Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/5/13 03:29 PM, Zachary wrote: You are not supposed to be making a living off of a job working at McDonalds.

If you work 40 hours a week you should be able to support yourself.

At 12/5/13 02:27 PM, MrSoxfan wrote: HUR DUR DUR LUBERALS

why am i not surprised

also, lol at all the posts implying there's something wrong asking for proper wages when working shit jobs that could easily pay better than they are now

At 12/5/13 03:33 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 12/5/13 03:29 PM, Zachary wrote: You are not supposed to be making a living off of a job working at McDonalds.

If you work 40 hours a week you should be able to support yourself.

Not working at McDonalds... it's not a job that is not going to make a lot of money unless you are in a manager position. It is a job for teenagers. and for people who work another job. Also, if you are on welfare and work at McDonalds then you can support yourself just fine until you can find a better job.

At 12/5/13 01:40 PM, Viper50 wrote:

At 12/5/13 01:33 PM, Cyberdevil wrote: Looks like the price on fast food might be getting a raise.

Which really isn't a bad thing.
It'll cause people to buy it less often and instead go home and make their own meals.
At least then they'll have a good idea as to what they're eating....

At least this is one good thing that i'll come out of it.

At 12/5/13 03:33 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 12/5/13 03:29 PM, Zachary wrote: You are not supposed to be making a living off of a job working at McDonalds.

If you work 40 hours a week you should be able to support yourself.

Most fast food refuses to give anyone 40 hours or over per week. They get better tax breaks by hiring more employees to work shit for hours. My friend who works at McDonalds says it's their policy to not let anyone work more than 40 hours in a 2 week span.

Remember 40 years ago when you could pay for college using a part time job? And a full time minimum wage job was enough to support a young family and buy a home?

Those were the good old days. Now productivity is up 80% from new technology and everyone thinks minimum wage workers should move to the graveyard. Sucks, don't it?

At 12/5/13 03:38 PM, Natick wrote: also, lol at all the posts implying there's something wrong asking for proper wages

There's a difference between asking for something and protesting for politicians to get it for you by force. There's also a difference between proper wages and what they're "asking" for.

At 12/5/13 03:52 PM, ohbombuh wrote: protesting for politicians to get it for you by force.

What the fuck does that even mean

Protesting is asking. In a way that makes the issue visible.

Feoric is correct. Although a wage increase to $15 an hour is pretty ridiculous and will probably result in the loss of jobs and increased prices, an increase to $10 an hour is much more reasonable and was at one point, when adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage in the U.S. It didn't seem to damage the economy or anything, as opponents of minimum wage increases always claim will happen if we enact wage increases.

At 12/5/13 03:52 PM, ohbombuh wrote:

At 12/5/13 03:38 PM, Natick wrote: also, lol at all the posts implying there's something wrong asking for proper wages

There's a difference between asking for something and protesting for politicians to get it for you by force. There's also a difference between proper wages and what they're "asking" for.

This image is really annoying. A sign saying "we are worth more", really? Nobody is saying people who work at fast food places are worth less than anyone else. You can not honestly expect to earn a living working at a fast food restaurant unless you are a manager. Don't like it? Find another job. It's not easy, but you can use working at the fast food place as a transition so you have SOME income while on welfare. That's kind of the whole point of it.

At 12/5/13 03:43 PM, Zachary wrote: Not working at McDonalds... it's not a job that is not going to make a lot of money unless you are in a manager position. It is a job for teenagers. and for people who work another job. Also, if you are on welfare and work at McDonalds then you can support yourself just fine until you can find a better job.

This is the whole issue we're talking about. There is absolutely no good reason why it has to be like that and that there are zero alternatives. It's not like McDonald's can't afford it. Even if you don't support the concept of making 15 or even 10 dollars an hour at McD's, minimum wages, if for no other reason, should be raised so employers aren't subsidized by the government. If you are on welfare and working part time in McDonald's chances are you have a second or third job and just barely making ends meet. If you are one paycheck away from financial ruin no, I don't consider that 'supporting yourself just fine.'

At 12/5/13 03:49 PM, Stretchysumo wrote: Most fast food refuses to give anyone 40 hours or over per week. They get better tax breaks by hiring more employees to work shit for hours. My friend who works at McDonalds says it's their policy to not let anyone work more than 40 hours in a 2 week span.

This is true, and it doesn't end there:

"More than half (52 percent) of the families of front-line fast-food workers are enrolled in one or more public programs, compared to 25 percent of the workforce as a whole.

The cost of public assistance to families of workers in the fast-food industry is nearly $7 billion per year.

At an average of $3.9 billion per year, spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) accounts for more than half of these costs.

