Minium Wage/ McD's/ Sense of Entitlement

[Lionqueen2]

I have problems with this period.

College degreed medical assistants drawing blood and getting patients ready make $12-15 an hour.
School bus drivers make around the same, with the safety of 70 students per route per day in their hands, most with multiple routes.

You're telling me that pressing the "I want fries" button or counting 6 McNuggets in a box should pay more than skilled labor? Really?
Here is my background-1st in my family to attend college from a poor family. I made $4.25 an hour stocking clothes and ringing registers at a KMart for 6 years. I drove 55 miles round trip to a school I could afford for 16 credit hours a week, along with 40+ hours of work. My first apartment in 1995 had a black and white TV, lawn chairs, and garage sale furniture, my car was 8 years old. My schedule between school and work was 5:30 AM until often midnight 5 days a week, with the weekends working 16 hours at KMart and catching up on school work. It was tough, very tough. Nobody owed me anything, hard work earned the "better" life.

Now the thought process is that everything should be given....what happened to our society that hard work is no longer needed to get ahead in life? Now folks expect cel phones, drive expensive cars they cannot afford, buy houses too big, and then gripe that it's someone else's fault when they fail. Frankly it's sickening.

One thing I learned while working minimum wage for a few years is that I would get nowhere in life making that wage. I put on my big boy pants and did something about it, instead of griping that someone else is responsible. Instead of camping out in a city somewhere complaining of Wall Street greed, I went to school. Instead of whining about wages, I did something about it.

Enough is enough.

I just loved reading your story. You could not help being a success in anything you tried with a work ethic like yours. You and your family deserve to be so proud of you and your accomplishments.

I bolded the first part of your statement. You are so right. It just doesn't make sense that someone with training and responsibility for people's lives should make less than someone asking you if you want fries with that order.

 

[ilovemk76]

Because it isn't about individuals. It is about the net social and economic effect of a huge segment of the American job market paying too little to generate the consumer activity upon which our economy relies. Making it about any one individual ("laying on the couch for a year or two after graduation" or not) is an appeal to emotion that merely obscures basic facts. We are a consumer driven economy. Most of the jobs our economy has added during the recovery do not pay a sufficient wage to be a net gain - they generate little consumer activity, add nothing to the income tax base, and do not reduce the strain on our social safety net. That is an unsustainable economic course, and no amount of second guessing what any one individual working at McDs may have done wrong in life changes that fact.

But it is not just one individual but a whole large group of people.

 

[mom2rtk]

But it is not just one individual but a whole large group of people.

Yep. And as long as society bails them out and tells them it's ok, there will be more.

 

[Robbi]

People had better hold onto their jobs. More companies will be going to part time employment and there may be more people looking at fast food jobs as a way to supplement their family income.

 

[ChrisFL]

I think the "living" part of living wage is a lot of the issue. I have friends and family members who work part time minimum wage, and others on public assistance. I don't know one single person that doesn't have a cell phone, cable TV, and a computer or tablet with Internet, not to mention the accessories that go along with those things. All of them consider these things necessities for living. People's expectations of what is "necessary" have gone up tremendously on the last 20 years.

I do agree with this, I think we've lost sight of what it means to "survive", not that we can't have nice things once in a while but paying $100+ a month for a cell phone, $80 for internet and cable a month, etc. adds up quickly!

 

[kaytieeldr]

If you can't get a ride back and forth to school how are you going to get a ride back and forth to work?

There are always a thousand excuses why ppl can't do something.

If ppl can't go to school because they are 19 and have 3 kids under age 4 and can't afford day care then usually those are the ppl our tax dollars will support for the rest of their lives and probably their kid's lives. So they aren't the ones working at McD's anyway.

As for someone not being able to pay their living expenses with $1000 refund you would get from the Pell grant, As for someone not being able to pay their living expenses with $1000 refund you would get from the Pell grant, most ppl I have ever known in my life have gone to college while they still live at home with their parents. Most ppl don't wait until they are grown have families and lose a job at 35 to try to go to school.

If that is the case and they never went to school when they could then I say they are in a bad situation because of their own choices.

