Fast Food Worker Strikes!

[klr]

Is there any point even trying to respond to a ridiculous rant like that? Did you just sit down and compose that, or grab it from somewhere else?

Those who only interpret (or see) history through the lenses of their own extreme standpoint are doomed to failure ... or at least disappointment.

Good grief. Do you really live your life thinking about this sort of thing?

Well, as someone who knows human nature pretty well, Seth is absolutely correct in his entire "rant."

Instead of just calling it "ridiculous" why don't you explain why and how Seth is wrong?

Because from where I am sitting, Seth is absolutely right about human nature and that's why socialism doesn't work.

You agreeing with Seth doesn't make him right. It just means that the two of you think the same way.

As for rebutting it in detail: During my time on the Internet, I've paid my dues on that score, and then some. I've been in many lengthy and convoluted debates in my time. But I also know full that it's a waste of time to try and argue with someone who has time and time again shown that they are not interested in any argument, viewpoint or evidence that might contradict any idée fixe that they cherish. When the only response is the same tired old broken record, why bother?

[Collector1337]

You agreeing with Seth doesn't make him right. It just means that the two of you think the same way.

Me agreeing with him doesn't make him right, but all the facts of history, psychology, and human nature being on his side, does make him right.

As for rebutting it in detail: During my time on the Internet, I've paid my dues on that score, and then some. I've been in many lengthy and convoluted debates in my time. But I also know full that it's a waste of time to try and argue with someone who has time and time again shown that they are not interested in any argument, viewpoint or evidence that might contradict any idée fixe that they cherish. When the only response is the same tired old broken record, why bother?

Nice spiel about your time on the internet, but if you're not going to engage, then why the fuck are you even here?

If you're going to poke and prod with comments, but not engage, some would call that trolling.

[klr]

You agreeing with Seth doesn't make him right. It just means that the two of you think the same way.

Me agreeing with him doesn't make him right, but all the facts of history, psychology, and human nature being on his side, does make him right.

As for rebutting it in detail: During my time on the Internet, I've paid my dues on that score, and then some. I've been in many lengthy and convoluted debates in my time. But I also know full that it's a waste of time to try and argue with someone who has time and time again shown that they are not interested in any argument, viewpoint or evidence that might contradict any idée fixe that they cherish. When the only response is the same tired old broken record, why bother?

Nice spiel about your time on the internet, but if you're not going to engage, then why the fuck are you even here?

If you're going to poke and prod with comments, but not engage, some would call that trolling.

Why am I here? Oddly, I could have asked you the exact same question, but with more justification. Seeing that almost all you ever do is engage in bitter and rancorous sniping at those who do not share you cherished views ... why are you here?

If you (or Seth) ever show any inclination towards reasoned debate - and a willingness to change your minds - then I'm sure I would be willing to engage. But I won't be betting on that.

[Cormac]

what i find particularly pernicious is the zero hours contracts foisted onto the lowest paid employees which requires them to be available with no guarantee of enough hours to work to earn enough to live. that disgusting method has made its way to britain and it means that the taxpayers are now subsidising businesses to the tune of tax credits to top up the measly wages these greedy cunts of business fail to pay their staff.

people can bang on all they like about marxism and socialism, but that's exactly what business is sucking from the public teat at the expense of the workers, without whom they have no fucking business. i try to find out which of these gigantic corporations use these zero hour contracts and boycott them, as i do anything halal, which is equally disgusting and unwelcome.

These are appalling.

[pErvinalia]

Scarily I agree with a lot that laklak says, capitalism cannot possible supply enough work for the majority of the population in the end. I think we have probably got a generation or two but even know a significant % of the population are not going to be capable of ever being economically productive from the second they are conceived

Our analysis of events is usually fairly close, mrjonno, our differences generally lie in how we would deal with the problems. You prefer to rely on the social and political infrastructure, I prefer to rely on myself. Different strokes.

The other big factor to add to that is the aging population bubble. They need to work longer to support themselves in jobs that will be disappearing, and the young won't have the jobs to generate the tax income to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers.

[Seth]

...

I think about many things. It's a sign of intelligence to be able to entertain a wide variety of thoughts on diverse subjects. I also prepare for many eventualities, some more likely than others, which guides the level of both contemplation and preparedness. That's another sign of intelligence.

It's your assessment of likely eventualities that worries me.

You don't have the faintest idea of what my assessments are. You're making the gross mistake of assuming what you read here reflects any sort of reality at all. It might, it might not. You just never know.

Of course I know what your assessments are. You come here and shout them from the rooftops at every available opportunity, letting everyone know exactly what concerns you and what your views are. You could not be more transparent.

Nah, just the arguments I want my persona to project, that's all.

[Seth]

Is there any point even trying to respond to a ridiculous rant like that? Did you just sit down and compose that, or grab it from somewhere else?

Those who only interpret (or see) history through the lenses of their own extreme standpoint are doomed to failure ... or at least disappointment.

Good grief. Do you really live your life thinking about this sort of thing?

Well, as someone who knows human nature pretty well, Seth is absolutely correct in his entire "rant."

Instead of just calling it "ridiculous" why don't you explain why and how Seth is wrong?

Because from where I am sitting, Seth is absolutely right about human nature and that's why socialism doesn't work.

You agreeing with Seth doesn't make him right. It just means that the two of you think the same way.

As for rebutting it in detail: During my time on the Internet, I've paid my dues on that score, and then some. I've been in many lengthy and convoluted debates in my time. But I also know full that it's a waste of time to try and argue with someone who has time and time again shown that they are not interested in any argument, viewpoint or evidence that might contradict any idée fixe that they cherish. When the only response is the same tired old broken record, why bother?

Not with me. Not here. And not about Marxism. You're just evading the debate like every other Marxist I've ever met anywhere on the planet. They refuse to defend their sociopathic sociopolitical model because they know full well it's fatally flawed and can't be rationally supported or ethically defended. They know it's pure-quill involuntary servitude that is simply morally and ethically indefensible, but they are all, every single one of them, members of the proletarian dependent class who support the system only because the OPM directly and individually benefits them. They don't give a flying fuck where it comes from or who has to be robbed and enslaved for them to get their claws on the public largess, they just want it at anyone else's expense because they are cowards, thieves and morally corrupt in the extreme. All their high-sounding excuses and rants against "big corporations" are nothing more or less than manifestations of proletarian Marxist jealousy, envy and greed. They are no better than the armed thug who beats you senseless with a crowbar and then steals your wallet. In fact they are much, much worse because they aren't even honest enough with themselves to admit that's exactly what they are doing, and because they misuse the power of the Mace of State to rob and enslave others.

There's no reasoning with them because they are unreasoning cupidinous weasels and thieves and they like it that way. So long as they are the beneficiaries of the enslavement of others anyway. But gore their ox and take the fruits of THEIR labor, or presume to pay them only what they are actually worth and they scream more loudly than anyone.

Hypocritical asses, one and all.

[Seth]

If you (or Seth) ever show any inclination towards reasoned debate - and a willingness to change your minds - then I'm sure I would be willing to engage. But I won't be betting on that.

See, right there's your problem Sparky! In order to engage in "reasoned debate" with you WE have to be prepared to change our minds. Not you, no, your opinions are sacrosanct and impervious to criticism.

That's the problem with Marxist True Believers, they can dish it out, but they can't take it.

It's not us who need to change, it's you...and every other Marxist/Socialist on the planet...who needs to learn some fundamental facts of economics, sociology, psychology, human behavior and politics in order to even begin a debate. Marxists don't learn, they are proud of their stupidity and ignorance. They eschew all reason and logic in favor of their flatly and obviously religious beliefs about Marxism. They are worse than Catholics because Catholics don't presume to enslave others to their personal service.

