The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » McDonalds to start paying $15 - $20 minimum wage any day now (16 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..7..11..15..19..22~23~24~25~26..30~31~32 [Next]
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
18980 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, acesover wrote:

Productivity has surged not because the people are working harder. Quite the contrary. They are working less because of advancements made by peop0le who went to school and found an easier and better way to do the same thing with less work. Are you telling me that working on a production line making cars is harder now than when Henry Ford came up with the idea of the production line? Yet we sure are making a lot more cars with less effort.

I definitely agree people should earn a decent living. But some jobs are not for raising a family. Such jobs would be working at McDonalds asking if you want fries with that. Sorry no skill involved just time and a Doctor's time while at work is worth more than a person working at a McDonalds. Sorry that is just fact.

Actually, hours worked is increasing- at least among white collar jobs where salaried employees don't get paid overtime.

It would also be nice if there were enough jobs available so people raising families didn't have to work minimum wage jobs. Maybe if they were managers? Except McDonalds managers average $43,222 a year. (McDonald's CEO makes $8.75 million, 580 times the wage of his minimum-wage employees, or more than 200 times that of his average manager- and McDonald's profits are down 21% lately.)


So what exactly is your point? Is it that McDonald's managers should make $8.75 million a year or should the CEO of McDonald's make $43,222 a year?

Some countries limit CEO pay to 12 or 20 times what their lowest-paid employee makes. (I don't know if this includes stock options as well.) France caps state-owned businesses from paying their CEOs more than $560,000 (give or take, depending on exchange rate.)

You may argue that this means the companies won't be able to get the "best talent." And that's valid- because CEOs in America have been paid outrageous sums for years now. On the other hand, salary caps also prevent executives from raiding the profits of companies. Don't tell me that doesn't happen, either- so-called "golden parachutes" mean that executives can fail, and fail miserably, and still receive millions of dollars when they step down. One wonders how shareholders can justify such packages at the expense of profits.

From a socio-economic standpoint, a CEO salary cap would greatly reduce income inequality, a factor that's been linked to a lot of less-desirable social problems, including crime.



Are you going to claim that the government should be allowed to have ANY say in what the maximum a person can earn in the United States?

Income inequality is a red herring. How about income inequality for elected representatives. How about the income inequality with the president? Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton? The Kennedys? Nancy Pelosi? Does that income inequality bother you so much? The ones who get rich specifically FROM politics.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
15456 Posts

Profile of tommy
What is the minimum wage in left wing utopia of North Korea?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
801 Posts

Profile of acesover
I can not believe I read here that some feel that a person should only be allowed to make so much money. Can you really justify such a concept?


My God. At one end you want to tell us that we must give everyone a wage so they can live comfortably regardless of their contributions to their employer. Then you want to limit the salary of those who grow a company. Are you people deranged? Where is the logic in this train of thought?

With this logic what would be the purpose of trying to get ahead? What motivation would there be? Would everyone just be entitled? Can you imagine the work ethic?
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
15456 Posts

Profile of tommy
What logic is there in getting a head?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
801 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, tommy wrote:
What logic is there in getting a head?


That depends on the individual. Some people take pride in what they can accomplish. Some people obviously do it for the financial rewards. Some people don't care one way or the other. However those people want the rewards that comes from education and contributing to your employer.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
893 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

Are you going to claim that the government should be allowed to have ANY say in what the maximum a person can earn in the United States?

Income inequality is a red herring. How about income inequality for elected representatives. How about the income inequality with the president? Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton? The Kennedys? Nancy Pelosi? Does that income inequality bother you so much? The ones who get rich specifically FROM politics.

Pay for elected representatives is a red herring. A Congressman's official salary is $174,000. The Vice President makes $233,000. The President makes $400,000. It's a moot point, since almost every politician on the national scene is already independently wealthy anyway.

On the other hand, let's look at the economy. Let's skip McDonalds for a moment (I'll come back to it.) Instead, let's look at Larry Ellison, the CEO of Discovery Communications, Inc. What is a single person going to do with his 2014 salary of $67.25 million? Buy a new wide-screen TV, a new car, a new suit or three, pay his mortgage and living expenses (including salaries for his hired help), tithe or donate some to charity, and then stick the rest of it into stocks and other investments that will in all likelyhood just sit there. (He's certainly not spending it all, otherwise he wouldn't be worth $54 billion.)

His company has 132,365 employees. They're payed well- average salary is $73,000 (though Larry's income is roughly 900 times that.) Let's, hypothetically speaking, of course, give Larry a salary of $2.25 million instead (only 30 times the average of his employees,) and give the rest to his employees as a bonus. That's only about $490 a person- a small bonus, but, speaking as someone with a middle class income myself, I bet the majority of it will be spent- 132,365 people can find a lot more uses for $500 than one man can find for $65 million.

