News, McDonald's president who made $7.4 million last year says proposal to pay fast-food workers $22 an hour is 'costly (2015, franchises)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
how do these same American chain restaurants pay their employees 18-23$ / hour in Europe? Don't forget maternity/paternity leave, 4-6 weeks of vacation, and they're in a union!!!!
Yes, everyone agrees unions are bad for all the obvious reasons.
says a patriotic american't who lives in a country that just printed $319 Billion dollars to bail out a couple of banks. (Again)
where's their bootstraps? where were they in 2008, and 2009, and elsewhere? Hyper-Capitalism as practiced by American't is so great We the People have to bail it out all the time.
get rid of federal farmers insurance, federal crop insurance, stop paying for their spilt milk when they determine the price is too low, Capitalism Baby!
and don't forget the pandemic when this country printed $6 Trillion and game 90% of it to the richest people in this country,the single largest upward transfer of wealth in history.
the problem with american't capitalists is they don't practice what they preach.
So basically your argument for paying fast food workers more (that will end up making things worse) is that others get bailouts? How is that relevant?
The government are not bailing out the banks, they are insuring the depositors.
The low wage workers can get government assistance for housing, medical and food even now. These workers also got much in payouts from the pandemic - from PPP program, the 4 payouts and enhanced unemployment. Personally I didn't even get a dime from that $6T - the wealthy got next to nothing from these payments - did you think they got some secret payments?
Payouts are not capitalism - kind of the opposite. You are really not making any sense - capitalists do not benefit from bailouts - they only gain from the economic activity / recovery that helps everyone.
A capitalist would insist on the market to set the wages, not the government - and certainly not a bailout - that is practicing what they preach.
Apparently not english either; from the oxford english dictionary
Quote:
screed / skrēd / noun
1. a long speech or piece of writing, typically one regarded as tedious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSOFFLine
Unions are bad? Let's start with the Police, dismantle now. or are you a Hypocrite?
In general, Unions are not good for the economy because they are impacting the free market wages - negatively impacting manufacturing competitiveness. Interesting that you seem only concerned with Police and not really their unions - dismantling the police unions is in no way a means of dismantling the police departments or their funding - the police would still exist even if no unions. Police unions are pretty conservative, most of the other unions are liberal - only a hypocrite would propose getting rid of only one side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSOFFLine
not false at all, I see you're one of the these 'i got my own facts' people.
irrelevant? capitalism says let them fail, market conditions and all.
Actually completely false - read the stories - it is you that is asserting their "own facts".
The reality is the government is not bailing out the banks, the fed is loaning money to shore them up, with treasuries being used as collateral and the FDIC has taken them over - they are paying back the depositors. Taxpayers are not really footing the bill - nearly all the money is still collateralized and much of the rest will be covered by the FDIC insurance - when all is settled, expect very little will be covered by the taxpayers.
The irrelevant part is that your post has nothing to do with McDonald's CEO. Let them fail would cause bigger issues - banks do not have much money in their vaults, most of it is invested so a bank run would wipe out most banks cash very quickly - causing others to fail. That would be much worse.
McDonalds has about 150K employees (down from 200K pre pandemic) - if you gave the entire $7.4M to the 150K workers it would raise their pay about $49 each for the year, or just under $1 a week - that is about $0.02/hr. So I guess you can take his salary and can raise the pay 2 cents - would not get you even close to the $22/hr that the OP was citing. Raising salary to $22/hr would cost billions.
Starting jobs like working front end at McD's is not meant to be a career.
I think your confusing McDonald's Corporate employees with those working at the restaurant franchisees. McDonald's have over 40,000 McDonald's restaurant locations. If they were staffed with Corporate employees, that would get you a staff of 3.7 people per restaurant. Typically it takes 8 to 15 employees per shift to run a McDonald's, about 2 million people work at all the restaurant locations.
I think your confusing McDonald's Corporate employees with those working at the restaurant franchisees. McDonald's have over 40,000 McDonald's restaurant locations. If they were staffed with Corporate employees, that would get you a staff of 3.7 people per restaurant. Typically it takes 8 to 15 employees per shift to run a McDonald's, about 2 million people work at all the restaurant locations.
I went off what McDonalds directly employees - they run 18% of their restaurants. McDonalds has no part in employing, determining wages or paying franchisees workers.
If we go off your numbers of 2M people working at McDs, splitting the CEOs $7.4M to them, each one would get about $0.30 a month or a fraction of a cent raise in hourly wage.
The point is still the same, taking a CEOs salary and dividing it to the workers is not going to make any real difference. On the other hand increasing the wages of employees to $22/hr would probably eat up all the profits so prices would need to go up significantly to compensate - they are in business to make money, not give people jobs.
The real question is how many are willing to pay $20 for a BigMac meal to have these unskilled workers make as much as a trained/skilled worker makes - a firefighter, a LPN or a Mental health counselor make around $22/hr.
So basically your argument for paying fast food workers more (that will end up making things worse) is that others get bailouts? How is that relevant?
The government are not bailing out the banks, they are insuring the depositors.
The low wage workers can get government assistance for housing, medical and food even now. These workers also got much in payouts from the pandemic - from PPP program, the 4 payouts and enhanced unemployment. Personally I didn't even get a dime from that $6T - the wealthy got next to nothing from these payments - did you think they got some secret payments?
Payouts are not capitalism - kind of the opposite. You are really not making any sense - capitalists do not benefit from bailouts - they only gain from the economic activity / recovery that helps everyone.
A capitalist would insist on the market to set the wages, not the government - and certainly not a bailout - that is practicing what they preach.
Wrong. The government is bailing out the banks because there was a lot of hanky-panky going on in the banks. The banks did not follow the guidelines set by the Fed on managing money, and as a result they failed. And the Fed did not do it's job properly in overseeing the banks, because if they had none of this would have happened. About a week ago, the San Francisco Fed came out with a report stating exactly what I just said, and criticizing itself for not regulating Silicon Valley Bank and allowing this mess to happen. That was a strange report, to say the least. Never seen a report where the Fed criticized itself; at least that is what the business reporters said on television. A few bank officials should be in jail, and so should a few Fed officials.
Wrong. The government is bailing out the banks because there was a lot of hanky-panky going on in the banks. The banks did not follow the guidelines set by the Fed on managing money, and as a result they failed. And the Fed did not do it's job properly in overseeing the banks, because if they had none of this would have happened. About a week ago, the San Francisco Fed came out with a report stating exactly what I just said, and criticizing itself for not regulating Silicon Valley Bank and allowing this mess to happen. That was a strange report, to say the least. Never seen a report where the Fed criticized itself; at least that is what the business reporters said on television. A few bank officials should be in jail, and so should a few Fed officials.
Incorrect - because very clearly that is not what is happening.
If the government was "bailing out the banks" they would be not shutting them down - bailing out means making them solvent again. That is not what is happening, other banks are taking their assets over and servicing the clients - First Republic assets were sold to JPMorgan Chase - First repubic is gone, not bailed out. Kills the bank but makes the depositors, borrowers and such whole (or mostly whole).
A bank failure is rare but recognize the issue is mainly with the bank, not the regulators.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
