Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Week in the Life of a McDonald’s Cashier

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

741–750 of 753 posts

Re: A Week in the Life of a McDonald’s Cashier

#741

Post by Broken_Hippo »

Noumenon72 wrote: post #740
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, we do want retail to be a great career. Lots of great careers pay little: Pre-K teachers usually make just over minimum wage in the US, despite needing a 2-year degree to do the job. But it is rewarding and fufilling. And everyone needs to shop. Retail isn't just interacting with people all day: You are filing shelves. Sometimes you are a pharmacist or a pharmacy tech. Sometimes you are doing payroll or man…

I do want retail to be rewarding and fulfilling, just not a smart career move that makes you lots of money. I want ambitious, motivated people becoming my coworkers and bosses, not doing retail for fun. I don't like interacting with people but it is way more cushy than the factory work I did for fifteen years. I guess you're right about not taking more intelligence or training, but it takes so much more physical stam…

No, it doesn't take more or less physical stamina. Like factory work, it varies depending on location and the job for the day. Factory work is hardly ambitious either - most folks know that is a dead end job that isn't going to go anywhere. I've found more chances for this stuff in retail.

Most folks don't do retail for fun. Those that do will also do a number of other part-time jobs for fun or whatever reason. Most folks working retail, though, are doing it to eat and pay rent. Sometimes having a flexible schedule is necessary. A great number of places have chances to move into management, sometimes moving out of poverty wages.

None of this means the folks aren't ambitious or motivated. You simply don't recognise it as such because they are doing what you consider to be a "lower" job or not doing enough to meet your personal criteria.

Re: A Week in the Life of a McDonald’s Cashier

#742

Post by JD_MRT »

greedo wrote: post #684
JD_MRT wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to realize that Norway is swimming in oil, so quite easy to subsidize all that you want. Then McDonald's net income is about USD 6bn not USD10bn. Which divided by its 1.7 million employees would make an extra USD 294 per month, which as someone already pointed out would go straight into the landlord's pockets. By comparison McDonald's is also quite profitable (net income margins close to 30%), unlike most co…

Unless McDonalds has done an incredible job of increasing their margins threefold since I worked there (left in 1995), there's no way their net margins are so high. Our best store made 10% net, and that paid for a lot of the crappier stores.

I looked at 2018's annual report. Net income divided by total revenues. Google should that show that in a quick search.

Re: A Week in the Life of a McDonald’s Cashier

#743

Post by JD_MRT »

cixter wrote: post #640
JD_MRT wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to realize that Norway is swimming in oil, so quite easy to subsidize all that you want. Then McDonald's net income is about USD 6bn not USD10bn. Which divided by its 1.7 million employees would make an extra USD 294 per month, which as someone already pointed out would go straight into the landlord's pockets. By comparison McDonald's is also quite profitable (net income margins close to 30%), unlike most co…

Yeah, we have a comfortable cushion in our pension fund, but other scandinavian and european countries have a similar solution. But what do you mean "would go straight into the landlords pockets". Are you saying that rent would immediately rise to eat the difference if McD increased their salaries?

In the case of cities like NY, London, Amsterdam, San Francisco and the like yes, but not necessary overnight, maybe take a year or so. My point is not that if Mcdonalds only where to raise its wages, but all Mcdonalds like companies. Also,it is not the case either that McDonald is a monopolist in fast food. If it were I could understand that they could have room to maneuver and pay lower salaries. But is not the case for them and neither for the overwhelming share of companies.

Re: A Week in the Life of a McDonald’s Cashier

#744

Post by cixter »

JD_MRT wrote: post #743
cixter wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, we have a comfortable cushion in our pension fund, but other scandinavian and european countries have a similar solution. But what do you mean "would go straight into the landlords pockets". Are you saying that rent would immediately rise to eat the difference if McD increased their salaries?

In the case of cities like NY, London, Amsterdam, San Francisco and the like yes, but not necessary overnight, maybe take a year or so. My point is not that if Mcdonalds only where to raise its wages, but all Mcdonalds like companies. Also,it is not the case either that McDonald is a monopolist in fast food. If it were I could understand that they could have room to maneuver and pay lower salaries. But is not the cas…

With regards to the rent: yes, the rent might rise somewhat over time, but not to completely fill that wage gap. There are so many other things influencing rent and economics, so I don't see that as a probable consequence. Also, giving the poor better wages might increase some of their costs (like fast food), but it will move their personal economy closer to more expensive things they might need occasionally, like new appliances etc, which are currently a huge source of headache.

As for the maneuverability on raising wages, that's what a minimum wage would be for. No need for companies to let the competition ahead of them because they increase the wages - everybody else would have to do the same.

Re: A Week in the Life of a McDonald’s Cashier

#745

Post by cixter »

soulofmischief wrote: post #709
cixter wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No moral judgement? He's literally stating that he thinks people who can't get out of poverty within 10-20 years are not worth his empathy. It's clear as day that he considers her to a large degree responsible for her situation. The anectotal example he is asking for is in the very article we're discussing. Not that she has made no mistakes, but that (as has been stated several times in these comments) such mistakes…

Actually, no, that's not what I said. I said that sometimes I have trouble empathizing with reasonably intelligent individuals who have not made a meaningful change to their prospects after 20 years, and I made a post requesting different points of view. The truth is that you're being way overcritical. Nothing about my post is clear as day, the only comments I made regarding Ms. Brown were in the form of questions. A…

You're right, I did extrapolate your statement - sorry about that.

It's clear we're approaching this issue from completely different fundamental positions. To me, your question is uninteresting because my underlying belief is that all human beings that live in a society deserve a life where they don't have to worry about fundamental needs, such as food, shelter and hygiene.

I think everyone should receive enough money from their jobs to afford decent, nutritional food, a small apartment, and hygiene articles. Even if they are hard-working or complacent, stupid or intelligent.

Re: A Week in the Life of a McDonald’s Cashier

#746

Post by soulofmischief »

cixter wrote: post #745
soulofmischief wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, no, that's not what I said. I said that sometimes I have trouble empathizing with reasonably intelligent individuals who have not made a meaningful change to their prospects after 20 years, and I made a post requesting different points of view. The truth is that you're being way overcritical. Nothing about my post is clear as day, the only comments I made regarding Ms. Brown were in the form of questions. A…

You're right, I did extrapolate your statement - sorry about that. It's clear we're approaching this issue from completely different fundamental positions. To me, your question is uninteresting because my underlying belief is that all human beings that live in a society deserve a life where they don't have to worry about fundamental needs, such as food, shelter and hygiene. I think everyone should receive enough mone…

In an ideal world, we would all be on UBI. But we aren't, and so we have the duty to ourselves, each other, and our posterity to do everything we can to reverse the authoritarian plague ripping through this planet.

We have to learn how we can take personal agency despite hardships, and instill this agency in others, so that we can stand our ground and ensure a better economic outcome for our children.

Re: A Week in the Life of a McDonald’s Cashier

#747

Post by cixter »

soulofmischief wrote: post #712
cixter wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about people without "reasonable intelligence"? Do they deserve the hardships of perpetual poverty? Why should genes and a genetic lottery decide if you can live a decent life or not?

It is up to successful people and organizations to care for those who cannot provide for themselves, and up to our government to enforce this. I am not a free market capitalist and I believe in UBI. But we're only here to discuss those who are capable, and why it is they might not be taking advantage of upward mobility.

I'm not sure I understand. How can you believe in UBI and still believe that it's up to private initiatives to care for those who can't provide for themselves?

As for your second point: I wasnt aware we're only here for that? That's in any case not my agenda.

Re: A Week in the Life of a McDonald’s Cashier

#748

Post by JD_MRT »

cixter wrote: post #744
JD_MRT wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of cities like NY, London, Amsterdam, San Francisco and the like yes, but not necessary overnight, maybe take a year or so. My point is not that if Mcdonalds only where to raise its wages, but all Mcdonalds like companies. Also,it is not the case either that McDonald is a monopolist in fast food. If it were I could understand that they could have room to maneuver and pay lower salaries. But is not the cas…

With regards to the rent: yes, the rent might rise somewhat over time, but not to completely fill that wage gap. There are so many other things influencing rent and economics, so I don't see that as a probable consequence. Also, giving the poor better wages might increase some of their costs (like fast food), but it will move their personal economy closer to more expensive things they might need occasionally, like ne…

I guess that we disagree on the relative merits of minimum wage laws. I tend to see them as a very blunt tool. In the short term might work, but long run no impact (nothing changes) or negative side effects.

In the case of your example, if all companies increase wages all at the same time, then you end up pretty much in the same spot you started. Goods and services' prices adjust, companies make less profits, rents increase -- i.e. no actual increase in production (or housing) in the economy that might help the poorest the most. Some industries might be able to pass on the wage bill entirely to customers, others will get squeezed and stop investment and entry of new companies. It all depends on elasticities and the studies that we usually see trying to measure that show that shareholders are not the ones that get hit the most.

