I agree that $15 is too much. I'm sorry if they can't support a family on it. It is what it is. I don't mean to sound harsh, but when you divide my take home pay by the hours I work, I bring home about $13.75 an hour. I have worked in fast food. It would be d*mn hard to support my son and myself on what I make as a teacher. As it is now, I bring home $1900. If I were to find myself in the position of a single mother and have my son on my insurance, I would bring home $1700. If I wanted my son and I to live in a decent part of town, which we do now but by no means in a fancy house (built in 1982, 1500 sq. ft) our house payment is $650. That would leave $1150. When I subtract our regular bills, student loan payments, gas, insurance, hospital bills, grocery store budget, and my medication, we'd be left with $200 extra for the entire month. Beth
That's really not a fair comparison. If FF workers were allowed to work as many hours as they wanted, the comparison would be the same, but that isn't the reality.
I live less than 10 miles from my school. There is no mass transit for my commute. I'm not going to ride my bike, jog or walk that distance....I don't have the time, inclination to facilities ( no shower, locker room) to get dressed in a professional manner after such a commute through very NJ congested roads. Did you research fast food consumption vs price increases? Simple economic principles and historical evidence points to a drop in consumption when prices rise....#former business major, #have actually taken economics classes.
If fast food workers get paid fifteen dollars an hour, I will immediately apply for work in a fast food restaurant! I'd make less than I make now, but I wouldn't have to spend money on a professional wardrobe, professional development, or teaching supplies so it would be very close after expenses.
one may forget when one lives in Costa Rica. Or the price of a vespa when one can conceivably use one only about 5 months of the year ( and add twenty minutes to the commute to avoid dangerous roads...after all, I haven't seen a Vespa at all in my area in over 15 years of commuting) Research suggests that those 'with money' are the ones who give the greater recentage in charity: "Decades of research indicate that higher levels of charitable giving are positively associated with higher income, higher wealth, greater religious participation, volunteerism, age, marriage, higher educational attainment, US citizenship, higher proportion of earned wealth versus inherited wealth, and a greater level of financial security."
I think they're going for how I'm guaranteed X amount of dollars salary? I was going at the angle of supporting a family on a FF worker's wage would be difficult (possibly not doable) on their wages, but on the flip side if I were having to support my son and myself I would be in the same boat, and I have a bachelor's degree and tons more responsibility and crap to put up with than a FF worker. Beth
I'm not sure what you don't understand. Bella gets a salary. Her hourly rate is dependent on how much she works. It fluctuates. If she were to work 8 hours/contract day she would have a much higher hourly pay still brining home the same amount. The number of hours she works is irrelevant in the amount she brings home. So, there could be other teachers that work with Bella that do their job in a way where they work fewer hours in a week. Bella's hourly rate depends on her work habits. With a FF worker, they get paid an hourly wage. Their take home pay depends on how many hours they work. They are rarely in control over the number of hours they work. So, a FF worker may end up not making a livable amount of money working a 40 hour week, but Bella makes her salary whether she works 40 or 80 hours in a week. Plus she can work during the summer if she choose to increase the amount of money she brings home during the year.
Lol, I was thinking about that a couple of week's ago when I was planning the week's wardrobe. I was thinking if I wear the black pants on Monday with a certain shirt, then wear them again on Wednesday with another shirt and do the same with the grey pants it won't be so obvious that I'm wearing them twice in one week. Anyway, they're always on us about professional dress, and while I do the best with what I've got, their expectations of us are a little over the reality of our paycheck. Beth
That doesn't sit well with me. The hourly rate is for my contract hours. I see what you're saying. I've had the week from h*ll and I've worked my @ss off. Don't compare my work habits with another teacher's and assume that my work habits increase the hours I put in. Furthermore, working during the summer isn't an option because of child care.
Thanks for the elaboration. I honestly just wasn't getting what you meant. That you've clarified doesn't change my opinion, but I still appreciate it.
Bella, I just saw your post in another area of this forum entitle "Working Smarter Not Harder". This post in no way was meant to imply anything. I did not know that you posted that. I see why you were so sensitive to what I posted, but I had not known you posted that thread. I'm sorry if what I posted hit too close to home.
I couldn't agree more and I am a big sports fan. As long as the fans support the athletes, they will always get that pay. Fans support them thru ticket sales, apparel, advertisements, etc. Even that cutesy little NFL doggy sweater. The average professional athlete makes 1.6 million over 3 years. That won't last long so they better have an education to fall back on.
And I'm still laughing about riding my bike to work. Try that when you're 62 years old and live in the country!!!!LOL how funny this thread really is!
While I generally don't think FF workers should be paid $15.00 an hour, the reality is that many of them are adults, supporting family, and receiving government assistance to help make ends meet. So basically, what we are doing is letting the companies that are making BILLIONS in profit AND likely getting tax breaks as well, get away with paying minimum wage and letting the government pay the rest. We've allowed the business to shift the responsibility of paying a living wage to the government while they swim in their profits. That is really the only reason why I think minimum wage needs to raised.
:lol: 2 hours and 15 minutes for me to ride my bike to work! And the same length of time to take (2) buses to work! That would be a nice 4:30am departure time for me, too! (I just couldn't resist checking Google maps for myself...)
LOL that is funny! :lol: I would have to ride my bike down a busy hwy. in the dark, on the side of the hwy., which is gravel, carrying my bag of "stuff" that weighs more than the bike!
Oh, and let's not forget all those times when I dropped off an infant and a toddler, some times at 2 different places, on my way to work in the morning, in sub-freezing temperatures. Or, for that matter, the months I spent driving to work pregnant. Or the months I left work early to head to radiation on my way home. After the first few weeks of sessions, I was so exhausted I could barely make it home to bed at night. Riding on a bike in the dark in January would have been a real hoot.
I looked up my travel time if I were to walk, bike or bus to work. Given the fact that I have to travel on the busiest (and deadliest) highway in the city, it will take me just over 4 hours to walk, 1.25 hours on public transportation but the earliest I can leave home will be 11:54 am (hope my principal is okay with this...it's not my fault I live in a newer area in my city and they haven't figured out public transportation yet) and over an hour to bike -- I haven't biked for over 20 years, so it may take me a little longer than an hour to get to school though :lol:.
I am sure I agree with you Major but what do you think about upper mngmt and CEOs making hundreds of time more than line workers when 30 years ago it was more like 30-50 times? The shift of wealth in this country is alarming and without a viable middle class I see a bleak future for us and many people. But then I am sure we are not allowed to have this discussion in teacher land
Here's my two cents: Firstly, no one forces anyone to take a job. When you sign your job contract, you are very aware of how much you will be paid. If you're not ok with that, don't take the job. I get that people might live in an area where there aren't that many options, but the bottom line is-everyone makes a choice when they take a job. When you accept a fast food position, you should understand the pay that comes with it. Pay is often determined by how valuable you are to your employer. If you bring in lots of money, you have more bargaining power. If you are efficient, polite, pleasant, hard-working, innovative, willing to take on projects or train others, etc-you are a very valuable asset to your employer and they will work to keep you on board. Not having worked in fast food, but having a good family friend who has gone from counter to executive at McDonalds, I've heard that they are very good about promoting from within. They want to hire their managers from their counter servers. I recently read an article about a woman yelling at a guest speaker because she had worked there for 10 years and hadn't gotten a raise. It made me question what type of employee she was that in TEN YEARS they had not promoted her to a manager. Promotions are earned, they are not just handed out. You have to work hard and prove that you are worth the extra money they are going to pay you. But they are not impossible. And if you feel you have skills that aren't being recognized, perhaps it's time to apply those skills to a different field or business. Again-no one is forced to stay at a job where they are not recognized for their abilities. Lastly, I think we should examine what we consider necessities in life when talking about what we need to survive. Like, survive, survive. If I were single, I could not afford housing out here on my own. I would need a roommate. But I would still have a roof over my head. I probably wouldn't be able to afford my cell phone. That is not a necessity. I could probably afford a cheap, running car. But I couldn't afford new clothes. Again-not a necessity. I could shop garage sales or utilize Freecycle. But I'd have a roof, transportation and I'd be looking for a way to get a better paying job. Do these people have a place to live? Do they have transportation? To me, those are necessities. Do they want a cell phone? Cable? New clothes? Vacations? Those are not necessities. No employer OWES their employee a lifestyle. No employer must pay their employee enough so their employee can get the things they want. An employee must make sure when they accept the job, the pay covers their necessities. That's it. The employer offers, the employee accepts and then they come in and work hard. End of story. That's what I think, anyhow. I even get irritated when I hear that employers owe their employees insurance. They don't. It's an awesome perk. But they don't OWE their employees anything. They just need to live up to the contract that everyone signed when the employee was hired.
Jem, they do have food shelter, a cheap car, and cheap clothes. But only because they qualify for government assistance, which provides access to those things for them. I consider access to affordable health care to be a need rather than a luxury. The only reason places are able to keep wages so low is that many of their employees receive government assistance in some form: housing vouchers, food stamps, WIC, etc. The idea behind a living wage is not so that everyone can have luxury items. The idea is that anyone who works a full–time job would be able to meet their basic needs using only their salary. I know that you have been very lucky in this job market but many others have not. It's not as easy to change jobs as you make it sound, especially in some parts of the country.
My sister works full time at Walmart. She doesn't have cable. She never goes on vacations or eats out. I took her and her kids to the Cheesecake Factory once, and it was the fanciest restaurant they had ever been in. They have a cell phone, but no home phone. They don't have cable or internet. Me and my siblings help buy clothes for school. She has one car that she and my brother share so he can get to work to help her pay the rent. She still gets Medicare for her kids because she can't afford the wal mart insurance. At times, she also gets snap benefits when hours are cut at Walmart. Exactly what kind of lifestyle do you think these workers live in?
