computers also looked at the prices and determined stocks would ONLY be worth buying at lower prices because they also had less confidence in the future value of the stock. It had zero to do with the actual value of anything. Money changed hands. You said it yourself that *some* of the transactions were reversed. It doesn't matter if a computer made the sale or a person started it. The fact is one account (or more) sold shares at a price that drove the price down. It's not rocket science. The value of a share isn't just pulled out of thin air. It's what people (or computers) are paying for it at any given time. And all those values make up the Dow. Value, by its very definition, is what people (or computers in this case) assign to an object.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #79 August 31, 2013 lawrocket***I know that's popular opinion, but I'm not sure it's entirely and universally borne out by facts. I think it's a bit like the "less guns = more murder" thing. Sounds good, but one part of the world doesn't equate to another. Paul - power is a zero sum game. That applies with putchasing power, as well. If, by legislation, $8.00 per hour is changed to $16.00 per hour, the price has changed but the value has not. It would require that mid-level wages increase, meaning that prices increase. That $.99 burger now costs $1.99. It used to cost an eighth of an houry wage to buy it. It still costs an eighth of the hourly wage. Check out the unemployment problem in Spain for an example. The high-wage jobs did not cause a massive increase in coosts of goodsd and services. It caused massive unemployment. Unemployed are primarily the young and immigrants. The poor. The undereducated. It balanced inflation by giving a living wage to those who can find work (or keep it) and making sure that the poor are poor enough to even things out. Thus making the poor poorer. Heck, what has the minimum wage or any other social program done for poverty in the US? If you say, "It's worse now than ever" then you'd be correct. A fundamental rule: you can't cure poverty by throwing money at it. What we have here is an attempt to raise the lowest paid people (willing to work) up out of their pay range, trying to put raise them to lower middle class. What is actually going to happen is that the lower middle will sink lower, and eventually into technical poverty. The middle middle will drop to lower middle. The upper middle will be affected less, but less opportunity will be available, shrinking the Upper Middle significantly. The only ones that will benefit in the end is the top 10%. When the lower middle is sent into poverty, even as their wages are frozen to allow for the change in the lowest paid class, you end up with more people on government assistance. Isn't Government assistance what we are trying to avoid?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfzombie13 307 #80 August 31, 2013 you kinda worked it out there, and you are correct in the part about missing the main point. mcd's made about $7.9 billion in profits last year, not sure if it is correct, but close enough for the point. if they had raised workers pay by $1 per hour and had say, 3 million workers working an average of 30 hours a week, that would be around 90 million a week. i am not that good at estimating the number of employees per store, or the total number of stores, but 10 per store per shift sounds good, and the figures i found were 31000 franchises serving 47 million customers daily. that's around 330 million a week. increase the cost per person, not per item, only $.50 and it should more than cover the cost of the wage increase without hurting most consumers. i know that i would hardly notice a 50 cent increase in the cost of a meal, and i have been broke for ages._________________________________________ Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
