No most of them are on welfare which brings the thread back on point.

which is my point, that if people got paid a living wage, and got paid to work, we wouldn't need all that welfare, now, would we???

But if that poor person is 14 and pregnant do we put her to work? Or as her care taker demand an abortion?

Imagine if horse breeders were given room and board for bred horses that don't make the track (and really have a very little chance of even being broken to make the track). The PC world does not jive with the real world.

Just ask the Lost Boys from Sudan.

this.
this is why so many get frustrated discussing anything with you. you don't read what's presented, you just go with your perceptions.
i'm discussing the average fast food worker, and you come up with something that has no bearing, as tho it supports any of your views.

i yield, dell. you're right.
we should do nothing. we should just keep with how we do things, it's working so well. the govt can make laws on work weeks, fmla, etc, but don't they dare try to make a min. living wage. because of pregnant 14 year olds.
because regardless of what info i post, that's the real average fast food worker.

Nonetheless take comfort in knowing that when the fast food restaurants are unable to hire 'able' workers at $7.50/hr. wages will be raised. Judging from the times I have visited McDonalds for coffee we are right on the cusp in regards to 'ability'.

BTW The local Dairy Queen is advertising for help at $12/hr. while the local pizza joint is offering $10 plus tips. I suspect many fast food workers are already at $10/hr. or more via the free market rather than government intervention.

Her 1-year-old, going without because of taxi rides and cable TV has what chance in this world?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fast-f...5SaWYAOnjQtDMD

Had breakfast at Mc's today..and still have the best coffee anywhere:tro:...Workers seemed happy enough...but not elsewhere...
15 bucks an hour..Hope they get it, i need a part time job:)



http://news.msn.com/us/fast-food-wor...-protest-wages

http://www.practicalmoneyskills.com/...D_Journal2.pdf



please, check out the sample budget. i want to know in what universe health insurance only costs $20 a month?
no grocery budget? or is that part of the $25 a day spending money? of course, if one works two full time jobs, one won't have much time to eat, so that's a bonus. and how much of that $25/day in 'spending money' goes to day care, since most fast food workers are closer to 30 years of age, and have a child or children?
car payment, car and home insurance, a grand total of $250/month. excuse me while i chuckle.

oh, and the 'income' from job one-no doubt that's based on a 40 hour week. that's also what most people don't get, as that would make them 'full time', and thus eligible for benefits.
but, hey, look at how much dough they roll in by having job two.

more helpful advice:

How do I record money given to me as a gift?
List it as other income when you receive it. If you save
the cash, you should record it as a credit on the date it
was received.

TIPS FOR BEING GOOD WITH YOUR MONEY
Spend less money than you make. BRILLIANT! ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT. why didn't i think of that?!

• When possible, use public transportation or carpool
• Consider walking or riding a bike when running errands

great info for people who don't live in a city.


yeah, who needs to make more? just budget wisely!

also, note that mcdonalds encourages using pay cards. i knew i'd heard something negative about that...

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entr...l_debit_cards/

Outrage has been building over payroll debit cards—fee-laden prepaid bank cards that some businesses now use to pay their workers—since the Times Leader reported on June 17 that Natalie Gunshannon of Dallas Township, Pa. had sued the McDonald's where she worked for making the cards compulsory. The cards are loaded with sneaky fees that leave workers essentially paying the bank for access to their wages.

Since the story broke, Gunshannon's employer has made the cards voluntary, and New York state has opened an investigation into their use.

Working In These Times covered the story on June 20, reporting:

The lawsuit, filed by attorney Mike Cefalo of Cefalo & Associates and provided to In These Times by the firm, alleges that the cards violate the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Act, which provides that 'Wages shall be paid in lawful money of the United States or check.' The suit further alleges that the fees reduce the actual wages workers receive—in some cases bringing them below minimum wage, which in Pennsylvania remains at the federal minimum wage rate of $7.25 per hour.

I filled out that sample budget and now i have to find a 3rd job:D

And those payroll cards, nice touch...no wonder Mc is a zillion$ company.
I still love their coffee:tro:

:tro:

http://www.epi.org/publication/bp357...wage-increase/

Raising the minimum wage as a tool for economic growth
The immediate benefits of a minimum-wage increase are in the boosted earnings of the lowest-paid workers, but its positive effects would far exceed this extra income. Recent research reveals that, despite skeptics’ claims, raising the minimum wage does not cause job loss.6 In fact, throughout the nation, a minimum-wage increase under current labor market conditions would create jobs. Like unemployment insurance benefits or tax breaks for low- and middle-income workers, raising the minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of working families when they need it most, thereby augmenting their spending power. Economists generally recognize that low-wage workers are more likely than any other income group to spend any extra earnings immediately on previously unaffordable basic needs or services.

Increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 by July 1, 2015, would give an additional $51.5 billion over the phase-in period to directly and indirectly affected workers,7 who would, in turn, spend those extra earnings. Indirectly affected workers—those earning close to, but still above, the proposed new minimum wage—would likely receive a boost in earnings due to the “spillover” effect (Shierholz 2009), giving them more to spend on necessities.

