461–470 of 753 posts
the story of a 29-year old working in fast food sounds pretty disturbing. it sounds like a lack of planning more than anything. McDonalds is meant for kids in high school living with their parents. It's pretty disturbing that a 29-year old would have failed to plan for over 15 years wasting her time and working in a job meant for kids half her age. I would say she should start getting some real skills to get a higher…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, why not? There’s a ridiculous amount of money out there, but people are squabbling over pennies.
So now when you apply for a job they should base your pay on your household situation? If one person is single and the other is a single mom with three kids, the company should pay more? Should they also get paid more if one has a medical condition and the other doesn’t?
Everybody seems to be latching on to the McDonald's part of her story, the author included. But it's the hospital part I find mortifying. McDonald's is pinching pennies left and right, it's their key to success. The hospital is not. How much would you guess they're charging per day for the average patient to stay there? I bet it's enough money to cover full-time employment and benefits for their food service workers.
I find it very interesting that most people assume it should be the employer's responsibility to provide for the employee's wellbeing. Call me naive, but I think it should be society's responsibility. What about Hedge Funds, Technology companies, Law Firms and every other company that hires primarily 6-figure white collar employees. Should they be completely off the hook, just because their business model only requir…
You're right, but then we have the employer class generally lobbying against society actually providing these things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s not the role of every job to provide a livable income. It’s the role of the economy for someone to get a livable income if that’s what they’re seeking. If it’s not working then it needs a nudge.
So should we force companies to pay a “livable income” for the teenager staying at home? The couple with two small kids and the mom staying at home to raise them? The single mom who has to raise three or four kids on her own? The single person in the story who needs expensive medical care to stay alive?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get the fat and obese are frustrating, but you are victim blaming in the context of a US that lets unfettered advertising and product pushing of unhealthy food, healthcare, support, education, and lifestyles. If economics and policy actually worked, there would be regulatory feedbacks, but not in 'murica
So advertising and marketing are to blame for people overeating? At some point you have to take responsibility for your decisions and the consequences. I don't think it's victim blaming to point out that something that is entirely within their control.
Now imagine an anorexic woman who recovers, but she overcorrects and ends up overweight in the eyes of her anorexic friends. They shame her for overeating and she tries to eat less, which puts her adipose cells under stress. Is it possible that she'd keep gaining weight from the stress of undereating? If it's impossible, how do you know? If it's not impossible, should we blame anorexics the same way we blame people with habits that you think are bad?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s not the role of every job to provide a livable income. It’s the role of the economy for someone to get a livable income if that’s what they’re seeking. If it’s not working then it needs a nudge.
What standard of living do you consider "livable" and what percentage of the 7.7 Billion people on the planet actually live at that standard? The "living wage" thing is a marketing weasel phrase. It's intentionally non-specific and encourages the listener to fill in their own idea of what kind of lifestyle a "living wage" entails. I would encourage everyone to ignore "living wage" marketing weasel-speak and only list…
Other than the low salaries, there are two compounding issues here: – Transportation. The US is very unfriendly to forms of transportation that are not cars. There are a few exceptions, but these are exceptions. Good public transport or even bike lanes would massively improve conditions for a lot of people. – Health care. Private companies are overcharging people and have made health care(hospitals and medication) un…
http://www.archwaystoopportunity.com/tuition_assistance.html
Seems like giving up your best employees who are motivated to improve themselves.
Unfortunately the women in this article probably lacks the free hours to pursue this benefit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they’re on the fence already, then they should be doing it. A few hundred dollars a day means next to nothing to McDonald’s, and everything to the workers. Don’t hold the threat of automation over them, if it’s gonna happen rip the bandaid off.
A few hundred a day means a lot to the franchise owner. It really means a lot to the mom and pop pizzeria down the street or the owner of the convenience store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I share this view myself, neat to see someone else feels the same way. I'm a CS student and I've been working at a Panera for about a year now. I love my particular store and the work environment is great; I genuinely look forward to going to work every day. I'll miss my coworkers when I have to quit soon to start my programming career. That being said, I understand why those jobs could never realistically pay anythi…
I work in cybersecurity now, but worked retail for 7 years, fast food (Subway) for 6 years, and a ride op at a major theme park (Cedar Point) for 2 summers. If I could work the ride op or fast food jobs at my current salary, I'd take them in a heart beat. Hell, I might even take the ride op job for half the salary because the job could sometimes be a lot of fun. But retail? Hell no. You could offer me double my salar…