US fast-food workers staging nationwide strike

[NoRockwell]

Well inflation is actually low. The main reason for unemployment these days seems to be companies building up equity with the money the Fed is printing. As opposed to hiring as was intended. Again we see greed, and self interest where we should be seeing something quite different.

Lets not overlook the less fortunate among the workers. For these poor souls everything in life is much more difficult. As the technology improves they get left farther, and farther behind. Things we navigate through with ease are baffling to them. it’s no wonder they make poor choices

I don’t think there are many fast food companies that are struggling.

This was a predecessor to the great depression. Caused chiefly by the market making the decisions I might add.

Hey, don’t be so charitable, sir!
In all honesty, I think you care as much as I do – perhaps you have a bigger heart in fact, and if that is true, I hope to be more like you.

I do have to respectfully disagree with much of what you said however. I am glad you pointed out the Federal Reserve’s responsibility for the economic woes, but that is possibly the main contributor for the inflation of the dollar. Before 1913, $1 was $1. Today because of it, $1 is now almost $23. That’s how badly it is inflated. Corporations are in bed with Government, so when the govt. supports TARP, they will print what they need and leave the public out to die on the vine. I should have also mentioned foreign intervention and sanctions and war have been a great damage as it gives leverage to massive printing, even though it is economically unhealthy.

Indeed, the less fortunate among the workers deserve zero neglect. I would never suggest neglecting them…or anyone for that matter. Though I don’t know what you mean when you say when technology improves, they get left behind. One of the bright sides of today is that resources have become better than yesteryears. Most within lower income are living better than many of of the wealthy from many, many years ago. This sounds crazy, and I’m not suggesting they aren’t struggling, but technology has been one source that has allowed us to live better than we used to.

My wife’s grandmother for instance lives in San Miguel in El Salvador – it is a poorly off area and the resources aren’t the best. However, only within the past 15 years has her town begun to live better due to technology. They water supply is cleaner, their food is kept fresher, and she is able to get in touch with relatives who now live in the States.

About your statement of fast food chains…indeed. Most of them are doing quite well, but I wasn’t speaking of them when I mentioned independent shops. However, fast food restaurants, despite their leverage, still can only work within a means. If the value of a job is artificially increased, they will either up qualifications of which employees are worth $15 an hour (it may have to go to an experienced worker) or simply replace them altogether with machines which is currently happening in certain places.

You’re right that the case for the restoration after the Depression of 1920 did come before the Great Depression, but to blame the Great Depression on the market is a common yet flawed argument…

…When the Depression took place in 1920, it was caused by Wilsonian policies–from inflated government, foreign intervention, and massive regulations. Soldiers returned home from WWI to find their jobs had disappeared. When Harding and then later Coolidge made a reversal on Wilson’s policies, the economy had a full recovery. Here’s the part that is often not discussed in schools anymore…Herbert Hoover was not a free-market president. He was much like Wilson and his successor FDR. He implemented more tariffs and regulations which ultimately lead to the crash in 1929. FDR himself called Hoover one of the greatest peace-time spending presidents and his running mate even said Hoover was leading America down the road to socialism.

FDR’s New Deal is often celebrated, but it only built on what Hoover did. What is neglected of the New Deal is that the unemployment rate averaged at a staggering %18 from 1933 to 1940–it was the slowest recovery in American history. It screwed up agriculture and trade and racked up record peace time deficits.

Don’t take my rebuttal as any sort of attack. I sincerely think you are passionate about the needy. I just think how it should be done shouldn’t mean what appears nice.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

That’s excellent that you sponsor children in need. Where are they from?

Kenya.

FWIW, we were first asked to sponsor children in the U.S. We refused, the reason being that while children here do need help, these children will be helped in some manner here. We wanted to help those in abject poverty.

 

[NoRockwell]

Kenya.

FWIW, we were first asked to sponsor children in the U.S. We refused, the reason being that while children here do need help, these children will be helped in some manner here. We wanted to help those in abject poverty.

That’s great. Absolutely – it’s good that you wanted to make sure no one was neglected. God bless YOU :clapping:

 

[stinkcat_14]

Before 1913, $1 was $1. Today because of it, $1 is now almost $23. That’s how badly it is inflated.

Why is that a bad thing? Incomes have gone up by more than 23 times. You certainly wouldn’t fall for money illusion, would you?

 

[NoRockwell]

Why is that a bad thing? Incomes have gone up by more than 23 times. You certainly wouldn’t fall for money illusion, would you?

I certainly hope I wouldn’t – economics is my thing

It’s a bad thing because it is exactly what leads to economic problems and disasters. When the number goes up, the value goes down and prices artificially rise.

Keynesian economists for instance believe a little inflation is good because it’s basically a “tax” on idle money, but they’ll argue that a lot of inflation is a real problem. However, Austrian economists (like me) and economists who subscribe to the Chicago School will suggest that DEFLATION should be desired because it makes idle money profitable which in turn promotes prosperity.

This is why people are fighting for a return to the gold standard – gold doesn’t inflate because it is a scarce resource.

It’s like when people compare the cost of milk from 1950 to today. The cost of milk then was about $0.36 and today it’s about $3.50. It’s not because the demand is hire or because “people now earn more.” It’s caused by a devaluing of the dollar. Extreme examples of inflation are Greece where the dollar completely collapsed or Zimbabwe where people are literally carrying around stacks of cash, but is the equivalent to very little.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I certainly hope I wouldn’t – economics is my thing

We can only hope.

It’s a bad thing because it is exactly what leads to economic problems and disasters.

That is a pretty broad statement. I don’t suppose you would have any proof?

When the number goes up, the value goes down and prices artificially rise.

If prices go up by 10% and incomes go up by 10% people are no better or worse off.

Keynesian economists for instance believe a little inflation is good because it’s basically a “tax” on idle money, but they’ll argue that a lot of inflation is a real problem. However, Austrian economists (like me) and economists who subscribe to the Chicago School will suggest that DEFLATION should be desired because it makes idle money profitable which in turn promotes prosperity.

I don’t think Bob Lucas, a Chicago School economist, argues in favor of deflation. So which Chicago School economist is in favor of deflation?

This is why people are fighting for a return to the gold standard – gold doesn’t inflate because it is a scarce resource.

But the value of gold fluctuates, it does not have a stable value.

It’s like when people compare the cost of milk from 1950 to today. The cost of milk then was about $0.36 and today it’s about $3.50. It’s not because the demand is hire or because “people now earn more.” It’s caused by a devaluing of the dollar.

Proof? Let’s see your econometric study establishing that it is dollar devaluation.

Extreme examples of inflation are Greece where the dollar completely collapsed or Zimbabwe where people are literally carrying around stacks of cash, but is the equivalent to very little.

No doubt hyperinflation is bad, but mild inflation is fairly benign as long as its predictable.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

What disturbs me about this thread is how the Liberals are abandoning one of the core beliefs and things they like to take credit for in this issue and that is education. I thought Liberals were all for post secondary education and how its essential. If you look at the stories which we are subjected to and how they can’t make ends meet, it seems to me that those people probably don’t have a degree or college diploma in a marketable skill.

Ever think that is something that should be focused on?

 

[epan]

America has a long tradition of providing public education. It is in recent generations that the tradition has been abandoned. I consider that to be a betrayal of the current generation by the generations who benefited and prospered from an (essentially) free education. Simple greed. I suggest that there was a moral obligation to continue the commitment, which was abjured to pay for multiple cars and color televisions.

 

[NoRockwell]

We can only hope.

That is a pretty broad statement. I don’t suppose you would have any proof?

Indeed, it was very broad to your credit. The Greek economy is a good example of how inflation can lead to an economic collapse thanks to a series of excessive borrowing and printing. *Meltdown *by Thomas E. Woods is a great book that goes through booms and busts cycles. I’m not sure what kind of proof you’re looking for, but I’d be happy to give more recommendations. Most are written for laypeople.

If prices go up by 10% and incomes go up by 10% people are no better or worse off.

The concern as that both go up artificially. Economic progress would be to allow incomes to rise while money stays sound.

I don’t think Bob Lucas, a Chicago School economist, argues in favor of deflation. So which Chicago School economist is in favor of deflation?

I’m impressed – you’ve done your homework. Indeed, the Chicago School is wishy-washy. To begin, none support inflation, though many of them do almost seem a bit forgiving of the Federal Reserve, like Robert Lucas and Walter Williams. However, some lean further toward the Austrian principle like David Friedman.

But the value of gold fluctuates, it does not have a stable value.

Great observation. A big case for this is because gold is regarded as an asset, but not as sound money. In fact, it is illegal to practice it as a sound currency rather than an asset. So instead, it is treated as a good rather than currency.

Proof? Let’s see your econometric study establishing that it is dollar devaluation.

What sort of proof are you looking for? A source that discusses this or a source where you can review the differences of value between times?

No doubt hyperinflation is bad, but mild inflation is fairly benign as long as its predictable.

This is the Keynesian approach. Though it neglects the inevitable. But beyond that, it’s also immoral as it takes from the savings of individuals.

I must say, it is wonderful to hear people talking about this stuff at all I commend you for it.

Perhaps provide a reason for your concerns of Austrianism.

 

[Cricket2]

So we give people 13 years of free public education, and then have government backed loans and financial aide (and if they are poor enough they will get significant aide) for them to go to college. And many community colleges offer remedial courses for people to catch up.

Is this what you mean by solid help?

There is no such thing as free education anymore. Not when parents have to spend hundreds of dollars on supplies per/child and even by cleaning supplies for the classroom. Privatization at it’s best.

How arrogant to assume everyone is academically inclined, and erroneous to believe that all the higher ed is actually needed for most jobs. Before you know it we will requiring trash collectors to get associate degrees, because education has turned into a money making venture and business only. Most of it is rubbish and I am free to state this as one with a Bachelors Degree in Biology and a Masters in Non-Profit Management.

Most jobs, and I mean a good 98% only require on the job training and a High School Education. However we live in a society in which a handful of individuals have decided everyone should have a degree to get their foot in the door. That way they keep a handful of people in the money and the rest of us in debt. I think if an employer has positions they say are going to require a degree they should pay for the education. They used too. Bet that gets rid of a lot of degree requirements out there, because most of them are created arbitrarily for the benefit of a few.

 

[Farsight001]

There is no such thing as free education anymore. Not when parents have to spend hundreds of dollars on supplies per/child and even by cleaning supplies for the classroom. Privatization at it’s best.

There are tons of programs out there to help people who can’t afford that stuff on their own, so yes, it is still free.

How arrogant to assume everyone is academically inclined, and erroneous to believe that all the higher ed is actually needed for most jobs.

How rude to assume so many people are too stupid for school.

Before you know it we will requiring trash collectors to get associate degrees, because education has turned into a money making venture and business only. Most of it is rubbish and I am free to state this as one with a Bachelors Degree in Biology and a Masters in Non-Profit Management.

So you admit that those with degrees and better educations tend to have more difficult and more specialized jobs and are thus deserving of more pay?

Most jobs, and I mean a good 98% only require on the job training and a High School Education.

This is patently false. If anything, the reverse is true - 98% do require college education. (that’s an exaggeration, but it s still a whole lot closer to the truth then your claim.

However we live in a society in which a handful of individuals have decided everyone should have a degree to get their foot in the door.

Its called having high standards, something an employer is quite allowed and encouraged to do, as it means better employees on average, and a more productive company on average.

 

[NoRockwell]

I noticed that we’ve strayed from the main subject

 

[DeniseNY]

. However we live in a society in which a handful of individuals have decided everyone should have a degree to get their foot in the door. That way they keep a handful of people in the money and the rest of us in debt. .

Do you really believe this?

 

[Raskolnikov]

I noticed that we’ve strayed from the main subject

I’ll add my two cents then I guess to maybe reorient the discussion.

So, I’m a PhD student who works an average of maybe 50-55 hrs a week (work meaning lab research in a molecular biology lab; note I am excluding class hours, which are about 8-10 hrs per week), and this is only my first year; after the first year doctoral students in my program begin to significantly increase their workload (which is necessary if there’s any hope of completing one’s dissertation research and getting enough publications to pad one’s resume). Many end up working as much as 70 hrs a week. Now, I make 26k per year; doing the math, making some allowances for holiday, my hourly wage will end up being around $9 per hour, for doing biomedical research.

Considering this, I find it difficult to accept the notion that a fast food workers ‘deserve’ more than the $9-10 they are making. The risk of injury or death on the job is not especially high for them, especially compared to garbage workers or industrial workers, and they are unskilled and easily replaceable. And the service they provide is hardly a necessity (arguably most of their customers would be better of in terms of health if they didn’t provide said service).

Secondly. there is much talk on here about a ‘living wage,’ and I’m curious to see someone actually define that term. I make 26k a year. Is this considered less than a living wage? Now of course, if offered more, I would definitely take it, but the fact is, I have no trouble living on 26k a year. I live in a city, do not own a car, and make enough money to get by and save several hundred dollars a month. I’m wholly convinced I could live on 20k a year, or less, so I see no reason to believe a priori that that is less than a living wage.

 

[gamewell45]

Self-service is happening everywhere. From self-checkout at grocery stores, to big box store that don’t offer any mechanism toget your purchases out the door (ie, no bags at all). Ordering kiosks is just another step.

Interestingly, I don’t see self-checkout or much self-service in general in higher-end groceries. So while the folks who shop at walmart or eat at mcdonalds will need to care for themselves, the wealthier folks who shop at wholefoods, say, will have a cashier, a bagger, and even someone carry the bags to their car. The prices they pay will reflect the cost of that labor. Does anyone know what the pay scales are at wholefoods or traderjoe’s? I believe upthread somewhere [edit: I think it may have been one of the other minimum wage threads, but don’t have time to look for it now.] someone posted an analysis of the difference between costco’s pay scales and walmart’s.

Agreed that self-service is happening everywhere; for me since i don’t live in a major city, most of my patronage is at mom and pop stores; they cannot at this stage afford the high tech equipment needed so I’m sure at least where I live, i’ll continue as I have traditionally over the years.

 

[NoRockwell]

I’ll add my two cents then I guess to maybe reorient the discussion.

So, I’m a PhD student who works an average of maybe 50-55 hrs a week (work meaning lab research in a molecular biology lab; note I am excluding class hours, which are about 8-10 hrs per week), and this is only my first year; after the first year doctoral students in my program begin to significantly increase their workload (which is necessary if there’s any hope of completing one’s dissertation research and getting enough publications to pad one’s resume). Many end up working as much as 70 hrs a week. Now, I make 26k per year; doing the math, making some allowances for holiday, my hourly wage will end up being around $9 per hour, for doing biomedical research.

Considering this, I find it difficult to accept the notion that a fast food workers ‘deserve’ more than the $9-10 they are making. The risk of injury or death on the job is not especially high for them, especially compared to garbage workers or industrial workers, and they are unskilled and easily replaceable. And the service they provide is hardly a necessity (arguably most of their customers would be better of in terms of health if they didn’t provide said service).

Secondly. there is much talk on here about a ‘living wage,’ and I’m curious to see someone actually define that term. I make 26k a year. Is this considered less than a living wage? Now of course, if offered more, I would definitely take it, but the fact is, I have no trouble living on 26k a year. I live in a city, do not own a car, and make enough money to get by and save several hundred dollars a month. I’m wholly convinced I could live on 20k a year, or less, so I see no reason to believe a priori that that is less than a living wage.

Eloquently put
Granted, I am making the argument for why minimum wage is more of a problem than a solution–but I’ll play devil’s advocate for a moment.

While you are right that a low income doesn’t instantly mean an impossible means of living, it ultimately depends on situation. Some don’t have the burden of caring for a family, high rent, etc., and for many of those people who spend cautiously, they have managed decently. Though many would make the case that this isn’t exclusively the group being discussed. Many are raising children, possibly sending money to relatives in their home country, etc.

I wouldn’t say the fast food employees (or any employee for that matter) should be treated as a one-size-fits-all employee. However, that’s also why I oppose the minimum wage–it treats the business as a one-size-fits-all kind which will also have repercussions on the employee.

Raising the minimum wage is too easy for it to truly work. It’s a quick fix that doesn’t think ahead to what may come actually come out of it. People deserve more than that. They deserve real policy changes that will benefit not only them, but the businesses and every employee who intends to work and earn their value.

It’s never easy to express this opinion as it often leads people to think you’re heartless and uncaring. I just think there is a more thoughtful approach than the concept that only sounds nice.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I’ll add my two cents then I guess to maybe reorient the discussion.

So, I’m a PhD student who works an average of maybe 50-55 hrs a week (work meaning lab research in a molecular biology lab; note I am excluding class hours, which are about 8-10 hrs per week), and this is only my first year; after the first year doctoral students in my program begin to significantly increase their workload (which is necessary if there’s any hope of completing one’s dissertation research and getting enough publications to pad one’s resume). Many end up working as much as 70 hrs a week. Now, I make 26k per year; doing the math, making some allowances for holiday, my hourly wage will end up being around $9 per hour, for doing biomedical research.

Considering this, I find it difficult to accept the notion that a fast food workers ‘deserve’ more than the $9-10 they are making. The risk of injury or death on the job is not especially high for them, especially compared to garbage workers or industrial workers, and they are unskilled and easily replaceable. And the service they provide is hardly a necessity (arguably most of their customers would be better of in terms of health if they didn’t provide said service).

Secondly. there is much talk on here about a ‘living wage,’ and I’m curious to see someone actually define that term. I make 26k a year. Is this considered less than a living wage? Now of course, if offered more, I would definitely take it, but the fact is, I have no trouble living on 26k a year. I live in a city, do not own a car, and make enough money to get by and save several hundred dollars a month. I’m wholly convinced I could live on 20k a year, or less, so I see no reason to believe a priori that that is less than a living wage.

My friend.

If you have the intellect to earn such a lofty degree, and you’re working for $9.00/hr. Either you’ve made a poor choice. Or you are allowing them to use you believing it will be worth it in the end.

While the first option may coincide with some lower wage earners. The latter has very little to do with them. Unless they are living at home, and going to school.

Either way, you’ve willingly put your self in this situation and are now saying that others have no right to anything better.

ATB

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

If you have the intellect to earn such a lofty degree, and you’re working for $9.00/hr. Either you’ve made a poor choice. Or you are allowing them to use you believing it will be worth it in the end.

You might want to reread his post. He working and gaining experience in a related field. Quite frankly, that’s the point of all this. Minimal pay while learning with a big payoff in the end.

This happens all the time. I have a friend who was a paralegal making $10 an hour while in law school. Withing just a few short years after he graduated, he was a multimillionaire.

While the first option may coincide with some lower wage earners. The latter has very little to do with them. Unless they are living at home, and going to school.

Either way, you’ve willingly put your self in this situation and are now saying that others have no right to anything better.

I used to work in fast food. I gained my experience, and could’ve been manager at every single fast food place I worked, and higher up that when I graduated. People have a right to something better, provided they earn it. When you give people things without earning it, you will create an ever-large dependent class.

 

[stinkcat_14]

My friend.

If you have the intellect to earn such a lofty degree, and you’re working for $9.00/hr. Either you’ve made a poor choice. Or you are allowing them to use you believing it will be worth it in the end.

While the first option may coincide with some lower wage earners. The latter has very little to do with them. Unless they are living at home, and going to school.

Either way, you’ve willingly put your self in this situation and are now saying that others have no right to anything better.

ATB

The one question I would ask is whether a tuition waiver came with the job. If it did the effective wage rate is higher. In the late 80s I worked at a teaching assistant for a little over $8 an hour, but the real benefit was that I did not have to pay tuition.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

You might want to reread his post. He working and gaining experience in a related field. Quite frankly, that’s the point of all this. Minimal pay while learning with a big payoff in the end. Then His situation is not relevant to this discussion.

This happens all the time. I have a friend who was a paralegal making $10 an hour while in law school. Withing just a few short years after he graduated, he was a multimillionaire. Again this is irrelevant.

I used to work in fast food. I gained my experience, and could’ve been manager at every single fast food place I worked, and higher up that when I graduated. People have a right to something better, provided they earn it. When you give people things without earning it, you will create an ever-large dependent class.

Talk show rhetoric. The working are in fact earning their wages. If you compare their earnings to the profits of some of these corporations. It’s plain to see that they are under compensated. If these corporations were worthwhile contributors to our economy, instead of simply takers. They would not have employees who require public assistance.