If you can't survive off the Pell grant refund then get a job while you are going to school. get 2 jobs. I did. I went to college full time with a family and held two jobs. If you want it bad enough you will find a way to better yourself and better your life.

It's great that most people you know haven't been affected by tge economy, that they've been able to attend college/trade school right out of high school while being supported by parents.

When you lose your (trained career) job after ten or fifteen or thirty years, and you search for a job in your field then any reasonable job with no success - since most jobs now are in the ultra-low-paying service industry - and then unemployment runs out...you take any job you can get.

 

[Colleen27]

Yep. And as long as society bails them out and tells them it's ok, there will be more.

There will be more because 70% of the jobs added to the economy have been low-wage. Food service, an economic sector in which 3 out of 4 workers earn a sub-poverty-level wage, is one of the fastest growing. In 2010, 26% of jobs paid less than the poverty rate for a family of four, and that percentage is has been trending upward for the better part of a decade. People don't take jobs at McDs because they get a "bail out" (that brings them up to an at-poverty-level standard of living) or because "society tells them it is okay"; they do it because those are the jobs available in the current economy.

Again, while it is a nice appeal to emotion (specifically our sense of self-righteousness for having made "better" choices ourselves) to focus on "He should have gone to college" or "Those jobs aren't meant to be a career", when more than a quarter of all the jobs available in our entire nation pay too little for the people who hold them to make ends meet there is a real reason for us to be concerned. And the solution to that isn't to berate any one of those low-wage workers for not getting more education; the solution needs to be something that addresses the big picture, not the details of any one life. Because while one worker can better his situation, that doesn't change the underlying fact that fully one quarter of all American jobs pay a sub-poverty-level wage (defined, if anyone is curious, by the BLS as $10.73/hr).

 

[manning]

I've gotten behind on my reading. Trying to catch up.

I see profits mentioned. Is this gross profits or net profits that is being referred to?

 

[Planogirl]

I think that many here are seeing things through a rather narrow perspective. There is a lot of "what I have seen" and "people I know" commentary but you can't paint every individual with the same brush. Experiences differ and while there may be many people out there who don't try to get ahead there are certainly those who do try and have trouble.

I've heard the explanation as to why higher wages will actually help the economy. More pay equals more buying power which equals higher profits for companies which theoretically should mean more hiring and higher wages. However, I suspect that many companies won't share the wealth since they haven't bothered to so far.

 

[mom2rtk]

There will be more because 70% of the jobs added to the economy have been low-wage. Food service, an economic sector in which 3 out of 4 workers earn a sub-poverty-level wage, is one of the fastest growing. In 2010, 26% of jobs paid less than the poverty rate for a family of four, and that percentage is has been trending upward for the better part of a decade. People don't take jobs at McDs because they get a "bail out" (that brings them up to an at-poverty-level standard of living) or because "society tells them it is okay"; they do it because those are the jobs available in the current economy.

Again, while it is a nice appeal to emotion (specifically our sense of self-righteousness for having made "better" choices ourselves) to focus on "He should have gone to college" or "Those jobs aren't meant to be a career", when more than a quarter of all the jobs available in our entire nation pay too little for the people who hold them to make ends meet there is a real reason for us to be concerned. And the solution to that isn't to berate any one of those low-wage workers for not getting more education; the solution needs to be something that addresses the big picture, not the details of any one life. Because while one worker can better his situation, that doesn't change the underlying fact that fully one quarter of all American jobs pay a sub-poverty-level wage (defined, if anyone is curious, by the BLS as $10.73/hr).

Yep. I am self-righteous that my son did not take the easy road so many of his classmates have taken. If that's what it is, then I'll own it. And he deserves more payoff because of it. You know.... provided he keeps his nose to the books and does well.

Now, why do you suppose it is that so many of those jobs added in recent years are part-time, low-wage jobs?

Businesses are in business to make money. Lots of businesses have money sitting on the sidelines right now. Is that because they are evil and don't want to provide good jobs? Businesses provide good jobs when they need to. And when the benefit to them as a corporation outweigh the risks.

You cannot legislate to businesses that they provide good jobs. They provide good jobs when they need to hire people to fill a need. Businesses don't exist to support people. I'm sorry, I know that sounds bad. But it is true. They exist to make a profit for someone willing to put their capital at risk. When the risk is too high it sits on the sidelines.

If the minimum wage was doubled tomorrow you could say you were legislating good jobs. But you cannot legislate to those companies that they keep the same number of employees that they have now or that they even keep their doors open.

You can raise the minimum wage, but you cannot legislate that the additional cost borne by the company come out of their obscene profit margins. You cannot legislate that it come out of the CEO's crazy insane salary. Part of it will come out of operating costs. They will try to recoup part of it in increased prices. But people have the free will to not shop there any more. If enough of them stop shopping, you will end up with more doors closing and even fewer jobs.

It is a grand sentiment to want to help people. But that sentiment has gotten us where we are today. And it's not working. We need to unleash the engine of free enterprise in this country again and grow our way out of this mess.

 

[Robbi]

People took the jobs knowing the salary. They not only won't get $15/hour, they might just lose their jobs altogether.

If the world was a perfectly fair place, everyone would get paid plenty of money, corporations would share their wealth, no one would be sick, all kids would have stratospheric IQs, and Disney would never raise prices again. It's not.

 

[Colleen27]

Yep. I am self-righteous that my son did not take the easy road so many of his classmates have taken. If that's what it is, then I'll own it. And he deserves more payoff because of it. You know.... provided he keeps his nose to the books and does well.

Now, why do you suppose it is that so many of those jobs added in recent years are part-time, low-wage jobs?

Businesses are in business to make money. Lots of businesses have money sitting on the sidelines right now. Is that because they are evil and don't want to provide good jobs? Businesses provide good jobs when they need to. And when the benefit to them as a corporation outweigh the risks.

You cannot legislate to businesses that they provide good jobs. They provide good jobs when they need to hire people to fill a need. Businesses don't exist to support people. I'm sorry, I know that sounds bad. But it is true. They exist to make a profit for someone willing to put their capital at risk. When the risk is too high it sits on the sidelines.

If the minimum wage was doubled tomorrow you could say you were legislating good jobs. But you cannot legislate to those companies that they keep the same number of employees that they have now or that they even keep their doors open.

You can raise the minimum wage, but you cannot legislate that the additional cost borne by the company come out of their obscene profit margins. You cannot legislate that it come out of the CEO's crazy insane salary. Part of it will come out of operating costs. They will try to recoup part of it in increased prices. But people have the free will to not shop there any more. If enough of them stop shopping, you will end up with more doors closing and even fewer jobs.

It is a grand sentiment to want to help people. But that sentiment has gotten us where we are today. And it's not working. We need to unleash the engine of free enterprise in this country again and grow our way out of this mess.

Businesses aren't adding jobs because they don't need to. Customers aren't buying, because they aren't making enough money to buy. Why are McDs and Walmart thriving while Darden (Red Lobster) and Penneys are teetering on the brink of closure? Because people cannot spend money they don't have. The credit/housing bubble masked the underlying issue for a long time - people just borrowed to make up the difference between their stagnant wages and the rising cost of living - but with that era over all that is left is a consumer-driven economy with not enough consumers to grow.

Trying to help people hasn't gotten us where we are today. Decades of deregulation, preferential tax treatment of investment income over wages, a flattening of the tax structure that encourages the accumulation of wealth at the top of the scale, a minimum wage that hasn't even come close to keeping pace with inflation, and a regulatory environment designed to protect the status quo have gotten us where we are today. And pushing "education is the answer" is just making things worse, building up a bubble that can never really "pop" because there's no way to default on student loan debt and saddling an entire generation with a debt load that will keep their noses to someone else's grindstone (no matter how low the wage or how dead-end the long-term potential) for their entire working lives.

 

[ilovemk76]

There will be more because 70% of the jobs added to the economy have been low-wage. Food service, an economic sector in which 3 out of 4 workers earn a sub-poverty-level wage, is one of the fastest growing. In 2010, 26% of jobs paid less than the poverty rate for a family of four, and that percentage is has been trending upward for the better part of a decade. People don't take jobs at McDs because they get a "bail out" (that brings them up to an at-poverty-level standard of living) or because "society tells them it is okay"; they do it because those are the jobs available in the current economy.

Again, while it is a nice appeal to emotion (specifically our sense of self-righteousness for having made "better" choices ourselves) to focus on "He should have gone to college" or "Those jobs aren't meant to be a career", when more than a quarter of all the jobs available in our entire nation pay too little for the people who hold them to make ends meet there is a real reason for us to be concerned. And the solution to that isn't to berate any one of those low-wage workers for not getting more education; the solution needs to be something that addresses the big picture, not the details of any one life. Because while one worker can better his situation, that doesn't change the underlying fact that fully one quarter of all American jobs pay a sub-poverty-level wage (defined, if anyone is curious, by the BLS as $10.73/hr).

I looked at the Bureau of Labor Statistics and I did not find that number. Link please.

I did find an interesting article. I only skimmed it but the first few sentences are really interesting. (See the link)

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2010.pdf

 

[mom2rtk]

Businesses aren't adding jobs because they don't need to. Customers aren't buying, because they aren't making enough money to buy. Why are McDs and Walmart thriving while Darden (Red Lobster) and Penneys are teetering on the brink of closure? Because people cannot spend money they don't have. The credit/housing bubble masked the underlying issue for a long time - people just borrowed to make up the difference between their stagnant wages and the rising cost of living - but with that era over all that is left is a consumer-driven economy with not enough consumers to grow.

Trying to help people hasn't gotten us where we are today. Decades of deregulation, preferential tax treatment of investment income over wages, a flattening of the tax structure that encourages the accumulation of wealth at the top of the scale, a minimum wage that hasn't even come close to keeping pace with inflation, and a regulatory environment designed to protect the status quo have gotten us where we are today. And pushing "education is the answer" is just making things worse, building up a bubble that can never really "pop" because there's no way to default on student loan debt and saddling an entire generation with a debt load that will keep their noses to someone else's grindstone (no matter how low the wage or how dead-end the long-term potential) for their entire working lives.

Which came first though, the chicken or the egg? If businesses were relieved of some of the regulatory burden this country imposes on them, they would hire more people, who would have more money, who would SHOP again. Force them to pay more than the job is worth to them as a company, and they will get by will fewer employees. Or fewer stores. And we ALL lose.

You go right on blaming deregulation for the woes of this country. And keep heaping on new regulations (like doubling the minimum wage) and mandating health benefits. And see where it goes. Detroit is giving us a sneak peek where it might go. I contend the seeds of that economic collapse were sown many years ago as a result of regulation in the form of the Community Reinvestment Act.

I don't push education as the answer to everything. I would not suggest to a new college student that they go study sociology. Or theater. Or philosophy right now. It's a shame, because I wish there were jobs for sociology majors. But there aren't right now. You have to be smart about it. Anyone taking on substantial debt to get a sociology degree is making a mistake. I have counseled both of my sons on choosing fields they can actually get jobs in. One is starting his junior year studying to be a CPA. The other is just entering an engineering school. I have 2 nephews who just graduated college and both had great job offers upon graduation. One majored in marketing/business, the other in engineering. My third nephew is still floundering with his graphic arts degree. But just a bit of research along the way would have told him that was not a good field in this economy. It's more important than ever that our young adults make strategic decisions.

So no, "get a degree" is not good advice. "Get the right degree" is certainly good advice. But so is "study a trade". Because I don't know about you, but our plumber drives a nicer car than I do.

But I do know this. The kids laying on mom's couch aren't there because of some invisible disability. They are there because they can be. Because Calculus and Chemistry require a lot of work. The cost of living on mom's couch is pretty low, and even part time at today's minimum wage pays more than sleeping on mom's sofa. And I don't feel obligated to support them making $15/hour in an entry level job. Those entry level jobs are there to get them established so they can move on to other things.

 

[xipotec]

I know many more people who want to work 40 hours a week and cannot find a job thar will pay them for it ( because then the corps have to pay the dreaded benefits if they work more than 30 hrs a week. Then people who are sitting around doing nothing......

Our company actually puts out memos about people who are working too many hours and will send home people who want to work, causing poor customer service, rather than pay them benefits.

Now who benefits from that arraignment? Not the customer, not the employee......

 

[gina2000]

The weekend Wall Street Journal ran an interesting front page article entitled "Low Pay Clouds Job Growth - Unemployment Rate Falls but Hiring Pace Slows; Quality of Positions a Concern".

The article addresses the types of jobs being created and the lack of buying power these jobs are providing. It's a more than minor concern. Economic growth is unsustainable without consumer buying. The lack of disposable income will not fuel an economy into full recovery.

The reality seems to be that we are rapidly moving toward a two class economy. If we are not creating jobs that pay a middle class income with buying power, then this class will slowly disappear. Ultimately the government will be absorbing more costs traditionally associated with middle class jobs such as health care and pensions. I don't have an answer but telling people to find a better job may just not be possible.

 

[xipotec]

Because it isn't about individuals. It is about the net social and economic effect of a huge segment of the American job market paying too little to generate the consumer activity upon which our economy relies. Making it about any one individual ("laying on the couch for a year or two after graduation" or not) is an appeal to emotion that merely obscures basic facts. We are a consumer driven economy. Most of the jobs our economy has added during the recovery do not pay a sufficient wage to be a net gain - they generate little consumer activity, add nothing to the income tax base, and do not reduce the strain on our social safety net. That is an unsustainable economic course, and no amount of second guessing what any one individual working at McDs may have done wrong in life changes that fact.

Spot on

 

[luvsJack]

So I assume you mean ..... say..... something more than laying on mom's couch sleeping for the first year or two after high school graduation?

I find this entire discussion comical. My son just graduated high school and we take him to college in one week. I am shocked at the number of kids he graduated with who still don't have plans for what they want to do. Is my son excited about leaving the comfort of our home, and his free time to hang out with friends and play video games..... to head off for school to study Chemistry, Calculus and Economics? I'd be lying if I said he was. He's going to work his little tail off. But, God willing, when it's done, he'll get a good job. I don't want to hear the kids who laid on mom's sofa for another year or two, complaining that they don't make enough money.

Last I heard, those jobs don't fly through the front window and land in your lap.

So it is your assumption that everyone that works at McD's laid on their mom's couch for the first few years after high school?

Hate to tell you but that is not the case. And remember your statement, "God willing. . ." Because he could end up with a college degree and a minimum wage job. `

 

[Art 1]

So it is your assumption that everyone that works at McD's laid on their mom's couch for the first few years after high school?

Hate to tell you but that is not the case. And remember your statement, "God willing. . ." Because he could end up with a college degree and a minimum wage job. `

My guess would be that most did not finish HS except for the season help who are part time while attending college.

 

[mom2rtk]

So it is your assumption that everyone that works at McD's laid on their mom's couch for the first few years after high school?

Hate to tell you but that is not the case. And remember your statement, "God willing. . ." Because he could end up with a college degree and a minimum wage job. `

Of course not. That would be silly. I'm just saying I've seen an awful lot of it around here.

And there's nothing wrong with a minimum wage job. But if that's what he ends up with, I will encourage him to keep a good work record, show up on time, work hard, and keep applying for better jobs. And as long as he's working, he's welcome to come sleep on my sofa. Between shifts.

What I won't do is tell him to bully his minimum wage employer into giving him more money just because he "deserves" it.

I worked a minimum wage job (or barely above) right out of college myself until I got the job I wanted with an advertising agency. But that was just to pay the bills and get started. I went home at night and worked on submitting resumes. I was newly married, so we had two low paying jobs. We drove 2 very old cars without a/c. We didn't have cell phones. (Oh, wait. That was 1985. Only the president of the ad agency had a mobile phone). But we llived in a small inexpensive apartment and just made ends meet.