You don't debate because you cannot do so. Sorry, but that's just the truth. You don't have it in you and you don't have any rational arguments to make in support of Marxism or Socialism, so all you can do is throw poo and evade the debate.

So quit lying and just admit that you have no rational, moral or ethical defense of Marxism or Socialism of any stripe available to you at all.

[Coito ergo sum]

In the US, the minimum wage really doesn't matter because almost nobody who has to support a family earns only minimum wage. As noted above, the minimum wage is earned mostly be teenagers and college students working during school. Raise the minimum wage, and more of those jobs go away. If this really was about paying breadwinners a "living wage" my view might be different. But, it isn't.

The Florida one look quite high through I don't think we are comparing like with like, the minimum wage for a 21 year + is by definition not for teenagers or students. Strangely I earned more per hour at 13 than I did at 23 (all before a minimum wage, papers round paid well if you were prepared to us a pram to deliver them)

In the UK the minimum wage depends on your age and is a lot less if you are a kid

21 and over 18 to 20 Under 18 Apprentice*
£6.31 £5.03 £3.72 £2.68

The politics are also more complex than pro or anti business, even conservatives including the PM release that a low minimum wage means high tax subsidies for employers/employees. If a business can't pay it staff enough money to survive without government assistance in wages its basically not profitable which is a strong argument for letting the business go to the wall or simply nationalising it

You mean... there are jobs in the UK that don't pay a "living wage?" For shame.

[MrJonno]

You mean... there are jobs in the UK that don't pay a "living wage?" For shame.

Loads of them, seem to forget the UK is an arch capitalist country (hard to believe if you watch Fox news). If you are going for not giving a shit about worker conditions and unrestricted capitalism you have the Chinese as top capitalists of them all, followed by the US with the UK sniffing up its arse

[piscator]

So there'll be, like, press gangs roving the streets and bars, slipping Mickeys and "recruiting" fast food scabs?


I'm just having a little trouble imagining the throngs of people who'll be chomping at the bit to get in on the coming juicy wave of minimum wage fast food scabbing opportunities, yet are somehow unaware of its tremendous potential for personal and professional growth at present?

Maybe lawmakers will relax immigration requirements?

Some poultry plant in the South got raided by ICE a year or so ago and they hauled off nearly all the illegal workers and fined the company. The next day the company put ads in the paper for new employees and THOUSANDS of LEGAL workers showed up to apply.

Ever notice that when the economy's bad and lots of people are out of work your fast-food experience is much better than when the economy is hot and unemployment is low? Less surly attitude, smiles and prompt attention to your needs, fewer lugies in your taco and suchlike?


There's a reason for that.

Can you figure out what that reason is?

Here's a hint: It's the same market force that happens when you up the minimum wage...

The chicken plant tripled wages?


A whole bunch of school bus drivers and landscapers needed to pay the balloon notes on their $900,000 McMansions they bought before the Subprime Bubble burst?

Nope. Most of the applicants were legal Somali refugees willing to work for the wages offered.

So you're saying McDonald's should take over Somalia if the minimum wage goes up?

Show us the numbers on that. I'm thinking kiosks might be cheaper.

What happens is, when you raise the minimum wage, the unskilled, new entry-level teenage workers can't get jobs because more experienced, older, more reliable and more manageable unemployed adults take the jobs from them....

That's fucking ridiculous. Were that true, McDonald's would pay enough to attract experienced older reliable manageable adults in the first place.

A rising tide raises all boats. Deal with it.

[Coito ergo sum]

You mean... there are jobs in the UK that don't pay a "living wage?" For shame.

Loads of them, seem to forget the UK is an arch capitalist country (hard to believe if you watch Fox news).

Actually, it's hard to believe if you listen to many of the Brits and other Yerpeeins here. But, it tends to depend on the thread. If the thread is about criticisms of American capitalism, we're told that countries like the UK, Oz, and continental Yerpeein countries are more civilized and socialist. If the thread involves someone calling them socialist in a negative way, then we are told they are capitalist and that calling them socialist is only done by the ignorant tea party jerks.

If you are going for not giving a shit about worker conditions and unrestricted capitalism you have the Chinese as top capitalists of them all, followed by the US with the UK sniffing up its arse

Not giving a shit about worker conditions =/= capitalism. That seems to be a rampant misconception. Socialism gets redefined as "caring for people" (which it doesn't mean that), and captitalism gets defined as "every man for himself" (which it doesn't mean that).

As bad as the Chinese have it now, though, the small amount of capitalism that they have moved toward has actually improved the lot of the common person in China. Maoist socialism was much worse. The post-Mao reforms from 1976 through the late 1990s, while not accurately described really as "free market" capitalism, certainly moved closer to that than they were before. What they've done has helped the average Chinaman. What is holding China back, though, is the lack of political liberalization. Right now it is more of a state-led, authoritarian capitalism.

[Coito ergo sum]

What happens is, when you raise the minimum wage, the unskilled, new entry-level teenage workers can't get jobs because more experienced, older, more reliable and more manageable unemployed adults take the jobs from them....

That's fucking ridiculous. Were that true, McDonald's would pay enough to attract experienced older reliable manageable adults in the first place.

A rising tide raises all boats. Deal with it.

It's a question of degree, of course, but what Seth says is not "ridiculous" in this case.

It's not that McDonald's need the most highly skilled and educated worker to hand out fries, but if McDonald's is going to pay $15 an hour for someone they are going to pay for a college graduate, not a high school drop out, even if a high school drop out would be sufficient.

It is most certainly not true that raising the minimum wage means that all wages up the wage scale will have a corresponding increase. That isn't what happens.

Wages are set by supply of workers and demand for workers. As the price of workers goes up, the demand for those workers tends to push downward. That is, a company who would want 10 menial workers if the wages are very low would make do with fewer as the wages required to hire them is increased. So, the number of available jobs tends to go down as the price goes up. Moreover, as the wages for a job go up, the competition for those jobs tends to go up because people compete for the higher paying jobs.

These are general statements, and of course demand can also be more elastic or more inelastic -- which means that industries and types of jobs may differ in the price-demand curve. Sometimes a small increase in price has a huge impact on demand, and sometimes the price will have a smaller impact on demand (depending, for example, on how critical a product, or job function in the case of workers, is).

[laklak]

I can only comment from my perspective, from back in the day when I ran a business and had people working for me. If I had to pay $15 an hour for someone to hand out hotdogs from the trailer window and manage to make change for a 20, I'd hire the college graduate, probably an art student. Better conversation when things slowed down.

Or women with big tits. Maybe big-titted art majors, but they'd have to shave their legs. And no pit hair. I'm a bastard of a boss, really.

[Coito ergo sum]

I can only comment from my perspective, from back in the day when I ran a business and had people working for me. If I had to pay $15 an hour for someone to hand out hotdogs from the trailer window and manage to make change for a 20, I'd hire the college graduate, probably an art student. Better conversation when things slowed down.

Or women with big tits. Maybe big-titted art majors, but they'd have to shave their legs. And no pit hair. I'm a bastard of a boss, really.

Your industry is a good example, too. If they jacked up your labor cost to $15 an hour, you might choose to work more yourself rather than have someone in there for you. You may do without as much help. If the government sets the price you have to pay for labor, but the market sets the price for hot dogs, you could be priced out of the market by too dramatic a hike in the minimum wage. Let's say you can sell a hot dog for $1.50. If the cost of production increases, you still can't raise the price too much, because people will stop buying your dogs. If you could charge more before, you would have.

It would be like the government setting the price you have to pay for hot dog buns. If they tripled your hot dog bun cost, that would not automatically mean you could just increase the cost of your dogs. You are competing with other low cost food alternatives, and if people have to pay too much for a dog, they'll go somewhere else.