Which of these stimulates the US economy more, do you think?

Going back to McDonalds, what if their CEO made only $750,000 and you handed the rest to the company's 400,000 non-franchise employees? What if I handed you that $20, unconditionally? You're probably going to put that right back into the economy, aren't you?

This is why income inequality matters. It's not about jealousy. It's about strengthening the position of the lower and middle class, and by doing so, allowing them the luxury of spending more money and further strengthening the economy.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
893 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, acesover wrote:
I can not believe I read here that some feel that a person should only be allowed to make so much money. Can you really justify such a concept?


My God. At one end you want to tell us that we must give everyone a wage so they can live comfortably regardless of their contributions to their employer. Then you want to limit the salary of those who grow a company. Are you people deranged? Where is the logic in this train of thought?

With this logic what would be the purpose of trying to get ahead? What motivation would there be? Would everyone just be entitled? Can you imagine the work ethic?

How about anyone who earns a billion dollars be given a fancy trophy, congratulated, then forbidden from making another cent ever again. They've proven they're cut-throat and greedy enough to prize money over everything else, and are a danger to society. What the hell are they going to do with all that money? Build a giant vault and swim in it like Scrooge McDuck?

Go ahead, I dare you, try to figure out how you'd spend a billion dollars. The results would make the movie Brewster's Millions seem tame in comparison.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
893 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Correction of above post in response to Dannydoyle- Larry Ellison is CEO of Oracle. The CEO of Discovery Communications Inc is David Zaslav, who made $156 million last year. His company has 5,486 employees, but I doubt that includes the numerous subsidiaries. I was initially going to use him as the example, but the numbers were so absurd it would have abstracted my point.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3501 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Are you going to claim that the government should be allowed to have ANY say in what the maximum a person can earn in the United States?

I thought that that was the responsibility of the compensation committee of the board of directors.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4562 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, RNK wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, rowdymagi5 wrote:
There will always be those at or near the bottom that are jealous of those at the top. I don't hear anybody crying about Harry Reid becoming a millionaire after he was elected as a government official. Or, for that matter, most politicians.


? I don't think anyone (except another politician), anywhere, is happy that politicians are making money by exploiting their positions. Really off topic, imo. Maybe you missed it, but there has been quite a bit of buzz lately about a former President who charged a wounded veterans group $100,000 to speak before a group of veterans--veterans who were wounded by his very misguided and reckless policies which sent them needlessly into battle in the first place. Don't know anyone who's defending that. But maybe I travel in the wrong circles.


.......AND...... Hillary Clinton charges $200,000 to speak at an underprivileged boy/girls club then leaves without even saying hello to the boys and girls. They ALL are scumbags...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-......eon.html

You won't get any disagreement with me there.
I still am puzzled as to what this has to do with letting people survive when they work a forty-hour week.
"I use my five illusions to create the sense I'm useful to six."



You can read my daily blog at Musings, Memories, and Magic
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2647 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, acesover wrote:
I can not believe I read here that some feel that a person should only be allowed to make so much money. Can you really justify such a concept?


My God. At one end you want to tell us that we must give everyone a wage so they can live comfortably regardless of their contributions to their employer. Then you want to limit the salary of those who grow a company. Are you people deranged? Where is the logic in this train of thought?

With this logic what would be the purpose of trying to get ahead? What motivation would there be? Would everyone just be entitled? Can you imagine the work ethic?


My God, I cannot believe I read here that it's OK for a CEO to set up a contract that lets him completely gut a company of all worth and still get huge payouts upon leaving!
"He was born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad." - Rafael Sabatini, Scaramouche
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4562 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
How about income inequality for elected representatives. How about the income inequality with the president? Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton? The Kennedys? Nancy Pelosi? Does that income inequality bother you so much? The ones who get rich specifically FROM politics.


Uhh...yeah. Again, I don't know who you are addressing this to. I don't think many would argue this point with you. I just don't get how this has anything to do with raising the minimum wage.
"I use my five illusions to create the sense I'm useful to six."



You can read my daily blog at Musings, Memories, and Magic
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
801 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

Are you going to claim that the government should be allowed to have ANY say in what the maximum a person can earn in the United States?

Income inequality is a red herring. How about income inequality for elected representatives. How about the income inequality with the president? Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton? The Kennedys? Nancy Pelosi? Does that income inequality bother you so much? The ones who get rich specifically FROM politics.