Well, actually employers do owe their employees insurance depending on the size of the company and the hours of the position. That is not due to Obamacare, but the fact that we've had basic employee rights in this country for a long time. Most developed countries have basic rights for their employees. Why? Well, we'd all like to believe that life is like a Horatio Alger novel where hard work is all you need to succeed. Unfortunately, though, history has proven that employers - particularly large companies - will take every advantage possible of their employees without them. Before unions, before employee rights, a very teeny tiny percentage of the country - think Rockefellers and Vanderbilts - had everything, paid no taxes, and bled their employees (everyone else) dry. Seven days a week, unsafe conditions, slave wages... So we can all cheer on total freedom for corporations, but a quick look at history shows us that without rights for employees we'd all probably be making fast food wages.
While no one forces someone to accept a low-paying job, I've heard plenty of times that beggars can't be choosers, and I know people on welfare are criticized when they pass on any job opportunity. It seems harsh to them tell them to suck it and shut up about wages they're unhappy with. I think fifteen is insane for a fast-food job (especially here), but it doesn't mean I think employees must be satisfied with their wages.
I'm not saying it's a great situation. But it's reality. Just because you work 40 hours a week does not mean you are owed a living wage. I pay my son's babysitter $640 every two weeks. That works out to $8 an hour, plus she feeds him out of that. She puts in a full 40 hour week but I know she could never live on that. I guess I'm technically employing her-should I pay her more because she is working 40 hours a week? I'm paying her what I can afford and she accepted that and we moved on. MissCecila-I have lost three jobs in this job market and my husband has lost one. I have been on unemployment, our family has had to cut way back on our lifestyle and we've seen the downside of up. Each time we pull ourselves back up, get out our resumes and hit the pavement. I've commuted as far as 2 hours for a job before. My husband is currently commuting three hours each way to keep his job. It sucks, and I know not everyone has choices. But to say that employers need to pay their employees more because that's the only job available to them, whether it's education/transportation/childcare issues/economy/etc, is unfair to the employer. Also, I fully support unions and government oversight, to a moderate degree. I'm a democrat who votes in favor of social services and protecting our society from large corporations. We do need to make sure there are limits and safe working environments, etc. But I feel like there are lines that we cannot cross when telling people what to do with their own companies. Again, they offer the jobs and people accept them.
Especially when welfare often pays more than minimum wage jobs: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...ays-more-than-minimum-wage-work-in-35-states/ There is something very wrong with the minimum wage picture.
People accept those jobs because they have no other alternative besides welfare. As it is, our taxes are helping to support many minimum wage earners while the companies they work for are reaping huge profits. Those companies, in a way, are getting government handouts from us, the taxpayers. Unless the company is facing bankruptcy, that's just not right.
It's easy for people to tell poor people that if they want more money, they should get a better paying job. How do we know whether or not they are capable of doing that? If they go to work everyday and work hard, are not promoted, are you saying that it's their fault? Perhaps they are giving it their all. People like that deserve far better wages than min. wage. No one can live on that kind of money. You don't know their circumstances and let's be compassionate people and allow them at least a measure of respect. Every single person is not you and every single person doesn't have what it takes to progress beyond the front counter at McDonald's. This country is run by uncaring lousy assholes who could care less about the little man. Take a step back and look at how these big people live and why they live the way they do while paying the little man min. wages. How can they even sleep at night? How can they allow themselves to buy a new house, car, eat at the most expensive restaurant, go on vacations that cost thousands of dollars...while their faithful employees are working so hard in their places of business and are so poor they have to take a cab or walk to work. How can they live with themselves. It's so easy to be judgmental when we have everything.
I agree we need more compassion in general, Grammy. But if we're going to pay an forty year old mother $15 an hour to work at Dairy Queen, are you comfortable paying a sixteen year old that as well? I'm not.
I recently heard someone say that we, as a nation, are going to have to accept one of the following: We must either raise the minimum wage to a livable wage OR we have to come to terms with the fact that a significant portion of our country will be living on government assistance. Because unless you are willing to have a large population of Americans starving on the streets, those are the only two alternatives. You can scale back on entitlements, and rail against raising the minimum wage all you want, but the fact is that without one or the other - people simply cannot survive. This is not a liberal position or an alarmist statement. It's an economic reality. You cannot feed your kids and pay your rent on 7 bucks an hour. It's just not possible. Now we can all say to ourselves that everyone has the opportunity to better themselves, go to college, and get a better job. But somebody has to work at Walmart. Don't we want them to be able to survive on their wages?
They can sleep at night because they're selfish and believe that these employees can become better than what they are if only they worked hard enough. Is it right? No, but that's their mentality (at least I'm guessing...)