This projected rise in consumer spending is critical to any recovery, especially when weak consumer demand is one of the most significant factors holding back new hiring (Izzo 2011).8 Though the stimulus from a minimum-wage increase is smaller than the boost created by, for example, unemployment insurance benefits, it has the crucial advantage of not imposing costs on the public sector.

A raise in the minimum wage will almost assuredly be accompanied soon after by a raise in the price of consumer goods. Plus any raise in wages will likely be off set for workers by companies avoiding Obamacare penalties and cutting back hours to prevent them from being classified as full time workers.

Oh let's not forget Shaniqua Davis & Co., her taxi rides, cable, and government paid rent for her 20-year-old azz AND the unemployed boyfriend. But the PC world doesn't really jive with the real world anyway. Had Shaniqua Davis not had the baby she wouldn't have taxpayer expensed rent so I must question why Shaniqua Davis had a baby? Surely we as in taxpayers aren't the problem? Or are we giving free rent away? Where's she going to spend the extra cash?

BTW I didn't bring Shaniqua Davis up the paper did.

Sure she's not the typical college educated lads and lasses you speak of.

Hope many were denied fast food today by the nationwide walkout. At least by those employees that were able to walk out ie the door doesn't have a picture on it like a hamburger on the cash register.

the hours have been cut, for some time. i found it interesting that not just the minimum wage, but all wages have not kept up with the pace of inflation, etc. but then, we've known for some time that wages have been stagnant.

it seems to me that as the last few decades have gone by, govt has started doing more, and corporations have done less for their employees. it's not as tho mcdonalds (for example) has lower profits to go along with lower pay. same with exxon/mobil and many others. record profits for years, while we see entitlement spending grow, with workers not making enough to get by on their own.
so, which came first? as entitlements came along, starting with ss, and then medicare and medicaid, did businesses start going 'hey...' we can grow profits, the govt has a safety net for where we leave off?
this isn't something that has just suddenly happened.

I don't see where entitlement spending and record profits are related. McDonalds as far as I know has always paid min wage because the vast majority of its jobs are unskilled. They aren't making 'record profits' because they are "underpaying" the employees. How many other fast food businesses have failed despite paying the same wages?

I don't think most reasonable people have a problem with entitlements per say. The problem arises with abuse and the ever expanding designation of who 'deserves' what.

except minimum wage used to mean people were earning enough to be above the poverty line. that's no longer true. why? that's why i wonder if, as the govt started showing a willingness to pick up slack, that helps explain why businesses aren't willing to pay as much...something explains why wages haven't kept pace with the economy. lower skilled, yes. in an industry many use. at the very least, these workers should be able to make a decnt living. they used to in those jobs, and the skill level is the same.

Because we've had 30+ years of economic policy that says that if the majority of productivity gains flow to the top 1 percent, that prosperity will trickle down to everyone else. Except it hasn't, and the lower and middle classes have ended up in debt in order to maintain the same standard of living they had before wages flatlined (because credit became easier to obtain during the same period. Coincidence?).

The government isn't picking up slack; aid to the poor started getting slashed in the 1980s (I just recorded a book that had a chapter discussing welfare programs and the War on Poverty and "reform" started much earlier than 1996).

As a kid, I remember the attitude about gov't jobs is that they didn't pay great, but at least you knew you'd have a comfortable (not wealthy, but comfortable) retirement. The problem is not that they have suddenly become lavish jobs; they're the same or less than what they were when I was growing up. The problem is that private sector jobs have become so poorly paid and with crappy benefits that government jobs now are better compensated. But that doesn't meant the gov't job has changed; it means the private one has become that bad.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...ing_press.html

[b]Representative Stephen Fincher, Republican of Tennessee, explains why the government needs to reduce spending on the Supplemental Nutrional Assistance Program that provides food to poor families:

Here in Tennessee, Mr. Fincher embraces that view. “We have to remember there is not a big printing press in Washington that continually prints money over and over,” he said in May.[/B]


and yet....


Mr. Fincher, who was elected in 2010 on a Tea Party wave and collected nearly $3.5 million in farm subsidies from the government from 1999 to 2012, recently voted for a farm bill that omitted food stamps.


so, fincher, who is well to do, should be subsidized by tax payers....but a poor person who needs food? well, that's just too g**da** bad, isn't it?


The problem with Fincher isn't that he's scooped up farm subsidies, it's that the appropriations bill he's votes for continues to direct huge subsidies to rich farmers like himself even even while he preaches the evils of government spending to support the poor.

If minimum wage should be adjusted because of rising costs of living shouldn't the minimum retirement age be raised because of rising average lifespans?

Sure could give the budget a huge break if we went from 65 to 75 or even 70. After all it was this group that had all those middle class jobs and surely they were wise enough to save. ;)

saw this in todays paper...

http://www.gocomics.com/nickanderson/2013/09/24

I call that and raise you this one:D

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wa...b_3956677.html

Some things just don't pass the smell taste.

Since '08, 18.38 million were added to the program. So if the author is correct in his expectations the economy has not recovered and in fact has gotten worse over the past five years. And if there's any correlation between the percentage of the rise in food stamp recipients and the economy it may be as high as 38% worse.

Cutting 4 million or 21% of those added since '08 may just be prudent pruning. Seems to me if the economy has improved and I certainly think it has since '08 the number cut should be more along the lines of 18 million.

I think in the last 5 years you have people that have seen the Richest of the Rich get rewarded with bailouts while their situation stayed the same or got worse. I think a lot of folks today simply are saying wtf I will get every handout possible. Look at Americas biggest growth industry, disability claims. They are sky-rocketing. We have lost our way and it starts from the very top. Our congressional leadership.

ftfy

yes, it's hard to say 'try hard and work hard' when we see corruption and fraud get rewarded, constantly.
then there's the congressman who recently whined how he's 'stuck' in d.c., making over 170k a year. poor little fella. that's over three times the average yearly salary per household.

The majority of those who receive SNAP benefits are the elderly and children. Which of them would you cut in your "pruning," Dell? The elderly or the children? Or maybe the disabled? Between those three, that's 83 percent of households receiving benefits.

SNAP has less fraud and waste in it than Medicare. How about we cut Medicare instead, and let old people fend for themselves so the rich doctors defrauding Medicare get their just desserts?

Here are a couple of stats about SNAP. More at the link; well worth reading to understand the program a bit:

http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fig...realities.aspx

But much better to keep farm subsidies going to millionaires who get paid because their rich dad died and left them fallow farmland than to feed poor kids.

Or send billions to countries whose majority want Israel annihilated.

I'm not against cutting farm subsidies or even raising taxes but with a debt that may or may not be payable I suggest using the money and a lot of other subsidy/entitlement money in the future to tackling it.

Bottom line is if you believe the economy has gotten better under Obama, the author's assertion that the SNAP rolls will decrease greatly once the economy improves is not only false, it's the opposite of what actually occurred under the very scenario presented in his article.

Cutting farm subsidies and raising taxes just as raising the debt ceiling will do nothing but be wasted unless it's dedicated to paying down the debt.

Obama's analogy of buying a Ford truck on credit and then needing to pay the note each month was fine only he needed to be paying that note on a credit card, asking the bank to raise his credit limit every year, driving that truck down the road throwing money out the windows.

In the real world he'd be cut off.

so, the old, the young, and the disabled.....perhaps euthanasia is the answer, decrease the surplus population. after all, two of the thrre groups dont have much upside.
an added bonus--more money for corporate subsidies.

http://news.msn.com/us/many-fast-foo...sistance-study

the pro-labor National Employment Law Project found that the 10 largest fast-food companies in the United States cost taxpayers more than $3.8 billion each year in public assistance because the workers do not make enough to pay for basic necessities themselves.


Overall, families with a working member account for 73 percent of all enrollments, amounting to two-thirds of all public benefits spending, the study said.

In other types of service work, such as maintenance, laundry and personal services, the researchers found that one-third of employees are enrolled in public assistance programs, as were about 30 percent of workers in the retail and hospitality sectors.

Not sure what the point of the article is other than pointing out minimum wage workers in the fast food industry receive public assistance at double the rate as other minimum wage workers.

I think many fast food workers are overpaid judging from my few visits to McDonalds.

My apologies to mickey d workers ;)

Four new items in four months? That's only 30 days to learn the new item before you introduce another. Do you know how hard it is to pronounce blueberry pomegranate smoothie much less identify the button you have to push to make it?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...98432499699844

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...employees.html

'But corporate America as a whole has been so successful in squeezing the labor share of national income lower and lower that it's become a substantial constraint to businesses' ability to sell things to people. The cycle of low wages, low demand, weak hiring, weak bargaining power, and low wages just keeps grinding on.'


you'd think corporations would understand that if they paid more, their employees would spend more, thus driving up demand and creating jobs-with more people making money, spending more, etc

They only need to paint a pretty picture for the next earnings report so they can dump their options into a market being supported by fed dollars. The race to the bottom continues.

D.C. awash in contracts, lobbying wealth : Stltoday
http://www.stltoday.com/news/nationa...d3186a960.html

.... the definition of Chutzpah ...

Wal-Mart Asks Customers To Donate Food To Its Needy Employees

http://www.businessinsider.com/walma...e-food-2013-11

That really is crazy.

that's what i'd linked to a couple posts back, slate had an article on it.

it is ridiculous that workers in this country need help. there's no excuse for it, other than corporate greed, with millions going to those at the very top of the company food chain, while many at the bottom have to get assistance from the govt (taxpayers). and that's no excuse at all-it's an explanation as to why.
the govt, who doles out subsidies to many of these businesses, and has been put on the hook by the same to subsidize employees, must take immediate action. raise the minimum wage back to where it used to be, at a level that keeps people above the poverty line like it did before!

Yet the brainwashed slaves defend the slave masters. :zz: