My roommate quit McD and told me not to go there after his boss told him to use dirt covered sliced cheese he was going to throw out. Talk about saving money.

I'm surprised by how many people here enjoy McDonald's. I would feel disgusting, both mentally and physically, if I ate any more than a few of their fries.

Second hand anecdotal evidence of a possibly disgruntled and fired employee wanting to make excuses and save face. I guarantee there is more to that story.

@abge - You really should try their shakes. I can't have them for all the sugar in them, but my wife loves them.

Krellin makes a great case in his customary calm, prudent, and thoughtful manner.

LOL! Love the sarcasm, Jack.

@Octavious - the Brits do tend to be more philosophical on average haha.

And krellin, what I'm merely saying is that these workers are clearly not motivated based on what you're saying. You can motivate them in many ways, one of them being increasing their salary. Now, once you get to higher wage levels, salary increases don't do much to increase productivity, but for lower level jobs they work well. Other things that could work as well are non-salary benefits for the job, better working conditions, and other intrinsic rewards.

On motivation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

The problem with teen minimum wage workers is they don't have concern for the bottom two layers in the pyramid. Their parents see to it they have that. So the money doesn't motivate them in the form of "security". It's just something they use to take their girlfriends out, get high, and get laid.

Can't argue with that.

Weed money is on the Hierarchy Draugnar, you misread it I think.

Is that under love/belonging?

Breathing

LOL! +1, Lando.

krellin said: "Laughing at all the leftist lapdogs in here that are either:
1. Going to have a cold, hard slap in the face someday when they think, as Goldie to moronically suggested, that they won't work harded *until* they get a raise. (What a mornon...)

or

2. Will run a business and give unmerited raises someday out of compassion, instead of through merit, and watch their business fail because their shitty workers don't give a shit.

[3.] I wonder, do all you silly libtards demand a Minimum Grade Requirement on your schoolwork? If teacher doesn't give everyone in class as least a "C" on every test do you whiny little bitches walk out of school?

Morons....the whole lot of you."

1. Unfortunately, the word "moron" doesn't negate any of the arguments presented for an increase in the minimum wage. There are a number of factors at play that affect how people work, and an hourly wage is one of them. I mentioned above that a work environment, relationships with colleagues, etc. all affect how hard someone will work. And holding all those factors constant, you'll find that money also directly affects work ethic.

2. If running a business were as simple as giving workers the right wage, everyone would be doing it. But it's much more difficult than that, and, similar to my above statement, there are numerous factors that dictate the profit margin of a business. I'd say Walmart could afford to pay their workers more and still have healthy profit margins.

Moreover, you assume that compassion and merit are mutually exclusive--but they're not. And you haven't defined what you mean by "merit", so it's entirely possible that "compassion" could fall under "deserving something".

3. School and work are not analogous, especially in this situation. Academic institutions exist to teach and to educate; McDonald's, Walmart, and the like do not. Furthermore, grades are not compensation for work, and I can't pay rent or buy groceries with a B- or an A+.

It seems, krellin, that you have either misread my above post or else not read it at all. I'm trying my best to understand what you wrote and respond to it reasonably; all I ask is that you do the same.

"Walmart could afford to pay their workers more and still have healthy profit margins."

More importantly to the workers and to society at large, Walmart (and other major employers of minimum wage help) could make *more* of their year round staff fulltime and give them decent health benefits. An acceptable family plan will run the typical employer about 15k per year. They usually pass about 5K off to the employee pre-tax. So giving the employees $2.50 per hour more, making them full time, and offering health insurance with a 60-40 split (Employer-employee) on the cost would insure their employees and show them they care with the wage increase easily covering the employee's part of the plan.

Not only that, but poor people have, in general, a much higher marginal propensity to spend, thus stimulating the entire economy. It would even help Walmart, since their employees would be able to buy more stuff and would almost certainly spend a lot of their extra at Walmart.

I always laugh to myself when people complain that they are not getting paid enough when it is completely their fault (there are a few exceptions like the disabled, but I do not want to go into that). They choose to go to the job, they agree to their wages, and if they are not qualified, it's their fault for not deciding to get qualified. If someone agrees to a low wage, they should not complain about it.

the shovel & wheelbarrow await your presence Krellin
all that onanism & the associated vaseline/baby oil might mean that your delicate soft little hands might need a pair of riggers gloves, so come prepared. (nice pun )

@ tyrocks, that's just laughable, before you've completed your initial statement you've already realised that there are exceptions to your generalisation, which you acknowledge and then dismiss.
ps the first fallacious assumption you have made is that all persons ( except the disabled ) have the same array of opportunities and choices at some notional starting point

That is all fine to say TVR, but there are jobs I am more than qualified to do but you couldn't pay me enough to do that. Like garbage collector for instance. I think a senior level developer who is used to handling a boat could easily operate a garbage truck, but even my present salary isn't enough to male me willing to do it.

@majormitchell pay attention to all words said. I said that there are exceptions LIKE the disabled and was not limiting it to the disabled. I also said a few, by qualifying it it is no longer fallacious. I acknowledge that there are people in different circumstances, but most of them could overcome them if they tried, and probably the majority if the people who are in a situation like this decided to ignore some of the opportunities available to them.

@draugnar: there are things that a lot of people would not be willing to do, but if they truly want money they could do those. There are also other jobs that they could do that they would be willing to do.

@tvrocks: you really think all the mcdonalds workers mork there because they chose this job from a number of opportunities they had, and this struck them as the best one?

@kresimax if they had other opportunities why would they choose it if it was not the best option? If they did choose it while it was not it's their fault that they have a bad job. They get to choose what job they do. The main thing that I'm saying is that in most cases that it is their fault that they are not qualified. I have already acknowledged that there are exceptions, but it is the majority. Anyway, there are lots of other places they could've chosen besides mcdonalds like Walmart or something like that.

Sorry if I was not clear in my answers. My answer to that question is that no I do not mainly because you said all, which is a generalization.

let's look at an example, shall we?

martin is born into a rich family, father's probably a banker, they own a huge house somewhere. he can afford the best colleges in the state.
alex isn't born into a rich family. he can't afford the best colleges in the state.

now tell me, who of them will be more qualified at the age of, say, 25. does it matter, in this case, who of them is more intelligent or more efficient?

Neither of them would necessarily be more qualified or efficient. The question said that they are born into those families. Anything could have changed in the time they are growing up, martins family could've gone bankrupt while Alex's could've become billionaires. Alex could also be more intelligent considering that there are things like scholarships and student loans which could make it so that he could go to college. Even though Martin has more opportunities, Alex still has opportunities that he can use.

@kasimax sorry for calling you kresimax, I misread your name

haha no problem, or the least.

so what you are saying tyrocks is that there are more exceptions to your generalisation than just the disabled. Congratulations you've just argued that your generalisation is even less accurate than what you assumed I had indicated