If we want the poor to be able to afford more appliances, we need to make those appliances cheaper to produce. And to get there we might need many industries paying people very little, so that we can get off the ground somehow. This example is easy to visualize when looking at China or Bangladesh. But even looking at Europe as a whole it is very clear in my mind that countries like Greece or Portugal still need to cover at lot of ground in this manner. Former communist Eastern Europe countries are already surpassing GE and PT by following broadly that scrip. And even UK and Germany would only be bottom five if they were considered US states (in GDP per capita adjusted by purchasing power). And inside the US there is a massive gap between NY and Alabama. And NY itself is plagued by super high rents because we don't build anymore.

It sounds cruel to imply that a $15/h wage for the lady in the article is not going to help her. It will, but in the short run only. It also sounds impolite to mention that many people in her situation managed to turn their lives around out of that kind of precarity. Many will on account of their smarts, resilience or luck, but many will not. For these the only true hope is that we manage to increase the number of companies and productivity of all companies in the economy. So that we end up with very high productivity industries (read, than produce a lot for low prices) such as oil and gas, car industry, food production, appliances industry, hopefully home-building, “subsidizing” the rest through low cost products and competition of all those low wage, and unskilled jobs. Mandating minimum salaries is like chasing a unicorn.

Side note. In the article she mentions that she is trying to save for a car. Cars in the US are much cheaper than in Europe, and if you go to e.g. Argentina you would be surprised by how much a pile to junk is worth in the second hand car market.

Re: A Week in the Life of a McDonald’s Cashier

#749

Post by greedo »

JD_MRT wrote: post #742
greedo wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless McDonalds has done an incredible job of increasing their margins threefold since I worked there (left in 1995), there's no way their net margins are so high. Our best store made 10% net, and that paid for a lot of the crappier stores.

I looked at 2018's annual report. Net income divided by total revenues. Google should that show that in a quick search.

That's the parent company's financial figures, which include profits from franchisee's. This inflates their earnings. A typical store (franchisee or McOpCo) clears about 10% net of their sales. For a McOpCo store (one owned directly by McDonalds), this is not bad at all, since they don't have to pay a franchise fee. This means they're clearing 5-8% more. But for a franchisee, they pay a franchise fee of around that amount. So take home is not as extravagant. 90% of McDonalds are franchised, so the parent company's earnings are largely composed of franchise fees, not sales margins.

Re: A Week in the Life of a McDonald’s Cashier

#750

Post by Noumenon72 »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #741
Noumenon72 wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do want retail to be rewarding and fulfilling, just not a smart career move that makes you lots of money. I want ambitious, motivated people becoming my coworkers and bosses, not doing retail for fun. I don't like interacting with people but it is way more cushy than the factory work I did for fifteen years. I guess you're right about not taking more intelligence or training, but it takes so much more physical stam…

No, it doesn't take more or less physical stamina. Like factory work, it varies depending on location and the job for the day. Factory work is hardly ambitious either - most folks know that is a dead end job that isn't going to go anywhere. I've found more chances for this stuff in retail. Most folks don't do retail for fun. Those that do will also do a number of other part-time jobs for fun or whatever reason. Most…

I didn't work in an assembly-line kind of factory, I worked in light manufacturing. That builds a ton of interpersonal and "conflict-with-reality" type skills, such as disagreements over quality and wrangling cranky machines. Retail was not nearly as challenging.

I will grant you that selling garden soil might be as physically demanding as working in a factory, and miles walked could add up too. But I never woke up in retail wondering if I'd be physically able to continue working my job much longer because of the wear and tear.

There's a reason every rich country got there by manufacturing and not retail, and in part it's that you don't build human capital by sitting in a chair scanning price tags. Manufacturing productivity increases steadily so workers have to become steadily more skillful to keep up. It's also far from a dead-end job, as productivity is easily measured and the cream can rise.

People in retail can be ambitious and talented, but their talents are wasted there. We can't get every ambitious, motivated person out of retail and into the job where they would do the most good just by offering them money, because money isn't everything. But we can avoid screwing things up by _pushing_ those people into jobs where their talents are wasted, by offering them too much money. I've worked lots of mandatory overtime because people wouldn't come work for my employer, so I feel the pain of jobs that need good people but can't get them.

Post reply on HN