McDonalds: "What, my peon, you don't work two full time jobs?"

[Berkut]

As I mentioned to Gups earlier, whether welfare acts as a subsidy is debateable.  Y'all are taking it as a given.  The logic being that in the absence of food stamps et al, low wage workers would demand a higher wage.  That makes no sense. 

I don't think anyone's saying abolish food stamps, but get rid of it for people in work. If you can't even subsist on your wage then the pressure to increase it will be there.

I don't think that is true at all.

[Sheilbh]

we all shouldn't be paying companies' wages for them.

We're not.

We are. If they're paying $7.5 an hour to full-time employees and it makes them eligible for welfare, then we're all paying.

[The Brain]

we all shouldn't be paying companies' wages for them.

We're not.

We are. If they're paying $7.5 an hour to full-time employees and it makes them eligible for welfare, then we're all paying.

Then stop paying them welfare if it's so horrible to you.

[Sheilbh]

Then stop paying them welfare if it's so horrible to you.

Agreed

[Valmy]

These types of jobs were NEVER designed to support a family! They were designed to provide high school kids and young college students with some work experience, and a little spending money.

Why are the liberals insisting that none of this is the fault of the employee? If you have been flipping burgers at McDonald's for 10 years, then you have made some seriously poor decisions. Why in the world would anyone think that this type of a job should support a family, a house payment, and a car payment?

That is a weird opinion to hold when we have such high unemployment.  I mean not that McDonalds should be a job to support a  family on but that if you make good decisions (or at least ones that are not "seriously poor")  you are guaranteed a job that pays better than McDonalds.  Besides you do not have a make a series of bad life decisions to seriously fuck your job possibilities for life, you just have to make one.  I think the point was is that we have people working full time we have to use federal tax dollars to support which I would think a conservative would be frustrated with.

[Razgovory]

we all shouldn't be paying companies' wages for them.

We're not.

I can see how you could make that argument.  It's similar to the "tips" discussion we had a while back.  Management pays it's employees less with the expectation that the public will pick up the rest by paying a tip.

[The Brain]

These types of jobs were NEVER designed to support a family! They were designed to provide high school kids and young college students with some work experience, and a little spending money.

Why are the liberals insisting that none of this is the fault of the employee? If you have been flipping burgers at McDonald's for 10 years, then you have made some seriously poor decisions. Why in the world would anyone think that this type of a job should support a family, a house payment, and a car payment?

That is a weird opinion to hold when we have such high unemployment.  I mean not that McDonalds should be a job to support a  family on but that if you make good decisions you are guaranteed a job that pays better than McDonalds.  Besides you do not have a make a series of bad life decisions to seriously fuck your job possibilities for life, you just have to make one.

It's not a decision to be born ethnic.

[The Brain]

we all shouldn't be paying companies' wages for them.

We're not.

I can see how you could make that argument.  It's similar to the "tips" discussion we had a while back.  Management pays it's employees less with the expectation that the public will pick up the rest by paying a tip.

Customers aren't the public. They're customers.

[Admiral Yi]

We are. If they're paying $7.5 an hour to full-time employees and it makes them eligible for welfare, then we're all paying.

No we're not.  $7.50 an hour is what they're paid by the franchise owner for flipping burgers.  We're not paying them to flip burgers.  We're giving them free food because we feel sorry for them.  If they didn't flip burgers we would still give them free food. 

We're paying to keep them alive perhaps, but that's not the same thing as paying their wage.

[Admiral Yi]

I can see how you could make that argument.  It's similar to the "tips" discussion we had a while back.  Management pays it's employees less with the expectation that the public will pick up the rest by paying a tip.

I can see how you would neurotically stalk me.

It's nothing like the tip situation Raz.  A person performs labor to earn tips.  Nobody performs labor to earn food stamsp.

[Sheilbh]

we all shouldn't be paying companies' wages for them.

We're not.

I can see how you could make that argument.  It's similar to the "tips" discussion we had a while back.  Management pays it's employees less with the expectation that the public will pick up the rest by paying a tip.

I think there's a big difference between specific consumers and the general, taxpaying public.

[crazy canuck]

We're paying to keep them alive perhaps, but that's not the same thing as paying their wage.

If the state didnt pay something more to keep them alive the franchisee wouldnt have a workforce to exploit.

[The Brain]

We're paying to keep them alive perhaps, but that's not the same thing as paying their wage.

If the state didnt pay something more to keep them alive the franchisee wouldnt have a workforce to exploit.

Exploit by paying them above market wage?

[Sheilbh]

No we're not.  $7.50 an hour is what they're paid by the franchise owner for flipping burgers.  We're not paying them to flip burgers.  We're giving them free food because we feel sorry for them.  If they didn't flip burgers we would still give them free food. 

We're paying to keep them alive perhaps, but that's not the same thing as paying their wage.

Yeah, but us doing that enables the employer to pay less than it would cost to keep their employees alive - which is really the bare minimum specification for a worker. If we weren't giving them free food then the cost of that employee getting enough to stay alive would be wholly borne by the employer, not by the employer and everyone else.

Edit: I suppose it'd be okay if weird if the employer returned that saving to the revenue, but it's kept.

[Admiral Yi]

If we weren't giving them free food then the cost of that employee getting enough to stay alive would be wholly borne by the employer, not by the employer and everyone else.

Keep in mind Shelf that historically fast food jobs have gone to younger people who are still in school.