McDonalds "Minimum wage isn't that bad, you just can't have heating, or gas, or insurance"

[archibaldcrane]

Last FY I made 30k salary on paper but turned out to be ~$21,700 with about $1500 total in tax returns. They do take a fuckin' fair amount out dude

Well, 1/3rd would be $10,000

Looks like you were taxed $6700

So like 22.3%

a third less than 33.3%

[Tokitoki]

Last FY I made 30k salary on paper but turned out to be ~$21,700 with about $1500 total in tax returns. They do take a fuckin' fair amount out dude

Aye, they take out a fair amount in NY as well. Just because I was making minimum wage at 17 as a cashier doesn't mean they weren't taking their share out of my paycheck. "Your generation has to support the entire baby boomers generation's retirement."

EDIT:

Well, 1/3rd would be $10,000

Looks like you were taxed $6700

So like 22.3%

a third less than 33.3%

It was a slight exaggeration; didn't realize you would take it I meant exactly 1/3. My apologies.

[Xajii]

Well, 1/3rd would be $10,000

Looks like you were taxed $6700

So like 22.3%

a third less than 33.3%

No shit. It's still pretty significant when you're making that little money.

[Vuitton]

This thread makes me extremely grateful for my job, holy fuck.

[archibaldcrane]

My point is that 22% is really not particularly near 33% - that's all. I laugh when people throw out the "they take a third!" when talking about total taxation. Hell, my 2012 tax return didn't even quite hit 33% (19% federal, 6% state, 5.65% payroll - so 30.65% effective total taxation rate), and my AGI (with my wife) was over 150k.

[Uzor]

What is a bit interesting, is that with the whole "2 jobs at minimum wage" deal...

$7.25/hr * 72 hours a week * 52 weeks a year is $27,144 a year.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._US_income.png

Just sneaking in below average.

Edit: nvm, realized that it was per capita.

You can't expect people to want to work 72 hours a week though

[archibaldcrane]

Edit: nvm, realized that it was per capita.

You can't expect people to want to work 72 hours a week though

oh you edited

just wanted to point out we're crushing you in median household income sweden fuck yeah murka!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

[hey]

More jobs would not just suddenly spring up like magic as if the only thing holding business back right now is the horrible horrible minimum wage. Half these places pay their employees jack shit yet still feed their higher ups bonus checks every year for bullshit reasons, money they could have used to open up a few positions but didn't want to because you gotta pay on dat 3rd home in Europe bitch.

I don't know why this is hard to understand. They don't want to hire more people because it will cost them money, right? So if it cost less money than they would earn by hiring them, why the fuck wouldn't they? Anything they can do to make money, right? The point of a business is to make a profit. If hiring people became more profitable, they would do it more.

Nobody fucking PLANS IT, it just happens sometimes. You get fired from your job and can't find work, you have to attempt to pay the bills and don't want to sit in your ass doing nothing.

Which is why lowering unemployment would be helpful?

The shit does this mean? Creating a position doesn't just suddenly make you money. If you need (x) amount of employees to work your building then you're going to hire x + 2 so you have maybe 2 people who are part time to cover shifts if they are needed but who won't get more then 10hrs a week usually. If you have to pay them less that doesn't mean you'll suddenly need x + 10 to do the same work or make the same profit.

idk about where you live, but most McDonald's i go to are terribly understaffed. Like 2 people working during dinner time. They can manage, but shit is slow, and customers hate it. Hiring a couple more people would make things better. Even if people aren't leaving because of the wait, they might be more likely to come back if it wasn't there. Expanding to new stores also becomes cheaper too.

[Hyan]

In Sweden $100 would barely even last you a week unless you don't eat anything but noodles.

Hyperbooooole

3 weeks is more like it, rather easily if you really plan ahead!

[GoggleHead]

I don't know why this is hard to understand. They don't want to hire more people because it will cost them money, right? So if it cost less money than they would earn by hiring them, why the fuck wouldn't they? Anything they can do to make money, right? The point of a business is to make a profit. If hiring people became more profitable, they would do it more.

No. They would have exactly the same number of employees as they already do, they'd just pay them even less.

[ronin sparthos]

I don't know why this is hard to understand. They don't want to hire more people because it will cost them money, right? So if it cost less money than they would earn by hiring them, why the fuck wouldn't they? Anything they can do to make money, right? The point of a business is to make a profit. If hiring people became more profitable, they would do it more.

Why hire more people when you can simply work the people you have harder, squeezing more productivity out of each individual? It's a race to the bottom that perpetuates a cycle that leads to the inability to move out of the social class one is born into.

[Xajii]

I don't know why this is hard to understand. They don't want to hire more people because it will cost them money, right? So if it cost less money than they would earn by hiring them, why the fuck wouldn't they? Anything they can do to make money, right? The point of a business is to make a profit. If hiring people became more profitable, they would do it more.

Which is why lowering unemployment would be helpful?
idk about where you live, but most McDonald's i go to are terribly understaffed. Like 2 people working during dinner time. They can manage, but shit is slow, and customers hate it. Hiring a couple more people would make things better. Even if people aren't leaving because of the wait, they might be more likely to come back if it wasn't there. Expanding to new stores also becomes cheaper too.

in what upside-down world does simiply hiring someone for the sake of hiring someone make a profit? you don't know anything about business at all.

[archibaldcrane]

His point is that if an additional employee provided $5/hr worth of work, he'd gladly hire them for $4/hr - but not for $7.75.