Pay for elected representatives is a red herring. A Congressman's official salary is $174,000. The Vice President makes $233,000. The President makes $400,000. It's a moot point, since almost every politician on the national scene is already independently wealthy anyway.

On the other hand, let's look at the economy. Let's skip McDonalds for a moment (I'll come back to it.) Instead, let's look at Larry Ellison, the CEO of Discovery Communications, Inc. What is a single person going to do with his 2014 salary of $67.25 million? Buy a new wide-screen TV, a new car, a new suit or three, pay his mortgage and living expenses (including salaries for his hired help), tithe or donate some to charity, and then stick the rest of it into stocks and other investments that will in all likelyhood just sit there. (He's certainly not spending it all, otherwise he wouldn't be worth $54 billion.)

His company has 132,365 employees. They're payed well- average salary is $73,000 (though Larry's income is roughly 900 times that.) Let's, hypothetically speaking, of course, give Larry a salary of $2.25 million instead (only 30 times the average of his employees,) and give the rest to his employees as a bonus. That's only about $490 a person- a small bonus, but, speaking as someone with a middle class income myself, I bet the majority of it will be spent- 132,365 people can find a lot more uses for $500 than one man can find for $65 million.

Which of these stimulates the US economy more, do you think?

Going back to McDonalds, what if their CEO made only $750,000 and you handed the rest to the company's 400,000 non-franchise employees? What if I handed you that $20, unconditionally? You're probably going to put that right back into the economy, aren't you?

This is why income inequality matters. It's not about jealousy. It's about strengthening the position of the lower and middle class, and by doing so, allowing them the luxury of spending more money and further strengthening the economy.


Do you realize the infinitesimal amount of money you are talking about? It amounts to a lightening bug's rear as compared to the noonday sun as far as the economy is concerned.

You are blinded and so confused because you feel you are being cheated because other people are more capable of earning more money than yourself. Give it a rest already. This is America. You are in the land of opportunity. The only thing stopping you from earning more money is yourself. If you want to stay stuck where you are, it is your right to do so. But do not begrudge others from earning more money than you because they are ambitious. Also don't expect them to give you some of theirs. How much have you given those who make much less than yourself?

Instead of sitting at your computer and complaining about how unfair wages are. Go do something worth while and earn some more money. Sitting in front of the computer typing on a magic forum is not going to do it for you.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
18980 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

Are you going to claim that the government should be allowed to have ANY say in what the maximum a person can earn in the United States?

Income inequality is a red herring. How about income inequality for elected representatives. How about the income inequality with the president? Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton? The Kennedys? Nancy Pelosi? Does that income inequality bother you so much? The ones who get rich specifically FROM politics.

Pay for elected representatives is a red herring. A Congressman's official salary is $174,000. The Vice President makes $233,000. The President makes $400,000. It's a moot point, since almost every politician on the national scene is already independently wealthy anyway.

On the other hand, let's look at the economy. Let's skip McDonalds for a moment (I'll come back to it.) Instead, let's look at Larry Ellison, the CEO of Discovery Communications, Inc. What is a single person going to do with his 2014 salary of $67.25 million? Buy a new wide-screen TV, a new car, a new suit or three, pay his mortgage and living expenses (including salaries for his hired help), tithe or donate some to charity, and then stick the rest of it into stocks and other investments that will in all likelyhood just sit there. (He's certainly not spending it all, otherwise he wouldn't be worth $54 billion.)

His company has 132,365 employees. They're payed well- average salary is $73,000 (though Larry's income is roughly 900 times that.) Let's, hypothetically speaking, of course, give Larry a salary of $2.25 million instead (only 30 times the average of his employees,) and give the rest to his employees as a bonus. That's only about $490 a person- a small bonus, but, speaking as someone with a middle class income myself, I bet the majority of it will be spent- 132,365 people can find a lot more uses for $500 than one man can find for $65 million.

Which of these stimulates the US economy more, do you think?

Going back to McDonalds, what if their CEO made only $750,000 and you handed the rest to the company's 400,000 non-franchise employees? What if I handed you that $20, unconditionally? You're probably going to put that right back into the economy, aren't you?

This is why income inequality matters. It's not about jealousy. It's about strengthening the position of the lower and middle class, and by doing so, allowing them the luxury of spending more money and further strengthening the economy.


So your answer is a resounding yes. In the United States the government should control what one makes.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
893 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, acesover wrote:
Do you realize the infinitesimal amount of money you are talking about? It amounts to a lightening bug's rear as compared to the noonday sun as far as the economy is concerned.

