http://socialistworker.org/2013/05/2...-a-living-wage
this is old "news"... from article on May 20, 2013
MANAGERS OF the Detroit McDonald's on Gratiot Avenue, northeast of the city center, discovered at 6 a.m. on May 10 that the restaurant was being picketed by about 20 striking employees. When they called other employees to come to work for a replacement shift, the other workers started arriving...and joined the picket line. The Gratiot Avenue McDonald's stayed closed.
That was just one of the stories from Detroit as more than 400 employees at fast-food restaurants across the city went on strike and took to the streets on May 10. Nationwide, this was the fourth such strike in the past several months--previous walkouts have taken place in New York City, Chicago and St. Louis. Since the Detroit action, workers in Milwaukee have also gone on strike.
Throughout the day, workers and their supporters rallied outside chain restaurants like McDonald's, Popeyes, Taco Bell and Burger King, gathering at the end of the day for a climactic march in the city's New Center area. Like similar walkouts in other cities, the main demands of the coalition, calling itself D15, were for a raise in the minimum wage to a living wage of $15 an hour and the right to form a union.
I'm just curious, was this the McDonalds on 7 Mile and Gratiot or French Road and Gratiot?
Ummm, they already have the right to form a union and then negotiate their wages to whatever amount they can negotiate. Now that we have freedom of [[dis)association in our workplaces in Michigan, I'm all in favor of their rights to organize.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic01
Just for some perspective: The median household income in the US in 2011 was $50,502. A married household with 2 full time fast food workers at $15/hr would make [[assuming a 2000 hour work year) $60,000.
Makes sense to me.
Not only that.. the walkout itself was backed by the Service Employees International Union and other labor organizations... someone explain to me why SEIU or whomever isn't just organizing them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
More of a philosophical question really, but should "minimum" wage jobs pay well enough to exceed the median?Quote:
Just for some perspective: The median household income in the US in 2011 was $50,502. A married household with 2 full time fast food workers at $15/hr would make [[assuming a 2000 hour work year) $60,000.
Makes sense to me
I certainly hope my sarcasm was clear, but to answer your question, no. Now, skilled jobs should pay more than minimum wage but fast food certainly should not pay on par with a first year teacher, first year DPD officer, etc, etcQuote:
Originally Posted by bailey
People wouldn't need to rely on a suppressed service sector for career choices if we didn't export all the jobs that once made us a functional society. Export jobs --> import poverty.
Meanwhile the fat cats will never, ever relent on raising the minimum wage. They'll spend more money combating the idea then it would cost to suck it up and provide a sustainable wage. If MW does go up, fully expect them to find another place to recoup those added expenses. The idea that executive pay would absorb higher operating costs is NOT and option. That street only goes one way.
I missed the sarcasm... sorry, i read the whole dailyworker article and it threw off my calibration .Quote:
Originally Posted by jt1
What do they serve in MCDonald's anyways? Irish stew? Are those the places with a big Orange or Pink double arch?
While they have a point - seriously, what in God's name can anyone do with $7.40 an hour - demanding $15 per hour isn't going to win them any friends. I'd say $12 is more reasonable but I'm generally pretty sympathetic to the little guy. $10 might actually be realistic.
YAY! Solidarity forever! Living wage for all. The Socialist Leninst-like uprising in fast food restuarants. Unionize all fast food employess now! 15 dollar a hour wage now! No more working for slave wages.
Well, first off, you notice jt1 is talking about the income from two $15/hr jobs, not one. Clever sleight of hand he did there. One person working full time for $15/hr isn't making anywhere near 50 grand, and lots of people don't live in two-income households. Second, if you raise a bunch of people's incomes above the median, that shifts the median. My philosophical question here is why the fuck is the median so low to start with? In the land of Donald Trump and Matty Moroun and Dick DeVos, how is it that fully half of households in this country make less than $50,000 a year and we haven't had a full-on revolution?Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
Sometimes I wonder the same thing. A few random thoughts:Quote:
how is it that fully half of households in this country make less than $50,000 a year and we haven't had a full-on revolution?
1> While incomes have remained stagnant over the last twenty years, costs have slowly trickled up. Consider the frog in a kettle of water; slowly turn the heat up and he will unknowingly let himself cook to death without knowing any better.
2> The poorest in this country have been under attack from various groups as the people to blame for poverty. Pretty hard to organize when your constantly defending. It's even harder to organize when you do not have 21st century technology to connect these people.
3> I would say OWS was the closest we've seen to such a revolution. It was peaceful [[outside of a few unlucky pepper-spray recipients) and fronted by tatooed, squirrely haired millennials. Needless to say, not a lot of people took them seriously, nor did they formulate a straightforward message.
4> A lot of people have no clue that the job market used to have real, viable wages available. Insert women in the workforce, technology-driven displacement and the floodgates of off-shoring [[WTO) and you have an employer's market when it comes to finding careers. Not to mention our service sector now fills some of that gap....... but in reality it's more like welfare where people are sucked in and never leave the industry to better themselves.
No it's not. The Median HOUSEHOLD income is based on all the earners in the 'household' over the age of 15... not by individual worker. So yes, two people in a household earing 15/hr for 2000 hours [[40 hour work week-50 weeks a year- 2 week non paid time off) adds up to 60 k.Quote:
Originally Posted by antongast
... and causes inflation...and will result in fewer people being hired to flip burgers at 15 bucks an hour...etc.Quote:
Second, if you raise a bunch of people's incomes above the median, that shifts the median.
Because who gets to decide what is "enough" to be "just" for those households? is three cars and one up north cottage ok for the "median" or should the median be entitled to private jets and vacation homes on Jupiter Island?Quote:
My philosophical question here is why the fuck is the median so low to start with? In the land of Donald Trump and Matty Moroun and Dick DeVos, how is it that fully half of households in this country make less than $50,000 a year and we haven't had a full-on revolution?
You can't point to stupendously wealthy outliers and demand "me too"! I mean, how much of Bill Gates', Warren buffet or... i don't know George Clooney's money are we entitled to?
Why should an illness cause a family to go bankrupt? ok yes, that is a problem. Why isn't there mandatory paid time off like in every other industrialized country? yes, that is an issue.
But demanding that on day one of burger flipping you should be paid more than a first year teacher is just insane.
Having worked in numerous industries, I think a hardworking fast food employee deserves about $9-$10 an hour. It's not rocket science, but to deliver truly good product and service, it takes experience and dedication worth a little more than minimum wage.
Sure, employees that don't do anything but the bare minimum and slop orders together with a fair amount of mistakes deserve only $7.40. But if that's about all you'll pay anyone, don't act surprised or upset when those people make up the majority of your workforce.
Yes, but why are you assuming that every household has two income earners? Some households consist of one person living alone. Some consist of a single parent with kids. Some consist of at least one adult who is unable to work, for any number of reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
Every policy choice has trade-offs. In this case, I think paying people below subsistence wages is a bigger problem than a little bit more inflation when inflation is at historically low levels anyway. Almost anything that looks like economic recovery is going to bring some inflation with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
Who gets to decide that now? It's being decided, don't delude yourself about that. Income distributions don't just happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
How much of it are they entitled to? It's all just policy choices. I don't think everyone in America should be a billionaire, but I don't think anyone in America should be impoverished. There's no excuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
You're still missing my basic point. First-year teachers are underpaid too! Almost everyone in America is underpaid. And the only way to have any prayer at all of changing that is for all of us underpaid folks to recognize that we're all on the same side, us against the fat cats. Sniping at each other is counterproductive.Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
I agree that the appropriate wage is around $9-10 / hr. Whether an individual worker 'deserves' that pay is best left to the market.Quote:
Originally Posted by nain rouge
Let's be clear on one thing. Minimum wage laws have not demonstrated that they do anything useful for workers in general. Removing the bottom rungs of the ladder of success harms workers more than it helps.
If McDonalds wants to pay $2.00 -- good luck to them. Let them fail like DPS.
Minimum wage jobs are not designed to support a family. They are available for young folk to learn the value of having a job. Too bad that concept was off shored as well.
...and some households have 5 people counting toward that income or two people with no kids...etc. The statistic "Median household income" takes all that into account when getting to that "Median". It's the middle of ALL households with wage earners residing there who are over the age of 15 be that one, two or 12 of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by antongast
If you think he used the wrong measurement, fine, but let's not argue over what the measurement is.
The rest of your post...well, lets just agree to disagree.
It's nothing but pure greed that's destroying this country, when a CEO runs a company in the ground, and he get's a million dollar severance package to disappear. Executive compensation is at all time high, while mostly everyone else struggles. It's not morally right.
I'll take a Big Mac, medium fry and a large coke to go. "That'll be $18.50 sir. Would you like a hot apple pie for an extra $5.00?"
Now THAT'S fine dining. There are places already around town where you can get better meals for less money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Downriviera
One point of data: my family runs a small retail business. When minimum wage was $4.25/hour, they could afford to hire a dozen extra seasonal employees, mostly college kids. When it was increased to $5.85/hour, they could only afford to hire 6. When it was increased to $7.25, they could afford 3.
Cost of labor goes up, their profits don't go up accordingly and their prices are stuck [[they are competing with cheap on-line sales) then employment goes down.
I'm in favor of McDonalds paying a living wage. I would be willing to pay a little more so workers could make more income and at the same time reduce their need for government benefits. If the price of the burgers went up too high, most of us would cut our consumption but I've never seen an estimate of how much prices would have to increase to pay a living wage. There are big unknowns in this discussion.
The higher the wage is raised, the more it will benefit family owned stores that hire relatives. Automation and self-service technologies would also probably get a boost.
McDonalds and other corporations won't even bother to build restaurants or keep them open if they can't keep up their profit margins. That is why the prices of the product would have to increase instead.