Hundreds march at McDonald's HQ over low wages

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: Blaze
In this case I was charged $2,450.00 ($550.00 out of pocket) for seeing an ER doctor for 5 min and one bag of saline solution IV and two drugs to lower my BP administered by a nurse. This exact same procedure is just a $15.00 co-pay at my primary doctors office but unfortunately they are only open Mon thru Fri. I have a chronic condition that can require emergency care.

Obviously we all know this is too much $$ and extreme overbilling by a hospital.

Should we legislate what hospitals charge here, is this a monopoly? We ALL end up paying for these ridiculous hospital fees and charges through higher insurance costs, prices of good and services etc.




Well hospitals have to take the same care of those who don't/can't pay for services insurance. In some areas that may be 40% of patients. So YOU are paying for them. ( Still think the borders should be wide open?)
So ACA comes along and everyone has insurance so now you just pay for it that way soon. Those that can't pay don't pay for ACA are still able to walk in a get everything.

How long would a grocery store stay open if you just walk in and walk out with your groceries because you could not pay. How much do you think the grocery store would have to charge YOU for a gallon of milk and loaf of bread to make up for all the free product walking out the door. That's what hospitals are facing.

Hospitals are legislated in what they can bill medicare and medicade. Those charges will not keep a hospital in financial shape to stay current with technology and an up to date staff.

 

[Alfred_B]

Originally Posted By: Blaze
... but unfortunately they are only open Mon thru Fri. I have a chronic condition that can require emergency care...


Well, there you go. You paid for the availability of care. That emergency department pays at least $million a year to just have a 24/7 doctor coverage. Just for the doctors.

The family doctors make far less (they are the lowest paid doctors making on average of $150,000 per year), and they do not use support staff and supplies like the ER. So their costs are lower... mainly due to being unable to get paid more than $60 a visit by the insurance companies.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
...that the disparity of wages between execs and worker bees has gone from something like 10 times, to over 200 times in like the last 20 years...it's no wonder the middle class is disappearing...capitalism is a great system, but when it's taken advantage of by those who can, it's not so great...


I'm a grampi as well, but your use of the words "disparity" "taken advantage of" etc. sounds like the tortured rhetoric of the left.

Do you really think a high schooler working at MikeyDees has the experience, education, and tenacity to lead a billion dollar company and deserves a salary beyond his/her abilities and responsibilities?

While at a major aerospace firm, I was happy to have a guy at the top making a mil or more to take on those responsibilities and to address the day-to-day business decisions so I could concentrate on leading aircraft teams to improve aircraft systems and I was satisfied with my salary and lot in life.

Crony capitalism is the problem Grampi is referring to and has been the worst in the last seven years. Crony capitalism has to go, and it is a black mark on what free market capitalism should be.

I don't see any government "forcing" as improving anyone's lot in life.


Would you prefer the words "difference" and "abuse"? What words would you use that sound more "neutral?"

 

[javacontour]

The stockholders choose/approve the executive compensation. They must think the executives have that value, or they wouldn't approve it.

They own the company and have the freedom to choose how much to pay the executives they hire to run it.

If you don't like how a company pays, why not buy stock and have a say? I think there are activist groups doing just that. They are buying stock so they have a say in how these companies are run.

Instead of shouting from the outside, why not become part of the team that owns the company and chooses the executives that set policy?

Everyone wants to tell others what to do with their money. Why not put your own money into the game and change the system from inside if you believe change is needed?

 

[Blaze]

Originally Posted By: spasm3


Hospitals are legislated in what they can bill medicare and medicade. Those charges will not keep a hospital in financial shape to stay current with technology and an up to date staff.
So I guess I reality the middle class pays for all this mess. No wonder the economy grew at negative numbers last Quarter...too many taxes, too many fees and healthcare costs are far too high. There is absolutely no justification for those costs, none but that is my opinion.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: grampi



...Would you prefer the words "difference" and "abuse"? What words would you use that sound more "neutral?" ...


I wouldn't use those words at all because they don't describe the reality of salary's and compensation according to one's abilities and responsibilities.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: javacontour

If you don't like how a company pays, why not buy stock and have a say? I think there are activist groups doing just that. They are buying stock so they have a say in how these companies are run.


This isn't about how the company pays, it's about how the industry pays or about how we as a society treat our working poor. Instead of buying what would effectively be a "whole market fund" and getting .03 voting shares in each company, wouldn't it be simpler to just change the law?

Heck, look at the tools at one's disposal and be pragmatic.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: grampi



...Would you prefer the words "difference" and "abuse"? What words would you use that sound more "neutral?" ...


I wouldn't use those words at all because they don't describe the reality of salary's and compensation according to one's abilities and responsibilities.



Income redistribution is NOT a free market economic concept but rather a concept promoted by socialists and communists in which the socialist elites at the top are the only one's that really benefit.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: grampi



...Would you prefer the words "difference" and "abuse"? What words would you use that sound more "neutral?" ...


I wouldn't use those words at all because they don't describe the reality of salary's and compensation according to one's abilities and responsibilities.


I am truly saddened by this as the folks are buying into the [censored] being promulgated.

It amazes me that anyone cannot see the sad economic reality. There simply aren't enough "rich" people or JOBS! You can't just arbitrarily raise wages, and it is not anyone's responsibility to look after you or guarantee your success. Preposterous.

Real freedom is a scary concept to many, sad that the principles this country was founded on are long gone. I am not a fan of the "change"...

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8


It amazes me that anyone cannot see the sad economic reality. There simply aren't enough "rich" people or JOBS! You can't just arbitrarily raise wages, and it is not anyone's responsibility to look after you or guarantee your success. Preposterous.



This isn't about rich people! It's about poor people being slightly less poor and spending money to the benefit of other fairly poor people. An employee is also a customer so it's pretty mox-nix.

 

[javacontour]

But is simple better?

It's simpler just to shoot thieves. Is it better?

It's simpler just to drive your car without maintaining it, but is it better?

Why have a law that says pay this? Why not have a law that says if you drop out of school, too bad for you?

The problem with "simple" law solution is the unintended consequences. If you force a certain level of pay, what happens? Are some not hired? Do jobs go elsewhere?

Why not let all live with the natural consequences of their choices, both at the top and the bottom?

If you have a law, aren't you shielding or spreading the consequences to those who didn't make the choice?

No one has ever addressed my points about natural consequences. How many of these folks are "volunteers" for their status based on the choices they make?

Why should anyone be forced to help others if those who need the help are choosing to live a lifestyle they might find objectionable? If others agree with their choices, let them dig into their pockets to help.

Let me decide how I'm willing to help. If I want someone to work for it, then who is to say I'm wrong for expecting someone who wants help to work for it and not just have some arbitrary wage floor applied.

It devalues the efforts people take to put themselves through school and make something of themselves if you just give away to others what I had to work to get.

I earned an ROTC scholarship and attended a top 25 university coming from a poverty level single parent rural home. I had little or no so-called privilege and many of the same strikes against me other claim prevents them from climbing out of poverty.

I don't see how handing out money or paying above the value of the labor provided solves the problem.

If someone doesn't like how an industry pays, start your own firm. Offer fast food at competitive prices and pay $15/hour or more to your staff.

I would respect that sort of statement. Acting with your own time, talent and treasure means a lot more than lobbying lawmakers who simply want to appear to be on the "correct" side of an issue to the masses.

If $7.25/hour isn't enough, don't take the job. If no one would take it, then wages would rise to meet the requirements of the labor. But as long as there are those willing to do the work for that rate, it will be paid.

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: javacontour

If you don't like how a company pays, why not buy stock and have a say? I think there are activist groups doing just that. They are buying stock so they have a say in how these companies are run.


This isn't about how the company pays, it's about how the industry pays or about how we as a society treat our working poor. Instead of buying what would effectively be a "whole market fund" and getting .03 voting shares in each company, wouldn't it be simpler to just change the law?

Heck, look at the tools at one's disposal and be pragmatic.

 

[Alfred_B]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8


It amazes me that anyone cannot see the sad economic reality. There simply aren't enough "rich" people or JOBS! You can't just arbitrarily raise wages, and it is not anyone's responsibility to look after you or guarantee your success. Preposterous.



This isn't about rich people! It's about poor people being slightly less poor and spending money to the benefit of other fairly poor people. An employee is also a customer so it's pretty mox-nix.


I don't know who brought up the rich people, etc. This is solely an issue of supporting people to be able to make living wages.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8


It amazes me that anyone cannot see the sad economic reality. There simply aren't enough "rich" people or JOBS! You can't just arbitrarily raise wages, and it is not anyone's responsibility to look after you or guarantee your success. Preposterous.



This isn't about rich people! It's about poor people being slightly less poor and spending money to the benefit of other fairly poor people. An employee is also a customer so it's pretty mox-nix.


Others in this thread have specifically mentioned rich people (excuse me, CEO's making seven figures or more) as a source of revenue to fund the programs in question.

 

[Mr Nice]

Not to get off topic...

My nephew is working at Jimmy Johns sub shop and now wants to open his own franchise. I told him its eye popping the costs to open a business (sub shop) and pay salaries, rent, insurances, food, vendors, utilities , advertising, franchise fee, etc...., etc....

Originally he wanted to be a lawyer....

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: grampi



...Would you prefer the words "difference" and "abuse"? What words would you use that sound more "neutral?" ...


I wouldn't use those words at all because they don't describe the reality of salary's and compensation according to one's abilities and responsibilities.



Everyone is worth more than minimum wage, no matter what they do, and no one is worth millions a year, no matter what they do...

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: grampi



...Would you prefer the words "difference" and "abuse"? What words would you use that sound more "neutral?" ...


I wouldn't use those words at all because they don't describe the reality of salary's and compensation according to one's abilities and responsibilities.




Everyone is worth more than minimum wage, no matter what they do, and no one is worth millions a year, no matter what they do...

In the artificial rules of sport or entertainment, some people are worth millions as there can only be one QB or leading lady in a movie.
I do find it hard to believe that a CEO is worth 10's of millions, it seems to me that you could hire a whole team of bright individuals for a fraction of that, with far more capability for evidence based decision making than one guy... Sure you still need to get a PR/figurehead person, but I imagine $300-500k still gets someone that's quite capable.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: grampi



...Would you prefer the words "difference" and "abuse"? What words would you use that sound more "neutral?" ...


I wouldn't use those words at all because they don't describe the reality of salary's and compensation according to one's abilities and responsibilities.



Everyone is worth more than minimum wage, no matter what they do, and no one is worth millions a year, no matter what they do...


And who is to determine that? You, some government bureaucrat, some Wage and Price controller, W&P Czar? Wage and Price control worked well for Nixon didn't it?

You conveniently left out incentive.

Without an incentive to do better, to improve one's education, to move up, all we would have is a large group of dead beats and welfare groupies.

Oh wait, we already have that don't we, and how is that working out for the country at large?

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: grampi


Everyone is worth more than minimum wage, no matter what they do, and no one is worth millions a year, no matter what they do...

Possibly in Never-Never Land, or in Engels/Marx brains but not in a functioning free economy. But I digress.

 

[Vuflanovsky]

This argument is better framed in the context of a living wage ( which is a public policy concept ) than $15/hr which is more about unionization. You don't need to go much further than Adam Smith to understand that a living wage should be something that the society ascribes to versus ( for example ) having a minimum wage that doesn't rise in relation to the cost of living. People can waffle on all they want about pulling themselves up by the bootstraps but one bottom line reality is determining what benefits the working poor in relation to their socioeconomic status and geographic location, among other things.

If you live in an urban area in this country, you no doubt have seen gentrification is many neighborhoods where for years the families with the equivalent of two $9/hr. workers were able to survive but "hot" markets have both transformed neighborhoods and sent these people to other cities where they're paid even less and have almost equivalent housing costs. In Silicon Valley, the displaced "working poor" are increasing the people who can no longer afford a $3500/mo rent for a forty year old 1000 sq. ft. apartment. As some one recently said. "There's a lot more to Silicon Valley than these companies like Facebook and Google"...unfortunately, a lot of the associated socioeconomic markets don't think so or aren't required to think so...where perhaps they should be persuaded or incentivized.

I would argue that there's a lot of variation to this concept that goes beyond whether McDonald's is going to unionize at $15/hr. or not and it's generally an urban/suburban versus rural one. I would further argue that for every aspiring "climber" there's a gatekeeper in a direct hiring role, governmental role, landowner role, etc. that will impact a "living wage" in a way that can't be universally judged. With regard to many lower end jobs, my personal opinion is that the "value" of a job often correlates more with what someone is willing to pay you than an inherent "value" relationship either to the industry or society. The unionized worker making $24/hour versus the non-unionized worker making $18/hour for the same job might be an obvious example but similar differences exist in non-union jobs.

I consider myself a "free market" guy but I don't read it in a book, I see what's going on around me...and in some areas near me it isn't pretty for anyone that doesn't make $30/hr. let alone minimum wage...and some of these folks have worked low wage jobs other than McDonald's for years and have heretofore been able to survive and have families.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule


And who is to determine that? You, some government bureaucrat, some Wage and Price controller, W&P Czar? Wage and Price control worked well for Nixon didn't it?

You conveniently left out incentive.

Without an incentive to do better, to improve one's education, to move up, all we would have is a large group of dead beats and welfare groupies.

Oh wait, we already have that don't we, and how is that working out for the country at large?



Nixon's Wage/ Price controls banned RAISES due to inflation. This minimum wage legislation is the opposite!

The incentive remains to do a good job, or lose hours, get a worse shift, worse assignments, or unemployed for good. Could even get a raise, it's not against the law, unlike under Nixon.