Fast Food Strikes Coming To 150 Cities, Organizers Say

[freebuddy]

No doubt that it's shifted. That's thanks to government creating FTA's, removing tariffs, and giving every incentive for a business to move production abroad, whether it be offshoring their production or outsourcing to third parties.

So the solution proposed is to correct a government caused problem by having the government do more damage to another sector of the economy.

People just never learn.

I never had to work a fast food job. It's part of being ahead of one's time.

Some learn faster than others.

Perhaps one day you will figure it out.

How's your cushy job working at the Esso station working out?

[Lockout Casualty]

To the bold, well sure, if you'd elaborate on the Ron Paul thing, I'm genuinely interested.

You can only help the weak so much, it's not possible, nor is it logical, to do everything for them. At some point they need to decide for themselves whether they prefer to do what it takes to live an enjoyable life, or wallow in their own misery. If they so choose, I'm all for the latter.

As government has been doing more for people, they prefer to do less for themselves. Have you lived long enough to notice this change in attitude regarding entitlement? You're one of the smarter people on this forum.

If we're going to talk fantasy, can we talk about fantasy that makes some sense even in a fantasy world?

In short? A fast track to third world country USA.

Don't get me wrong, I like Paul too. Not for his economic policy, but his foreign policy. My ideal government would have Paul as Secretary of Defense (Kucinich as pres).

I've stopped following American politics about 3-4 years ago in lieu of Canadian (can't believe I thought them boring!), so my Paulism is a little rusty (he retired, right?), but cutting and eliminating taxes, avoiding starving the fed by eliminating education, energy, and a few other departments, gutting departments that aren't eliminated (FDA and CDC if I'm not mistaken are pretty important) privatizing regulatory bodies, would set the nation back in time 150 years. Isn't Paul also against minimum wage?

I could elaborate further, but it'd take me a long time to fact check every statement I make to support every conclusion I arrived at years ago, and that just sounds tedious (albeit more productive than the rest of my day). I think Paul's policies date back to a time before globalization and in complete isolation a few may be crazy enough to work, but in aggregate his policies would lead to the rich running unbridled wrecking the environment, exploiting the poor and minorities, give too much power to states (I'm a big proponent of federalism), and he's a bible thumping libertarian who doesn't think gays should have equal rights - BUT he would end the surveillance state and stop US from policing the world. That I could get behind, that alone.

In 2012, I was supporting Rocky Anderson.

Forgot about the rest of the post.

Nobody is saying to do everything for them. Don't get carried away here, all I'm arguing is that paying a living wage should be the bare minimum, nothing more. A person should be able to afford a home, healthy food, a little for savings for the future, and a little for entertainment to break the monotony of work/eat/sleep.

I'm 30 in under two months, so I'm not sure that's long enough to draw your conclusion. If that is the case, I don't necessarily think it's bad on all fronts. I think it's great people can live without worrying about their healthcare. I think it's great people can drink water from the tap not having to boil it first. I think it's great people don't have to worry about giving their kids primary education. And I think that's the direction we should continue to go in. I think we should provide college education, dental services, and a guaranteed minimum income. I think we as a society should move toward removing as much peripheral distractions to our existence as possible, so we as people can focus on actually living and not surviving. Sure, some people will have it worse than now, but many, many more will have it better, and those who have it worse, will still have it much better than the vast majority.

I'm not too worried. I see our society heading in my direction as automation eliminates millions of jobs. I see 20 hour work weeks and many hours in a day for us to focus on living and enjoying life. At least most people will work 20, those who are willing to work more will always go further. I just don't think there shouldn't be a limit to how far. I like that In Time movie with JT, I think it provided a great analogy to money and our current system with using something even more valuable than money - time.

[theminister]

Thankfully people like this aren't in charge of economies.. or businesses, lest they be run into the ground.

Actually, I am a business owner and maintain profitability. My employees are paid well above minimum wage because it's part of my business model to do so.

Or were you talking about Henry Ford? Because he knew what he was talking about and he disagreed with almost everything you have said.

[nuckin_futz]

You know this because you have personal experience paying tuition at an American university and working there too. Where are all those high paying jobs waiting to be filled?

Despite the fairly tale it's never quite as easy as 1) go to University 2) get degree 3) get well paying job.

Take my cousin for example, he has a degree in philosophy (stop laughing) and never could find a well paying job as a philosopher. Go figure eh?

The decent paying jobs are there. You have to be willing to acquire those specific skills and then be willing to move to the middle of nowhere. Study something of use to others. Philosophy, liberal arts and other useless degrees will get you an application at McDonalds.

I just can't feel too bad for people with a useless degree, a mountain of education related debt and a job in fast food who can't get ahead. Life is about choices. If they made some crappy ones, well they can make better ones next time around. C'est la vie.

[freebuddy]

In short? A fast track to third world country USA.

I think Paul's policies date back to a time before globalization and in complete isolation a few may be crazy enough to work, but in aggregate his policies would lead to the rich running unbridled wrecking the environment, exploiting the poor and minorities, give too much power to states (I'm a big proponent of federalism), and he's a bible thumping libertarian who doesn't think gays should have equal rights

Really! Like there isnt enough of that already going on without him!

[freebuddy]

Despite the fairly tale it's never quite as easy as 1) go to University 2) get degree 3) get well paying job.

Take my cousin for example, he has a degree in philosophy (stop laughing) and never could find a well paying job as a philosopher. Go figure eh?

The decent paying jobs are there. You have to be willing to acquire those specific skills and then be willing to move to the middle of nowhere. Study something of use to others. Philosophy, liberal arts and other useless degrees will get you an application at McDonalds.

I just can't feel too bad for people with a useless degree, a mountain of education related debt and a job in fast food who can't get ahead. Life is about choices. If they made some crappy ones, well they can make better ones next time around. C'est la vie.

Oh there are a lot of people out there with more "marketable" degrees out there, just not any jobs for them. I suppose they could move to other countries and get jobs there.

[Lockout Casualty]

That's a fallacy. Maybe the percentages of those jobs compared to some kid working at the malt shop or gas station has shifted since, but there are still a lot of jobs around that equate to that factory work and pay at least a living wage if not more.

Did you miss the part of having a house, a car, a stay-at-home wife, and paying for kids' college?

You know what they called that life? The American dream.

[elvis15]

No doubt that it's shifted. That's thanks to government creating FTA's, removing tariffs, and giving every incentive for a business to move production abroad, whether it be offshoring their production or outsourcing to third parties.

So the solution proposed is to correct a government caused problem by having the government do more damage to another sector of the economy.

People just never learn.

...

Not that you were putting words in my mouth, but that's a completely different direction from my point.

You know this because you have personal experience paying tuition at an American university and working there too. Where are all those high paying jobs waiting to be filled?

And you've just missed my point completely...

I'm not sure how, since I was sort of furthering the point of your original post about university educated people working at Starbucks. Last time I checked, trades are still more marketable than most university degrees - particularly for in demand areas. Find one you like, learn the trade then get a job if you don't want McDonalds to be your career.

[William_Clarkson]

lol if they don't want to work for that wage at that job, kick em' out and replace them.

[William_Clarkson]

The weak? You couldn't handle a fast food job, thats for strong people.

It's also for high school and university/college students and idiots.

[Lockout Casualty]

Actually, I am a business owner and maintain profitability. My employees are paid well above minimum wage because it's part of my business model to do so.

Or were you talking about Henry Ford? Because he knew what he was talking about and he disagreed with almost everything you have said.

I had the same business model, but my business I failed (due to other reasons).

I can't imagine building a business on the concept of paying your employees the bare minimum. I'd rather have happy, productive employees than a few extra thousand dollars income (wish my current boss had the same thoughts lol).

[Mr. Ambien]

Actually, I am a business owner and maintain profitability. My employees are paid well above minimum wage because it's part of my business model to do so.

Or were you talking about Henry Ford? Because he knew what he was talking about and he disagreed with almost everything you have said.

Whether you believe you can do a thing or not, you are right. -- Henry Ford

No, it was you. I may disagree with Ford but he's respectable and respected the freedoms of businesses and individuals to negotiate between themselves without so much dictating by the government as a third party.

Ford's success was in a more laissez-faire time.

In short? A fast track to third world country USA.

Don't get me wrong, I like Paul too. Not for his economic policy, but his foreign policy. My ideal government would have Paul as Secretary of Defense (Kucinich as pres).

I've stopped following American politics about 3-4 years ago in lieu of Canadian (can't believe I thought them boring!), so my Paulism is a little rusty (he retired, right?), but cutting and eliminating taxes, avoiding starving the fed by eliminating education, energy, and a few other departments, gutting departments that aren't eliminated (FDA and CDC if I'm not mistaken are pretty important) privatizing regulatory bodies, would set the nation back in time 150 years. Isn't Paul also against minimum wage?

I could elaborate further, but it'd take me a long time to fact check every statement I make to support every conclusion I arrived at years ago, and that just sounds tedious (albeit more productive than the rest of my day). I think Paul's policies date back to a time before globalization and in complete isolation a few may be crazy enough to work, but in aggregate his policies would lead to the rich running unbridled wrecking the environment, exploiting the poor and minorities, give too much power to states (I'm a big proponent of federalism), and he's a bible thumping libertarian who doesn't think gays should have equal rights - BUT he would end the surveillance state and stop US from policing the world. That I could get behind, that alone.

In 2012, I was supporting Rocky Anderson.

It's funny you chose Kucinich as a second to mention here.

I thought about voting for Kucinich in 2004, but instead voted Nader. Kucinich wasn't a bad choice. Not as consistent as Ron Paul, but willing enough to buck party politics to earn some respect. When Pelosi took impeachment of Bush off the table to try and win sum elekshuns, Kucinich stood by his principles and tried anyways.

I have respect for people who not only can identify a problem but have the guts to go against the trend and face backlash to do what's right.

As an aging man, Ron Paul has been in Congress for around the same years I've been alive. He's held committee positions and has had the benefit of economic advisers for years. Thus, he's watched the US government change, and has never been afraid to voice his displeasure with the way the Republican Party changed into Neoconservatives like Reagan and the Bushes.

How's your cushy job working at the Esso station working out?

How's that attempt at rustling some jimmies working out?

Oh there are a lot of people out there with more "marketable" degrees out there, just not any jobs for them. I suppose they could move to other countries and get jobs there.

LOL

I worked for Google when they were hiring people with English degrees to work frontpage.

If someone with a degree can't somehow market themselves.. they might as well wipe their asses with it and toss it away. It's not the economy's fault they chose a non-lucrative degree.

We gonna hijack another discussion with the inanity of your posts?

Not that you were putting words in my mouth, but that's a completely different direction from my point.

I'm known for tl;dr rants, don't worry about me.

[freebuddy]

Not that you were putting words in my mouth, but that's a completely different direction from my point.

And you've just missed my point completely...

I'm not sure how, since I was sort of furthering the point of your original post about university educated people working at Starbucks. Last time I checked, trades are still more marketable than most university degrees - particularly for in demand areas. Find one you like, learn the trade then get a job if you don't want McDonalds to be your career.

Youre missing MY point. Sometimes people do that, then find out there aren't the jobs they expected after they completed their education. This isnt the 1950s or 60s here.

[Mr. Ambien]

Youre missing MY point. Sometimes people do that, then find out there aren't the jobs they expected after they completed their education. This isnt the 1950s or 60s here.

What makes you think someone is entitled to a job just because they graduate college?

[freebuddy]

It's also for high school and university/college students and idiots.

which one of those describes you?

[freebuddy]

What makes you think someone is entitled to a job just because they graduate college?

What makes you think youre entitled to make that statement?

[William_Clarkson]

which one of those describes you?

I don't work at a fast food restaurant. Guess I'm not "strong" enough.

[elvis15]

Actually, I am a business owner and maintain profitability. My employees are paid well above minimum wage because it's part of my business model to do so.

Or were you talking about Henry Ford? Because he knew what he was talking about and he disagreed with almost everything you have said.

I'm not sure we're debating with them, but rather stuck in the middle of their argument.

Despite the fairly tale it's never quite as easy as 1) go to University 2) get degree 3) get well paying job.

Take my cousin for example, he has a degree in philosophy (stop laughing) and never could find a well paying job as a philosopher. Go figure eh?

The decent paying jobs are there. You have to be willing to acquire those specific skills and then be willing to move to the middle of nowhere. Study something of use to others. Philosophy, liberal arts and other useless degrees will get you an application at McDonalds.

I just can't feel too bad for people with a useless degree, a mountain of education related debt and a job in fast food who can't get ahead. Life is about choices. If they made some crappy ones, well they can make better ones next time around. C'est la vie.

That's my point of course, and it's also worth pointing out that the value of most university educations isn't what you learned, but rather that you can succeed in that environment and earn a diploma, degree, etc. There are plenty of jobs that you can get into and learn what to need to on the fly and be successful even if your degree is unrelated.

Did you miss the part of having a house, a car, a stay-at-home wife, and paying for kids' college?

You know what they called that life? The American dream.

Nope, saw that and noted it wasn't only a liveable wage but also more. But then things evolve, don't they? Like the cost of college, and families with both parents working (if they're lucky enough to have both and not be single parent) for instance?

Similar jobs are still around though. That's my point, and even with the changing world around us, it's absolutely possible to live the evolved American dream and not have to force an employer at a low end job like McDonalds to pay twice the amount for the same or similar work.

Youre missing MY point. Sometimes people do that, then find out there aren't the jobs they expected after they completed their education. This isnt the 1950s or 60s here.

And that is my point, don't do that. Don't go the university route unless there's a very good chance you'll find it useful in getting a job. Don't go into a trade that isn't hiring or is going the way of the dinosaur. There are always jobs, you have to be smart enough to pick the right one and go for it.

But this 'discussion' is a little black and white for me, with little to no grey area when it comes to what a wage could/should be. I think I'll stop arguing the same point to a select few who are tossing lobs from both sides of the spectrum.

[freebuddy]

Whether you believe you can do a thing or not, you are right. -- Henry Ford

No, it was you. I may disagree with Ford but he's respectable and respected the freedoms of businesses and individuals to negotiate between themselves without so much dictating by the government as a third party.

Ford's success was in a more laissez-faire time.

It's funny you chose Kucinich as a second to mention here.

I thought about voting for Kucinich in 2004, but instead voted Nader. Kucinich wasn't a bad choice. Not as consistent as Ron Paul, but willing enough to buck party politics to earn some respect. When Pelosi took impeachment of Bush off the table to try and win sum elekshuns, Kucinich stood by his principles and tried anyways.

I have respect for people who not only can identify a problem but have the guts to go against the trend and face backlash to do what's right.

As an aging man, Ron Paul has been in Congress for around the same years I've been alive. He's held committee positions and has had the benefit of economic advisers for years. Thus, he's watched the US government change, and has never been afraid to voice his displeasure with the way the Republican Party changed into Neoconservatives like Reagan and the Bushes.

How's that attempt at rustling some jimmies working out?

LOL

I worked for Google when they were hiring people with English degrees to work frontpage.

If someone with a degree can't somehow market themselves.. they might as well wipe their asses with it and toss it away. It's not the economy's fault they chose a non-lucrative degree.

We gonna hijack another discussion with the inanity of your posts?

I'm known for tl;dr rants, don't worry about me.

Obviously youre not very important to who you work for if you have this much time to spew nonsense on a message board. I guess thats what you Paul supporters do.

[theminister]

Whether you believe you can do a thing or not, you are right. -- Henry Ford

No, it was you. I may disagree with Ford but he's respectable and respected the freedoms of businesses and individuals to negotiate between themselves without so much dictating by the government as a third party.

Ford's success was in a more laissez-faire time.

It's funny you chose Kucinich as a second to mention here.

I thought about voting for Kucinich in 2004, but instead voted Nader. Kucinich wasn't a bad choice. Not as consistent as Ron Paul, but willing enough to buck party politics to earn some respect. When Pelosi took impeachment of Bush off the table to try and win sum elekshuns, Kucinich stood by his principles and tried anyways.

I have respect for people who not only can identify a problem but have the guts to go against the trend and face backlash to do what's right.

As an aging man, Ron Paul has been in Congress for around the same years I've been alive. He's held committee positions and has had the benefit of economic advisers for years. Thus, he's watched the US government change, and has never been afraid to voice his displeasure with the way the Republican Party changed into Neoconservatives like Reagan and the Bushes.

How's that attempt at rustling some jimmies working out?

LOL

I worked for Google when they were hiring people with English degrees to work frontpage.

If someone with a degree can't somehow market themselves.. they might as well wipe their asses with it and toss it away. It's not the economy's fault they chose a non-lucrative degree.

We gonna hijack another discussion with the inanity of your posts?

I'm known for tl;dr rants, don't worry about me.

You're missing the point with regards to your statement whether it was a more laissez-faire time. That's irrelevant.

Ford understood that the health of a business economy required paying his employees better than his competitors not less as is the perogative of most corporations today. Through this he created higher purchasing power, not least from his own employees, and brand loyalty from the general public. His product was not appreciably better.

He also was adamant that the company is strictly the workforce and he just paid the cheques. This is in stark contrast to modern capitalist dogma of job creationism, itself a faith based concept as opposed to factual, and of the belief that dividends and bonuses were of greater importance than the livability of his workforce.

That's what true industrialism and capitalism was. The government has not changed this philosophical approach, greed and lack of respect has. Today marketing is more important than the employees, service or product. That's the fault of consumers for not demanding and supporting those factors more than brand recognition.