Due to low earnings, fast-food workers' families also receive an annual average of $1.04 billion in food stamp benefits and $1.91 billion in Earned Income Tax Credit payments.

People working in fast-food jobs are more likely to live in or near poverty. One in five families with a member holding a fast-food job has an income below the poverty line, and 43 percent have an income two times the federal poverty level or less.

Even full-time hours are not enough to compensate for low wages. The families of more than half of the fast-food workers employed 40 or more hours per week are enrolled in public assistance programs."

Even if you're lucky/experienced enough to work full time, you're likely still not making ends meet.

At 12/5/13 03:54 PM, Entice wrote:

At 12/5/13 03:52 PM, ohbombuh wrote: protesting for politicians to get it for you by force.

What the fuck does that even mean

Protesting is asking. In a way that makes the issue visible.

Asking would be saying "Hey boss, I've been working pretty hard lately and my apartment price is rising, so could I have a raise?" What they're saying is that all workers in all jobs should start out with double the wage they do now, regardless of how much skill, motivation, or need for more money they have. Admittedly they need more voters to side with them to make it happen, but if it does, the government would throw huge fines at anyone who is unable or unwilling to pay up.

I.e. force.

At 12/5/13 03:55 PM, Light wrote: when adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage in the U.S. It didn't seem to damage the economy or anything

How about adjusting for productivity? By some calculations minimum wage tied to productivity would be approaching $22/hr. The Center for Economic and Policy Research says minimum wage increases to $16.54 an hour would be reasonable.

Here, I'll copy-paste a few paragraphs because I know NGers (except you and a few others) don't click and read through sources, but they definitely absorb a few sentences from tall posts before their attention spans break:

CEPR:

This link between productivity and the minimum wage ended with the 1970s. During that decade the minimum wage roughly kept pace with inflation, meaning that its purchasing power changed little over the course of the decade. The real value of the minimum then fell sharply in the 1980s as we went most of the decade without any increase in the nominal value of the wage, allowing it to be eroded by inflation. Since the early 1990s the real value of the minimum wage has roughly stayed constant, which means that it has further fallen behind productivity growth.

How was it decided to break the link between productivity growth and the minimum wage? It is not as though we had a major national debate and it was decided that low-wage workers did not deserve to share in the benefits of economic growth. This was a major policy shift that was put in place with little, if any, public debate.

If the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity growth it would be $16.54 in 2012 dollars. It is important to note that this is a very conservative measure of productivity growth. Rather than taking the conventional data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the non-farm business sector, it uses the broader measure for economy-wide productivity. This lowers average growth by 0.2-0.3 percentage points.

This measure also includes an adjustment for net rather than gross output. It also uses a CPI deflator rather than a GDP deflator, which further lowers the measure of productivity growth. Even with making these adjustments the $16.54 minimum wage would exceed the hourly wage of more than 40 percent of men and more than 50 percent of women . We would have a very different society if all workers were earning a wage above this productivity linked minimum wage.

At 12/5/13 04:09 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 12/5/13 03:43 PM, Zachary wrote: Not working at McDonalds... it's not a job that is not going to make a lot of money unless you are in a manager position. It is a job for teenagers. and for people who work another job. Also, if you are on welfare and work at McDonalds then you can support yourself just fine until you can find a better job.

This is the whole issue we're talking about. There is absolutely no good reason why it has to be like that and that there are zero alternatives. It's not like McDonald's can't afford it. Even if you don't support the concept of making 15 or even 10 dollars an hour at McD's, minimum wages, if for no other reason, should be raised so employers aren't subsidized by the government. If you are on welfare and working part time in McDonald's chances are you have a second or third job and just barely making ends meet. If you are one paycheck away from financial ruin no, I don't consider that 'supporting yourself just fine.'

There is a reason it has to be that way, and it is because it is a job for someone who has no experience working. Once they work there, they can put it on their résumé for their next, much better paying, job. They should not STAY working there. It prepares them for their future jobs.

While I agree McDonalds could afford it, they are a business and money is their first priority. Is it right? Probably not. Don't like it? Don't go there. Pay with your wallet.

If they are working multiple jobs then they will have a lot of experience. Also, I have never heard of someone working 3 jobs and being on welfare. Unless they are getting like 5 hours at each job, which at that point they should try to find a place that is willing to give them more hours. As for working 2 jobs and being on welfare, why would they keep themselves in that position? Yes, it's hard to find jobs sometimes, but if they know that they are going to have trouble paying for things, then they should be actively looking for a better job. They will have the experience needed to apply at a better paying job. Of course if they are working 2 jobs it might be hard to find time to be job hunting, but it still is possible.

People are one paycheck away from financial ruin even if they aren't working at McDonalds, it's not just a thing exclusive to working at fast food places.