It's not an invalid point - but he advocates it under the assumption that we as a society should value $4/hr jobs and design policy to create more $4/hr jobs, which is fucking retarded.

[Xajii]

His point is that if an additional employee provided $5/hr worth of work, he'd gladly hire them for $4/hr - but not for $7.75.

It's not an invalid point - but he advocates it under the assumption that we as a society should value $4/hr jobs and design policy to create more $4/hr jobs, which is fucking retarded.

Any business that's successful doesn't have gaping holes where segments of $5/hr work is just not accounted for because of minimum wage.

If a McDonald's is understaffed it's probably because they can get away with it and make more profit by providing shittier service. McDonald's can do that. Not the same for a lot of other places, but it's McDonald's.

[dejet]

You get paid for what you do... id be pissed off if someone at a fast food job made as much as I do now.

I worked at a supermarket for 7 years. Pay sucked yes. With the raises to minimum wage after that seven years I was making 1.50 over it when I left.

The raise did more harm them good because the small raises my job gave kept up with the two minimum wage hikes in that time for me. So ya after 7 years I was almost making as much as a newcomer.

Regardless a raise to wages harms the lower middle class the most. Workers who make 15-30 their money wont see this increase and the gap will get closer, also making their money worth less.

In closing they are dicks for saying you can live off it, you can not. But jobs like this are for kids, I am sorry, if a teen in high school can do it its not worth more then their gas, insurances, and some small spending money.

[ronin sparthos]

His point is that if an additional employee provided $5/hr worth of work, he'd gladly hire them for $4/hr - but not for $7.75.

It's not an invalid point - but he advocates it under the assumption that we as a society should value $4/hr jobs and design policy to create more $4/hr jobs, which is fucking retarded.

$4/hr jobs that effectively create a larger slave class in our country which further drags down anyone still left in the middle class/professional class with taxes and programs designed to subsidize the slave class. Thus you're left with a huge chasm between megawealthy and the rest fighting for scraps. Ironically, however many jobs you've created will be balanced with jobs lost from small businesses that would have been viable had those in the middle class had more disposable income to throw around.

[ronin sparthos]

In closing they are dicks for saying you can live off it, you can not. But jobs like this are for kids, I am sorry, if a teen in high school can do it its not worth more then their gas, insurances, and some small spending money.

You mean the kids who are getting crowded out by adults for these jobs because the job market still sucks? Yeah, fast food/cashier/server/service type positions are supposed to be entry-level, basic jobs for teens/college students but the reality is that adults are now legitimately considering/snatching up these positions. Further, those kids employed are most likely being subsidized by their parents and the job is for supplemental income which makes the entire budget moot.

[Uzor]

idk about where you live, but most McDonald's i go to are terribly understaffed. Like 2 people working during dinner time. They can manage, but shit is slow, and customers hate it. Hiring a couple more people would make things better. Even if people aren't leaving because of the wait, they might be more likely to come back if it wasn't there. Expanding to new stores also becomes cheaper too.

Like with all businesses, you can make a graph with of profit vs loss. All businesses want to make as much of a profit as possible. In your example with Mc. Donalds, you can choose to have no lines at all and have very happy customers. That will cost you a lot of extra money in salaries and other various costs that goes with hiring an employee. Or you can go to the complete opposite end of the spectrum, you can be so severely understaffed that you have hour long lines, extremely unhappy customers etc. Both are bad, as both will eventually result in a loss. You'll want to be somewhere in the middle to maximize profits. You want happy customers, but you don't want to spend too much money to get it. If you can have two people working and have the customers neither unhappy nor happy, there's no reason to hire a third person to work that shift to have slightly happier customers, as it won't result in a net income. If you instead have one less person working, you might get some unhappy customers that result in them not returning, which will over time lead to a loss in profit.

Naturally, it's different for different businesses. Some businesses needs to have more happy customers to make in order to make a larger profit, as they might otherwise leave and go to a competitor instead, whereas some businesses can afford to not give a fuck about their customers, which is mainly the case if there is no competitors.

Yes, if they abolished minimum wage, they might have three people working the shift instead of two people working the shift, resulting in slightly happier customers due to the reduced line. However, you're naive to think that if people are willing to work for 3.5 an hour instead of 7 an hour you'd double the amount of jobs available. That will not be the case. You'd also end up with a lot of people that make even less money and might not be able to survive on what they make anymore, and might instead need assistance from the government. Which is your tax money. All in all, it would probably create slightly more jobs, but it would also put poor people in an even worse situation, which would eventually lead to a greater burden on the tax payers. Although businesses would certainly thrive.

Edit: They'd also need to work twice as much (144 hours a week instead of 72 hours a week) to make the same salary they would now. That's 20,3 hours a day. That's not realistic. And if they did, it would lead to a fuckload of more sick people that could not afford to pay to go to the hospital.

[ronin sparthos]

If your franchise is in a shitty location you'll run a skeleton crew to minimize costs and to hell if the customers are bitchin', they can't cook for themselves anyway. Just throw up a plexiglass barrier between employees and the customers so no one can do anything stupid which would affect the bottom line.

[dejet]

You mean the kids who are getting crowded out by adults for these jobs because the job market still sucks? Yeah, fast food/cashier/server/service type positions are supposed to be entry-level, basic jobs for teens/college students but the reality is that adults are now legitimately considering/snatching up these positions. Further, those kids employed are most likely being subsidized by their parents and the job is for supplemental income which makes the entire budget moot.

That is a problem.but that still does not change the fact of what the job is worth.

Edit. I use the help hire at my job kids where preferred because of flexible hours and less demand for money