The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Corporate social irresponsibility

Once again for him its all or nothing, there is no middle. He thinks that if you have a non-livable wage as he defines it
you are automatically on welfare. For him this must be how he sees the world, your rich or poor.
Never mind kids that live at home, people who get part time jobs for extra money and don't want or need a full time job
its just rich or poor for him.

This is why his arguments are bullshit because he doesn't allow for these things.

For sinij: Anatomy of the State

Quick and simple primer on what the State is, and how it works. I do not agree with everything Rothbard wrote during his career by a long shot, but this is one of his best works.

You cant seem to see the forest through the trees here.

Fast food jobs not being done mostly by teenagers anymore signals problems elsewhere. Trying to fix it by focusing on the practices of the fast food joints is the wrong approach.

If you are focusing on making fast food jobs better jobs, because more adults are relying on them you are focusing on the wrong problem. The problem is that the job market in general is so bad that more and more people have to try for fast food jobs.

Also, many immigrants end up working fast food now. Need to control for immigrants as well when citing age statistics. If someone comes all the way here to work in fast food because its better than what they had in their homeland, thats fine. And it doesnt mean we should do anything about fast food wages due to that either.

I disagree with your premise that this is "wrong" problem. Government should not be involved in dictating what kind of jobs should be there, but it absolutely should get involved in making sure that with jobs that are available, workers are treated fairly.

Why?

Couple reasons: a) Taxpayers end up on a hook for difference between livable wage and what corporations pay b) Corporations act in a monopolistic manner and actively engage in practices of suppressing wages (price fixing) c) Government elected by people for people, multinational corporate interests are distant second.

Your idea of "fair" and mine are apparently irreconcilable. Employer saying "we need people to do X job for Y pay, is anyone willing?" is entirely fair.

If overqualified people are feeling it necessary to take up those jobs because the rest of the economy is so bad, then obviously the solution is not to twist the arms of the fast food joints but to address the issues preventing the economy from proper functioning.

Even if there WAS a leftist "solution" to fast food wages, the opportunity cost is way to high to even think about looking there for the solution.

You say "corporations" lots of food joints are actually independently owned, even franchises are independently owned and the owners just pay a franchise fee. Left wing solutions lack real world credibility.

It never works this way. It is almost always (at least in service) "lets keep wages down to Y pay, no matter what". Service job model is rotten to the core, it does operate according to natural monopoly lines, and it is not an open market.

Do you believe that job well done should be rewarded? Well these companies don't, they only care to keep wages down.


Right wing "solution" sacrifice Opportunity, Fairness and Getting Ahead with Hard Work on the altar of corporate profit.

Your position of "this guy doesn't deserve to eat/wear clothing/shelter despite working hard so multinationals can make more profit" is simply perverse.

Like I said, right now you are seriously lacking in Real World credibility.

The problem is not that fast food pays to little. The problem is the lefties and neocons have so screwed up our economy that anyone is even THINKING to complain about fast food jobs - only because suddenly many people are trying to actually survive on them in non-supervisory positions.

My solutions arent "right wing" anyhow, its just plain common sense.

In the *best* case scenario if you got to be King, is fast food joints would pay more.. but operate with half the people. People would seriously have to bust tail to keep their job, to the point where folks who dont move so quick or function so well would be comepletely jobless.

Thats not even factoring in all the restaurants that would close due to lower sales/higher costs. I actually worked in the industry quite a bit when I was younger, I know how restaurants work apparently a lot better than you. It is apparent you do not even have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about, and even trying to explain it to you would take forever and most likely be futile. You seem to be laboring under some illusion that your typical food shack could afford to pay people 15$/hr to drop fries in a deep fryer or run a cash register.

Someone who expects the almighty hands of those with the guns to descend and solve all problems, does not understand the true nature of the problems.

Also, as I said - great many, majority actually, of restaurants are not corporate owned. Yet you still ramble on about your perception of corporate profit. News flash, forcing people to work - including by starting a business, for any reason but to empower themselves is immoral.

Second news flash - people who make careers out of food service and actually are good at the jobs typically make fine wages, because they either move into management positions or become skilled cooks. And if you have never worked in food, then just take my word for it - there is a huge difference in levels of cook. Skilled cooks are actually always in demand, and thus have reasonably high wages.

Also the numbers you cited earlier cover servers, and at any decent place the servers make good money on tips. Also, the vast vast majority of servers report only enough of their tips to the IRS to technically put them at or slightly above minimum wage - because if they didnt theyd be fired. In reality they typically make far more money than ever gets reported to any govt agency. And more power to em.

Absolutely they can. Looking at the stock price and financial reports, it does not appear that any of these mega-corps are in any danger of going out of business.

Your argument is demonstrably invalid.

Someone at Forbes run the numbers during Papa Jones debacle and concluded that comprehensive healthcare coverage would cost 4c per slice more.

Plus it isn't just fast food - it is fast food and retail. This is big chunk of all employment even during good times.

Are we also expected to tip cashiers at WallMart? Because we already do with out tax payer money, when they inevitably get social payments for not making enough money to get above poverty line.

You are yet to address why the Taxpayer should be subsidizing wages, where corporations set them knowingly to below-livable level and expect us to pay the rest via social programs?

Well, I think we've just discovered the root cause of all our disagreements. Sini lives in Lala land.