You are blinded and so confused because you feel you are being cheated because other people are more capable of earning more money than yourself. Give it a rest already. This is America. You are in the land of opportunity. The only thing stopping you from earning more money is yourself. If you want to stay stuck where you are, it is your right to do so. But do not begrudge others from earning more money than you because they are ambitious. Also don't expect them to give you some of theirs. How much have you given those who make much less than yourself?

Instead of sitting at your computer and complaining about how unfair wages are. Go do something worth while and earn some more money. Sitting in front of the computer typing on a magic forum is not going to do it for you.

I happen to be earning money. I'm just on break right now. And I'm happy with where I am. But you may be amazed to discover that not everyone who works hard can simply make unlimited money. Here's a comic strip about it you may find enlightening:
http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
893 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

Are you going to claim that the government should be allowed to have ANY say in what the maximum a person can earn in the United States?

Income inequality is a red herring. How about income inequality for elected representatives. How about the income inequality with the president? Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton? The Kennedys? Nancy Pelosi? Does that income inequality bother you so much? The ones who get rich specifically FROM politics.

Pay for elected representatives is a red herring. A Congressman's official salary is $174,000. The Vice President makes $233,000. The President makes $400,000. It's a moot point, since almost every politician on the national scene is already independently wealthy anyway.

On the other hand, let's look at the economy. Let's skip McDonalds for a moment (I'll come back to it.) Instead, let's look at Larry Ellison, the CEO of Discovery Communications, Inc. What is a single person going to do with his 2014 salary of $67.25 million? Buy a new wide-screen TV, a new car, a new suit or three, pay his mortgage and living expenses (including salaries for his hired help), tithe or donate some to charity, and then stick the rest of it into stocks and other investments that will in all likelyhood just sit there. (He's certainly not spending it all, otherwise he wouldn't be worth $54 billion.)

His company has 132,365 employees. They're payed well- average salary is $73,000 (though Larry's income is roughly 900 times that.) Let's, hypothetically speaking, of course, give Larry a salary of $2.25 million instead (only 30 times the average of his employees,) and give the rest to his employees as a bonus. That's only about $490 a person- a small bonus, but, speaking as someone with a middle class income myself, I bet the majority of it will be spent- 132,365 people can find a lot more uses for $500 than one man can find for $65 million.

Which of these stimulates the US economy more, do you think?

Going back to McDonalds, what if their CEO made only $750,000 and you handed the rest to the company's 400,000 non-franchise employees? What if I handed you that $20, unconditionally? You're probably going to put that right back into the economy, aren't you?

This is why income inequality matters. It's not about jealousy. It's about strengthening the position of the lower and middle class, and by doing so, allowing them the luxury of spending more money and further strengthening the economy.


So your answer is a resounding yes. In the United States the government should control what one makes.

To prevent the abuse of the impoverished, and support the general welfare, yes- the government should set guidelines and restrictions. Certainly on minimum wages, though the argument can be made for maximum wages as well, if abuse is rampant and hurting the economy, and the private sector is incapable of policing itself.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
18980 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Why was I not surprised? Minimum wage no problem. What should be maximum? And where does the money go once you reach that maximum? To the government I bet huh?

Yes they always do what is best for the economy.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
893 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Quote:
On Jul 14, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Why was I not surprised? Minimum wage no problem. What should be maximum? And where does the money go once you reach that maximum? To the government I bet huh?

Yes they always do what is best for the economy.

Of course they don't. But maybe they should.

Why not look at some of the other countries and set CEO pay to a maximum of 30 times the average pay of their employees? That's more than generous, and if the CEO wants a raise, he can pay his employees more, too. Eh, I'm probably being optimistic. The CEOs will end up hiring a bunch of contractors who aren't technically employees for everything but managerial and executive positions.

Note that I'm not saying "excess income should be removed via taxes." Nor would I restrict a CEO from holding down multiple jobs, if he really wants to keep making an obscene amount of cash. And there's always investments for extra income.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
18980 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Why do you think the government, or in this case YOU have the right to tell anyone how much they can make?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
801 Posts

Profile of acesover
Let's see now. The government should tell me how much money I can make, what kind of car I am allowed to drive, how many pets I can have, how big my living quarters should be, what foods I am allowed to eat, maybe pick out living quarters just so no one will be upset because someone has more than someone else so they should all be the same with a nice color gray for the interior. But at least they let us marry who we want, and let us have control of our bodies. Smile Yea that all sounds like a great way to live. Almost forgot. Take our guns in order to stop all of the violence. This really sounds like utopia.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » McDonalds to start paying $15 - $20 minimum wage any day now (16 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..7..11..15..19..22~23~24~25~26..30~31~32 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2018 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.28 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL