Worker Wages: Wendy's vs. Wal-Mart vs. Costco

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ishii said:
I think we have increasingly given the government a bigger and bigger role in people’s lives - such that more and more people expect the government to take care of them. It is no longer one’s own responsibility, but the government, via the taxpayer.

Ishii
Click to expand...
👍
 
FWIW, I used to work at several fast food places back in the day. 90%+ of the employees did not view it as a career. They viewed it is a way to get some extra cash. For an outsider to take the POV that working the line is a career is disingenuous and demonstrates they have an agenda.

For the small percentage that viewed it as a career, the went on to management. In fact, they begged me to be in management once I graduated college. I didn’t, but one of my peers did, and he became a regional manager, which is a career and pays very well.
 
Lochias said:
Ha, well, current fast-food jobs almost don’t qualify as a form of employment, thanks to how little they pay, so I guess everyone’s screwed. 🤷
Click to expand...
Actually…some fast-food jobs pay quite well. Further…just as with Wal-Mart…most fast-food workers that start at minimum wage are not making minimum wage long…nor do they work the fast-food job long.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
FWIW, I used to work at several fast food places back in the day. 90%+ of the employees did not view it as a career. They viewed it is a way to get some extra cash. For an outsider to take the POV that working the line is a career is disingenuous and demonstrates they have an agenda.

For the small percentage that viewed it as a career, the went on to management. In fact, they begged me to be in management once I graduated college. I didn’t, but one of my peers did, and he became a regional manager, which is a career and pays very well.
Click to expand...
The problem is, there really aren’t any other jobs, as Lochias said. So they blame the fast food retailers for the low wages they are “forced” to take.

As was pointed out in the Walmart-Costco argument, yes, Costco pays more, but they employ far fewer people.

It’s back to there is a limited number of dollars. You can spend a whole lot on one or two items, or spread it around and buy a bunch of less expensive stuff. Translated, you can “not” get a job at Costco because they pay more and have fewer workers, or you “can” get a job at McDonald’s because they can afford to hire more workers because they pay each one less.

The real problem is that the Obama administration has created an economy that is hostile to business. People are not investing in the things that create jobs.
 
Trader said:
Talk about a 55 gallon drum of worms! Should healthy people be paid less than sick people? Do you get an automatic raise if you make another baby? Do you get a salary reduction if a child dies or gets married? Should you get a raise if you divorce? If you cannot control your spending, does the employer have to subsidize foolish behavior? That last one is a special interest of mine because I see a lot of people complain about poverty when they spend money on luxuries I don’t have, but I am somehow required to pay more for products or taxes so they can have tobacco, alcohol, fast food, recreational drugs, or cell phones.
Click to expand...
I have posted this several times on several threads. No one has ever been able to give me an answer.
 
qui_est_ce said:
The problem is, there really aren’t any other jobs, as Lochias said. So they blame the fast food retailers for the low wages they are “forced” to take.
Click to expand...
The lower level fast food jobs never paid much and were never meant to be a career. Artificially raising the wages beyond market levels will simply result in less employees and less customers.
The real problem is that the Obama administration has created an economy that is hostile to business. People are not investing in the things that create jobs.
Click to expand...
That is an undeniable fact, as conveyed to me by the local businessmen I deal with on a continual basis. A decade ago, they were hiring like the wind, because their businesses were growing. The only thing growing now is regulation and cost, so they limit hiring to when it is absolutely necessary or hire independent contractors.
 
Trader said:
Talk about a 55 gallon drum of worms! Should healthy people be paid less than sick people? Do you get an automatic raise if you make another baby? Do you get a salary reduction if a child dies or gets married? Should you get a raise if you divorce? If you cannot control your spending, does the employer have to subsidize foolish behavior? That last one is a special interest of mine because I see a lot of people complain about poverty when they spend money on luxuries I don’t have, but I am somehow required to pay more for products or taxes so they can have tobacco, alcohol, fast food, recreational drugs, or cell phones.
Click to expand...
The employer should be paying a living wage that accounts for 1 individual (the worker) based on the cost-of-living in the State.
 
estesbob said:
It very easy tho be charitable with other people’s money.
Click to expand...
Not only that, people that have no idea how to run a business should not be telling others how to run their business. That’s a large part of the problem with the leadership and the way the economy is being run right now.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
The employer should be paying a living wage that accounts for 1 individual (the worker) based on the cost-of-living in the State.
Click to expand...
So the 17 year old kid working part time who lives at home should be paid a “living wage”? And what do we base that living wage on? What about the 30 year old with two kids working the same job as the 17 year old. Should the latter be making more because he has two kids?

Ishii
 
ishii said:
So the 17 year old kid working part time who lives at home should be paid a “living wage”? And what do we base that living wage on? What about the 30 year old with two kids working the same job as the 17 year old. Should the latter be making more because he has two kids?

Ishii
Click to expand...
It seems to me that the purpose of non-living wage jobs should be to give people the experience and incentive to get into living wage jobs. When I graduated high school in the 80s, the economy was in a bad recession but I was able to find a part time job. There are two reasons why I got the job. It paid minimum wage and the starting time was 4 am. If it paid a living wage they would have given the job to someone with more experience than me. The problem is that you can demand employers pay a particular wage. But you can’t make them hire anyone.
 
ishii said:
So the 17 year old kid working part time who lives at home should be paid a “living wage”? And what do we base that living wage on? What about the 30 year old with two kids working the same job as the 17 year old. Should the latter be making more because he has two kids?

Ishii
Click to expand...
What constitutes “living.” Who determines it? Does it include 7 beets, 7 potatoes, one loaf of rye, and one ration of vodka per person? How many square feet of living space?
 
qui_est_ce said:
What constitutes “living.” Who determines it? Does it include 7 beets, 7 potatoes, one loaf of rye, and one ration of vodka per person? How many square feet of living space?
Click to expand...
I suspect that there are a certain minimum number of channels required plus smart phones are mandatory.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
It seems to me that the purpose of non-living wage jobs should be to give people the experience and incentive to get into living wage jobs. When I graduated high school in the 80s, the economy was in a bad recession but I was able to find a part time job. There are two reasons why I got the job. It paid minimum wage and the starting time was 4 am. If it paid a living wage they would have given the job to someone with more experience than me. The problem is that you can demand employers pay a particular wage. But you can’t make them hire anyone.
Click to expand...
That’s just it, as labor costs go up, so does the technology to replace workers. Digital answering systems (press 1 for english), ATMs, self-serve gas stations, e-books, Redbox/Netflix/Amazon instant video, self-serve check out lanes…the list goes on and on where low-skill jobs have been eliminated by technology. A computer is cheaper, faster and more consistent than a person. It’s bad at customer service, but we’re already being “trained” to accept it, one small change at a time.
 
estesbob said:
It very easy tho be charitable with other people’s money.
Click to expand...
Indeed it is. My tax dollars have to subsidize that cheap labor because $7.25 or $2.13 (waiter’s wage) isn’t enough for most to live on independently of a social welfare program. Businesses are pretty charitable with other people’s money.
ishii said:
So the 17 year old kid working part time who lives at home should be paid a “living wage”? And what do we base that living wage on? What about the 30 year old with two kids working the same job as the 17 year old. Should the latter be making more because he has two kids?
Click to expand...
I believe I answered those questions in the post you quoted. :confused:
 
Orogeny said:
There seems to be several threads lately bemoaning the pay at fast food restaurants and at Walmart. Is there really a shock that the pay is low at those places? If so, why?

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
I think the whole point is that their profits are so high. Yet their workers, the ones who do the money making. Earn so little they have to rely on public assistance. It should be a matter of great shame to them.

ATB
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top