Also, it is a lot more complicated than this of course, but this is simplifying it.

At 12/5/13 04:29 PM, 24901miles wrote:
How about adjusting for productivity? By some calculations minimum wage tied to productivity would be approaching $22/hr. The Center for Economic and Policy Research says minimum wage increases to $16.54 an hour would be reasonable.

Here, I'll copy-paste a few paragraphs because I know NGers (except you and a few others) don't click and read through sources, but they definitely absorb a few sentences from tall posts before their attention spans break:

I read the copy-pasted material and remember hearing about its conclusions months back when Sen. Elizabeth Warren(D-MA) talked about it. Because I'm not much of an expert in economics, I can't really comment on whether linking minimum wage to productivity is a good idea or not. I suppose it would have been if U.S. wages in general had not stagnated for several decades now. U.S. GDP per capita is ~$50,000 but would be much higher if income inequality wasn't such a problem in this country.

At 12/5/13 04:32 PM, Zachary wrote: There is a reason it has to be that way, and it is because it is a job for someone who has no experience working. Once they work there, they can put it on their résumé for their next, much better paying, job. They should not STAY working there. It prepares them for their future jobs.

This is entirely irrelevant to the concept of a wage floor. Nobody here is arguing, for example, that a burger flipper should make the same as your standard office job. The argument is that 5.15 an hour, for example, is unjustified, regardless of the experience of the person manning that position. Workers have the right to be compensated for their labor, and if a worker is not getting their share, there needs to be structural changes to the labor market. There is absolutely no good reason why a person should have to work two or more jobs and still have to be on welfare to support him/herself and their family due to artificially low wages in the spite of all time record high corporate profits.

While I agree McDonalds could afford it, they are a business and money is their first priority. Is it right? Probably not. Don't like it? Don't go there. Pay with your wallet.

That's a shitty ineffective non-solution and you know it. The government has the ability and the authority to correct these structural issues in the economy, not my wallet.

If they are working multiple jobs then they will have a lot of experience. Also, I have never heard of someone working 3 jobs and being on welfare. Unless they are getting like 5 hours at each job, which at that point they should try to find a place that is willing to give them more hours. As for working 2 jobs and being on welfare, why would they keep themselves in that position? Yes, it's hard to find jobs sometimes, but if they know that they are going to have trouble paying for things, then they should be actively looking for a better job. They will have the experience needed to apply at a better paying job. Of course if they are working 2 jobs it might be hard to find time to be job hunting, but it still is possible.

You keep sprouting this "find a better job" rhetoric as if nobody has ever thought of that before. Economic growth has done exactly nothing for the real wages of nearly everyone over the last 20+ years. Despite massive gains in labor productivity, all gains in real wealth are transferred directly to owners. Finding a better job that pays marginally better has nothing to do with with fixing the real problem.

Let's look at the facts here. The real minimum wage as previously discussed is not where it should be, and it has been higher. Increasing it should not be an issue. 50% of American workers take home ~$26K or less. The rich have been reaping the rewards of massive income gains, while everyone else stays stagnant or disproportionately lower. The economy has not recovered, at all. Take a look for yourself. And, lastly, ~90% of new jobs since 2009 have been part-time jobs:

"The headlines citing last week’s jobs report as the lowest unemployment rate in years may have been technically accurate, but they are also reminders that looks can be deceiving. The reality, as you dig into the latest jobs data, reveals that few are finding the full-time work they want and need, and many are forced to accept part-time employment. As the chart below depicts, seven out of eight new employees under President Obama have been part-time employees. Those same employees note that it is pretty hard to support a middle class family when you are stuck in a part-time nation."

At 12/5/13 06:02 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 12/5/13 04:32 PM, Zachary wrote: There is a reason it has to be that way, and it is because it is a job for someone who has no experience working. Once they work there, they can put it on their résumé for their next, much better paying, job. They should not STAY working there. It prepares them for their future jobs.

This is entirely irrelevant to the concept of a wage floor. Nobody here is arguing, for example, that a burger flipper should make the same as your standard office job. The argument is that 5.15 an hour, for example, is unjustified, regardless of the experience of the person manning that position. Workers have the right to be compensated for their labor, and if a worker is not getting their share, there needs to be structural changes to the labor market. There is absolutely no good reason why a person should have to work two or more jobs and still have to be on welfare to support him/herself and their family due to artificially low wages in the spite of all time record high corporate profits.

Using $5.15 (which is the lowest of minimum wages) is a bit silly. Although, it should be higher, it is not a good example of the average fast food worker.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be paid more money, but they should not EXPECT to make a living off of working there. You seem to think it is easy as, "well we will just give them more money!" and everything will be okay. Sadly, if it were that easy it would have been done already.

That's a shitty ineffective non-solution and you know it. The government has the ability and the authority to correct these structural issues in the economy, not my wallet.

Saying that "paying with your wallet" is a shitty non-effective solution is ridiculous. You absolutely have control over voicing your displeasure by not throwing money into companies who treat their workers poorly by not paying them enough.

Once again I never once said that the minimum wage should not be raised, I said that if you work at a fast food restaurant do not expect to make a living wage.

If you think simply paying people more money will fix the problem of the rich making money off of the poor, then you are absolutely mistaken.

At 12/5/13 06:39 PM, Zachary wrote:

Saying that "paying with your wallet" is a shitty non-effective solution is ridiculous. You absolutely have control over voicing your displeasure by not throwing money into companies who treat their workers poorly by not paying them enough.

It absolutely is, because despite the pink slime controversy and the fact that everyone and his dog knows their food is fucking horrible for you, McDonald's still continues to see profits rise each quarter. Me or anybody else not paying for a shitty Big Mac does not magically solve the issue. It is structural and requires legislative action.

Once again I never once said that the minimum wage should not be raised, I said that if you work at a fast food restaurant do not expect to make a living wage.

I understand that, I just fail to see why the line is arbitrarily drawn at fast food jobs. My point is that line should not be drawn at all.

If you think simply paying people more money will fix the problem of the rich making money off of the poor, then you are absolutely mistaken.

I never said nor implied what you are saying here, but it's a very good start. There is plenty of room for more money to be pumped into the hands of people that actually matter and drive the economy at the expense of CEOs (boo hoo). The issue is much larger than the jobs market and it's all related to each other.

I hope all the people who said that these idiots deserve higher than minimum wage pay gets punched in the throat for their stupidity

ironically a lot of people seem to take issues with fast food workers . . . it should be a given that a full time job would allow people to maintain at least a functional minimum of living. in most states the minimum wage won't suffice for that. i don't understand why exactly people are taking issue with paying full time workers a proper wage & if you hold that opinion it would be nice if you could elaborate on why lol

--supergandhi64

$15.00 an hour is a ridiculous number to rally around, and will only cause people to laugh at your cause.

Anyway, this should be interesting~

So NG, did you vote for someone who understands economics?

At 12/5/13 07:25 PM, ohbombuh wrote: So NG, did you vote for someone who understands economics?

Ironically you're the one that doesn't understand economics in this case

At 12/5/13 06:54 PM, Xenomit wrote: I hope all the people who said that these idiots deserve higher than minimum wage pay gets punched in the throat for their stupidity

Xenomit throwing a bitchfit in lieu of being able to argue for shit.

At 12/5/13 01:55 PM, AngryGrag wrote: What do these people fucking DO exactly? Flip burgers? Put paper into an automated money box? Yeah, that's some hard work right there, let's shower them with money. If mcdonalds people got a raise then no one would want to work at jobs that actually contribute to society who earn decent pay. If you work at mcdonalds you should be a teenager at his first job with no children, and you might even be able to live in a shitty apartment. Mcdonalds is the place where you need no qualifications, they'll let convicts in, giving them more money then necessary is ridiculous.

Do you really think that the salary you make is based on how hard you work? If it was, then there would be nobody making billion dollars a year. There is no way anyone on this planet is working millions of times harder than anyone else. Plus, the difficulty of the job is unrelated to how hard you work. If the job is simple, it doesn't mean that you aren't working hard and feeling exhausted at the end of the day.

The simple fact that you can't understand how wrong it is that the minimal wage is too low for anyone to fulfill HIS BASIC NEEDS tells a lot. If you just knew anything about the socioeconomical reality of your own society, you'd realize that it's not just teenagers on their first jobs who gets paid minimum wage.

At 12/5/13 07:42 PM, Entice wrote:

At 12/5/13 06:54 PM, Xenomit wrote: I hope all the people who said that these idiots deserve higher than minimum wage pay gets punched in the throat for their stupidity

Xenomit throwing a bitchfit in lieu of being able to argue for shit.

is this fucking matewan now?

I want to be paid $500000 per hour flipping burgers!!! (Year 3013)

OMG I hope everyone who questioned my post gets punched in the throat

Australia's Minimum Wage 16.88 in USD.
Australia is doing pretty well.
Australian small buisnesses are not dying in droves.
McDonalds only costs about an extra 6 to 70 cents in Australia.

USA is supposed to be best nation on Earth amirite?
So then how the hell can the nation who's govt. believes video games are evil have a higher minimum wage than us?
I mean, the only thing a higher minimum wage would hurt is profit margins, even then not by much.