Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Mommy, why are poor people poor?Follow

#152 Oct 25 2013 at 4:49 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,022 posts
I'm pretty sure McDonalds is almost entirely franchised.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#153 Oct 25 2013 at 5:04 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Ugly wrote:
So restaurants would be more efficient if they weren't run by people who knew nothing about running restaurants? You know what the problem is there? Restaurants are run by people who don't know how to run restaurants. Want to know soemthing else? sh*t would taste better if it wasn't sh*t.


Way to miss the point, which is everyone think "wages" as the sole profit killer, without looking at other spending. They don't accurately budget their money, because they don't know what they are doing. People aren't as picky as you think if the food is good. You can constantly have a good amount of customers and still fail. Logically speaking, that shouldn't ever happen, but if you fail at management, you can. In other words, simply paying more wages != loss of profit. There are several other ways to cut spending to allow paying more wages that wouldn't affect customer satisfaction.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#154 Oct 25 2013 at 5:46 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,889 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
I'm pretty sure McDonalds is almost entirely franchised.

This. I've worked at a few McD's and I knew all the owners. Workers don't make $7 "because that's all McD can pay them", it's just what the market will pay teenagers for summer and after-school jobs.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#155 Oct 25 2013 at 6:50 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Debalic wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
I'm pretty sure McDonalds is almost entirely franchised.

This. I've worked at a few McD's and I knew all the owners. Workers don't make $7 "because that's all McD can pay them", it's just what the market will pay teenagers for summer and after-school jobs.


I wish I got paid $7. I got paid $5.15 even though she knew the minimum wage was going up within a month or two. Other Mc D workers at other stores (along with other fast food) got paid $6-$8. Goes all back to management.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#156 Oct 25 2013 at 6:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Debalic wrote:
This. I've worked at a few McD's and I knew all the owners. Workers don't make $7 "because that's all McD can pay them", it's just what the market will pay teenagers for summer and after-school jobs.

This. During the tech boom years in the late 1990s, when unemployment was 4% or whatever, fast food places were hiring for $10-$12 an hour because the labor market was so depleted. Now I suppose more people eat Burger King when they have money than when everyone is poor but (A) I doubt fast food restaurant sale went up 100% from when they were paying minimum wage and (B) When people have ample money, they can participate in the privilege of not buying fast food because they don't need to eat $1.25 burgers to survive and can take some of that cash to a real restaurant.

Edited, Oct 25th 2013 7:59am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#157 Oct 25 2013 at 7:06 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,221 posts
Yeah back when minimum wage was still $5.25/hour, I saw a sign outside a local McDs that said their positions started at $7/hour. I don't know if they've gone past minimum wage since then.

I like Restaurant Impossible. He doesn't pull any punches. (Mystery Diners and that other one with the surveillance team, forgot its name, is usually more about employee theft or incompetence.) He also usually gives the restaurant a much needed face lift in addition to the menu makeover. He even made one place change their name. (It was "Edibles." Not very encouraging.)

There's one such "5th iteration of a restaurant" around here call Cali 'n Tito's. It was a Pizza Hut long ago. Then it became an ice cream joint. Then it was Achim's K-Bob, which still exists around here although it's now called Keba. The place was shuttered for a long time til the current guys came in. Now it's... kind of a local tropical island. They planted palm trees and dragged in beach sand and most of the dining is outdoors on cheap picnic tables, with a BYOB policy and cash only. Self-bus and cleanup. Best pan-Latin cuisine in town. The line always stretches around the building. It's the closest restaurant to the south part of the uni campus, and in walking distance from the baseball field.

They don't charge any more for their food comparatively, but they've got their overhead shrunk down so much that they probably make a lot more than a similar priced restaurant in better digs.

We have a lot of regional franchises headquartered around here. My office is across the hall from Zaxby's corporate headquarters.

Edited, Oct 25th 2013 9:09am by Catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#158 Oct 25 2013 at 7:16 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
McD's employees make 7 an hour because thats all McD's can afford to pay them
I need some additional info to know if this should be alarming. Does McDonald's own all of its stores or do they franchise them out?

If they franchise most of them out, then you're making the wrong comparison. Then it should be $7 vs profits of the individual store.


Yes and No. (approx 75% of McD's 33K worldwide locations are franchised)

But McD's still controls the valve on money remaining at individual stores profit lines. Presently it costs 12.5% of profits to franchise a McD's. the Corporation could drop that to 1% of profits, leaving 11.5% to be redistributed among employees at each location. While this is still based on profits of the individual store McD's corporation can directly influence employee pay based on the draw figure they take from each franchise.

This would not change the bottom line for the owner/operator of the franchise, and give his employees more money per hour. If McD's wanted to they could divide their overall year profits across all their locations to the tune of about 269K to be redistributed as increased pay. For a small location such as the one in my Town that is about 20K more/year per person.

Or McD's could simply issue profit sharing among all of its employees franchised or not, and allow them to reap some of the rewards that the entire company has made.






Edited, Oct 25th 2013 9:19am by rdmcandie

Edited, Oct 25th 2013 9:35am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#159 Oct 25 2013 at 7:53 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,677 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Way to miss the point, which is everyone think "wages" as the sole profit killer, without looking at other spending.
Who's everyone? It's not the sole, it's just the biggest.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#160 Oct 25 2013 at 8:06 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,677 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
But McD's still controls the valve on money remaining at individual stores profit lines. Presently it costs 12.5% of profits to franchise a McD's. the Corporation could drop that to 1% of profits, leaving 11.5% to be redistributed among employees at each location. While this is still based on profits of the individual store McD's corporation can directly influence employee pay based on the draw figure they take from each franchise.

This would not change the bottom line for the owner/operator of the franchise, and give his employees more money per hour. If McD's wanted to they could divide their overall year profits across all their locations to the tune of about 269K to be redistributed as increased pay. For a small location such as the one in my Town that is about 20K more/year per person.

Or McD's could simply issue profit sharing among all of its employees franchised or not, and allow them to reap some of the rewards that the entire company has made.
McDonald's pull from the bottom line and not the top like every other franchiser? Interesting.



Anyway, I think you've been drinking some of gbaji's cool-aid here if you think McDonald's dropping franchise fees would result in the individual store owners passing that savings onto the employees.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#161 Oct 25 2013 at 8:41 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,922 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
McD's employees make 7 an hour because thats all McD's can afford to pay them
I need some additional info to know if this should be alarming. Does McDonald's own all of its stores or do they franchise them out?

If they franchise most of them out, then you're making the wrong comparison. Then it should be $7 vs profits of the individual store.


Yes and No. (approx 75% of McD's 33K worldwide locations are franchised)

But McD's still controls the valve on money remaining at individual stores profit lines. Presently it costs 12.5% of profits to franchise a McD's. the Corporation could drop that to 1% of profits, leaving 11.5% to be redistributed among employees at each location. While this is still based on profits of the individual store McD's corporation can directly influence employee pay based on the draw figure they take from each franchise.

This would not change the bottom line for the owner/operator of the franchise, and give his employees more money per hour. If McD's wanted to they could divide their overall year profits across all their locations to the tune of about 269K to be redistributed as increased pay. For a small location such as the one in my Town that is about 20K more/year per person.

Or McD's could simply issue profit sharing among all of its employees franchised or not, and allow them to reap some of the rewards that the entire company has made.
Edited, Oct 25th 2013 9:19am by rdmcandie

Edited, Oct 25th 2013 9:35am by rdmcandie

The @#%^? Why would McD drop its incoming cash by 1200%

How high are you right now?


Edited, Oct 25th 2013 10:43am by Timelordwho
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#162 Oct 25 2013 at 9:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,624 posts
We pay McDonalds people $9/hr min, I can walk out with 1200 calories of food for $3, and they're still in business. Why the rest of you haven't pegged your minimum wage to inflation yet is beyond me.

Really it's McDonalds, they're like **** or something. All the other fast food chains go under and they're still scurrying across the globe like nothing happened. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#163 Oct 25 2013 at 9:31 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,338 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Really it's McDonalds, they're like **** or something. All the other fast food chains go under and they're still scurrying across the globe like nothing happened. Smiley: rolleyes
Until the Franchise Wars turn everything into Taco Bell.
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#164 Oct 25 2013 at 9:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,624 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Really it's McDonalds, they're like **** or something. All the other fast food chains go under and they're still scurrying across the globe like nothing happened. Smiley: rolleyes
Until the Franchise Wars turn everything into Taco Bell.
I'm betting Jack in the box pulls an upset on them early on. Jack has some pretty terrible tacos too, and sells them a bit cheaper as well.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#165 Oct 25 2013 at 10:08 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,674 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Really it's McDonalds, they're like **** or something. All the other fast food chains go under and they're still scurrying across the globe like nothing happened. Smiley: rolleyes
Until the Franchise Wars turn everything into Taco Bell.

Poor judgement.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#166 Oct 25 2013 at 10:23 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
But McD's still controls the valve on money remaining at individual stores profit lines. Presently it costs 12.5% of profits to franchise a McD's. the Corporation could drop that to 1% of profits, leaving 11.5% to be redistributed among employees at each location. While this is still based on profits of the individual store McD's corporation can directly influence employee pay based on the draw figure they take from each franchise.

This would not change the bottom line for the owner/operator of the franchise, and give his employees more money per hour. If McD's wanted to they could divide their overall year profits across all their locations to the tune of about 269K to be redistributed as increased pay. For a small location such as the one in my Town that is about 20K more/year per person.

Or McD's could simply issue profit sharing among all of its employees franchised or not, and allow them to reap some of the rewards that the entire company has made.
McDonald's pull from the bottom line and not the top like every other franchiser? Interesting.



Anyway, I think you've been drinking some of gbaji's cool-aid here if you think McDonald's dropping franchise fees would result in the individual store owners passing that savings onto the employees.



You're right it wouldn't likely mean that, chances are individual franchise owners would simply keep the net gains for themselves, which isn't any different than the Corporation tapping the money and keeping it on ledgers to appease stock holders. But if enough people in a respective nation decided they didn't think it was right that McD's and hundreds of other corporations were sitting on collective profits larger than US GDP and created law dictating profit sharing as mandatory, then there wouldn't be a choice.

Unfortunately McD's and other Corporations have a little bit more capital on their side to keep things like that from happening. Heck the Corporations have more money in after tax profits than the GDP of the USA, and a large % of the population thinks any discussion of income/wealth equality is gateway to communism, where evil boogeymen come and steal kids and make them work in jobs they might not want to do.

Edited, Oct 25th 2013 12:25pm by rdmcandie

Edited, Oct 25th 2013 12:25pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#167 Oct 25 2013 at 11:20 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,221 posts
I'm not an economist, but.... aren't the profits of the corporations more or less directly tied into the Gross Domestic Product? E.g. the GDP is the entire economic output of the private and public sectors.

If you mean that the profits of all companies in the world are more than the entire GDP of the United States, well, yes. That makes sense. But if you mean that the profits of the US based firms are more than all the money those US firms make, then it doesn't make any sense at all.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#168 Oct 25 2013 at 11:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,624 posts
Catwho wrote:
If you mean that the profits of all companies in the world are more than the entire GDP of the United States, well, yes. That makes sense.
That what I thought he was trying to say, and it kinda sorta made sense.

Really I just assumed he was trying to make some kind of Robin Hoodish point and the rest were just a jumble of tangentially related cherry-picked details. Smiley: rolleyes


Edited, Oct 25th 2013 10:41am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#169 Oct 25 2013 at 12:03 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Catwho wrote:
I'm not an economist, but.... aren't the profits of the corporations more or less directly tied into the Gross Domestic Product? E.g. the GDP is the entire economic output of the private and public sectors.

If you mean that the profits of all companies in the world are more than the entire GDP of the United States, well, yes. That makes sense. But if you mean that the profits of the US based firms are more than all the money those US firms make, then it doesn't make any sense at all.


Kinda yes and kinda no. GDP only accounts for income that is retained within the nation, or essentially the Value of the Corporation of the US. Many US based corporations earn income outside the borders, but the income is applied to the Corporation at home. The corporations are required to pay tax on this as it is considered standard income, but it does not account to the US GDP (it actually hurts it in some areas because imports on auto parts for example count against US Exports taking away potential trade surplus.).

Um to maybe make it more clear.

Franchise McDs in Canada sends 12.5% of Profits to Corporate > Corporate pays taxes on this and keeps the money.

Since the Money comes from Canada, it is applied instead to the Canadian GDP, and not the US GDP. Hence why the Total Corporate profits can out scale GDP.

(still don't know if that made any sense.)

Also to be clear I am talking about Growth not Final dollar. Corporations Profits only represent like 12% of US GDP currently. (and those who invest in Corporations only make up like 8% but that is 20% or 1/5th of your GDP just tied up in money to Corporations.) With Government Spending accounting for 19.5% and followed by Trade at about 9%, and about 50% is based on personal incomes/expenditures of the population of the US.

The problem is the Gap between Corporations Profits, and the Personal %'s Since the 80s Personal Consumption has declined from about 70% of GDP to 50% today, with Corporations rising nearly 2:1 with the remainder of the fraction now dependent on government (hence its rise from about 12% in the 80 to 19.5% today)

Essentially people have less money to buy stuff, so they only pay what they need to pay, government tries to provide assistance to boost leisure money that is used to help stimulate corporate production to hopefully entice more jobs, but that hasn't worked, government cuts taxes (lowering its revenue) to help create jobs that hasn't worked. US companies move out of country to create cheap product and resell it the US, this cost people more money...and the cycle of degeneration repeats.

If Corporations brought their profit ratios down to 1:1 with the people they employ, Government could back out of spending, and then reduce taxation on the people as the money allows. More people with more money buy more stuff, this pushes more profits up, and allows more people to become employed.

Or that is how it should work, ideally Governments involvement in private money would drop, and the true spirit of capitalism would take effect. But unlike true communism we can not have it because there are always men of greed power and corruption, unfortunately Capitalism is ripe target for Greed and Corruptiuon, because with money you buy power. 2008 Was all about Greed, rich people wanting to become even richer gambling with the money of their 300 million serfs. Today it is still about Greed, and is why poor people are poor and more are becoming poor each day.









Edited, Oct 25th 2013 4:42pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#170 Oct 25 2013 at 12:52 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Also I found this interesting and somewhat relevant to this topic.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#171 Oct 25 2013 at 1:17 PM Rating: Good
**
574 posts
Catwho wrote:
Yeah back when minimum wage was still $5.25/hour, I saw a sign outside a local McDs that said their positions started at $7/hour. I don't know if they've gone past minimum wage since then.

I like Restaurant Impossible. He doesn't pull any punches. (Mystery Diners and that other one with the surveillance team, forgot its name, is usually more about employee theft or incompetence.) He also usually gives the restaurant a much needed face lift in addition to the menu makeover. He even made one place change their name. (It was "Edibles." Not very encouraging.)

There's one such "5th iteration of a restaurant" around here call Cali 'n Tito's. It was a Pizza Hut long ago. Then it became an ice cream joint. Then it was Achim's K-Bob, which still exists around here although it's now called Keba. The place was shuttered for a long time til the current guys came in. Now it's... kind of a local tropical island. They planted palm trees and dragged in beach sand and most of the dining is outdoors on cheap picnic tables, with a BYOB policy and cash only. Self-bus and cleanup. Best pan-Latin cuisine in town. The line always stretches around the building. It's the closest restaurant to the south part of the uni campus, and in walking distance from the baseball field.

They don't charge any more for their food comparatively, but they've got their overhead shrunk down so much that they probably make a lot more than a similar priced restaurant in better digs.

We have a lot of regional franchises headquartered around here. My office is across the hall from Zaxby's corporate headquarters.

Edited, Oct 25th 2013 9:09am by Catwho


Around here people are to scared of liability or don't want to deal with the headache of going to the 7 stooges to try to open up a BYOB place and would rather just get a beer and wine license. Then dealing with the other restaurants complainants. They also have a **** good location but with 5 places going though it goes to show location only goes so far. They have everything to make a that low over head model work, a great location good food and they have a novelty in the BYOB policy and probably a ATM is on the main way from campus to support the cash only.

#172 Oct 25 2013 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,221 posts
Yeah there's an ATM in the gas station next door.

The BYOB policy is this: Bring whatever you want. $2 gets you an ID check, a bucket of ice, and a wrist brand. No wrist band, no drinky and they will eject you/call the cops on you if they suspect you're underage.

What we end up doing is building a custom six pack of gourmet beers from the package shop (for $10 or so) and working our way through it over the course of a few hours. Even with the $2/person overhead, it's cheaper than going to a beer pub.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#173 Oct 25 2013 at 2:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,022 posts
But if you're bringing your own booze, why not just stay at home and make a beer tasting/bottle share out of it? And half the reason for going to a beer pub is to drink beers you can't just get in stores, at least for me.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#174 Oct 25 2013 at 2:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,922 posts
Go to better stores?

Unless you are looking for something incredibly exotic (and even then) you should be able to find what you are looking for in a store. I mean, here at least. I'm not sure what the situation is over there.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#175 Oct 25 2013 at 2:13 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
But if you're bringing your own booze, why not just stay at home and make a beer tasting/bottle share out of it? And half the reason for going to a beer pub is to drink beers you can't just get in stores, at least for me.


I'd say 90% of the reason for going to pub is to meet new people and talk with acquaintances you may not necessarily know well enough to invite to your home. If I'm drinking with friends, usually they have friends that want to drink too, and I don't necessarily want to host several people in my home just to have a drink with some friends.

Then again, I've always been more of a social drinker. I never keep beer or liquor at the house, because I never drink alone. If I know someone's coming over for a bit, I'll buy beer for the occasion only.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#176 Oct 25 2013 at 2:18 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,221 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
But if you're bringing your own booze, why not just stay at home and make a beer tasting/bottle share out of it? And half the reason for going to a beer pub is to drink beers you can't just get in stores, at least for me.


Because I can't cook the best **** epanada on the planet like Cali 'n Tito's can. Smiley: laugh

We do also go to the local beer pubs with disturbing frequency, especially when they're having a "tap takeover" from one of the better craft brewers in the country or some other special event. It was through the pub Aroma's that I was introduced to the deliciousness that is Cigar City, and Aroma's gets a lot of their small barrel batches for events.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#177 Oct 25 2013 at 2:25 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,022 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Go to better stores?

Unless you are looking for something incredibly exotic (and even then) you should be able to find what you are looking for in a store. I mean, here at least. I'm not sure what the situation is over there.
Bars (ad some specialty stores) usually have much better connections when it comes to getting beer that isn't distributed here than I do, unless I go through the trouble of sourcing limited release Cantillon bottles or something like that.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#178 Oct 25 2013 at 2:52 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,922 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Go to better stores?

Unless you are looking for something incredibly exotic (and even then) you should be able to find what you are looking for in a store. I mean, here at least. I'm not sure what the situation is over there.
Bars (ad some specialty stores) usually have much better connections when it comes to getting beer that isn't distributed here than I do, unless I go through the trouble of sourcing limited release Cantillon bottles or something like that.


Out here there are stores within a few minutes that have ~1000+ offerings in various categories, and unless you go to niche bar, the selection isn't going to be larger and in most cases isn't as deep. I may be underestimating the amount of varieties you have available at bars; i'm sure you have easier and less stringent imports from other euro-zone countries.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#179 Oct 25 2013 at 3:01 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,677 posts
Are you sure it's 12.5% of profits and not 12.5% of revenues? Profits really doesn't sound right from a franchiser.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#180 Oct 25 2013 at 3:05 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,221 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Go to better stores?

Unless you are looking for something incredibly exotic (and even then) you should be able to find what you are looking for in a store. I mean, here at least. I'm not sure what the situation is over there.
Bars (ad some specialty stores) usually have much better connections when it comes to getting beer that isn't distributed here than I do, unless I go through the trouble of sourcing limited release Cantillon bottles or something like that.


Out here there are stores within a few minutes that have ~1000+ offerings in various categories, and unless you go to niche bar, the selection isn't going to be larger and in most cases isn't as deep. I may be underestimating the amount of varieties you have available at bars; i'm sure you have easier and less stringent imports from other euro-zone countries.


While the selection of bottled beer is going to be higher in a package shop, the craft beer bars in town will often have things that were barrel only releases and never bottled.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#181 Oct 25 2013 at 3:37 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,922 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Are you sure it's 12.5% of profits and not 12.5% of revenues? Profits really doesn't sound right from a franchiser.


Since we're hashing out the details, I'll just put this from their site.

Quote:
During the term of the franchise, you pay McDonald’s the following fees:
Service fee: a monthly fee based upon the restaurant’s sales performance (currently a service fee of 4.0% of monthly sales).

Rent: a monthly base rent or percentage rent that is a percentage of monthly sales.


and from here

Long story short, it's a percentage of sales, not profits.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#182 Oct 25 2013 at 4:24 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Way to miss the point, which is everyone think "wages" as the sole profit killer, without looking at other spending.
Who's everyone? It's not the sole, it's just the biggest.


Let me clarify my point. Yes, wages is a major factor in profit, you can't hire people at any random outlandish wage. However, simply increasing wages to a more reasonable amount will not kill your profit if you're budgeting everything else right. If you've cut every single cost that you can make and paying your waiters $7 hour will cause an issue, then your business is probably on the urge of failing anyway.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#183 Oct 25 2013 at 5:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
rdmcandie wrote:

God you are special aren't you. Do you even know what this discussion is about. Again you are targeting one aspect of a very large thing and using it to support your position, and it doesn't even do that. The average income in the US is under 30K/yr. sh*t 75% of your population makes under 50KYr. 52% of your population makes less than 27K /yr. 35% of your population makes less than 18K/yr. 10% of your population makes less than 10,000 per year.


You need to learn the difference between average and median. The median individual income in the US is right about $30k. The median household income in the US is right about $50k. What part of this is complicated for you?

Quote:
35% of Americans are earning essentially the same dollar value they did in 1950.


Um... which means that 65% of Americans are earning more relatively speaking today than they did in the 1950s. How is this a disaster?

Quote:
50% of your population does not have enough money to keep up with Cost of Living increases.


Incorrect.

Quote:
Corporations made more in profits last year than they paid employees, and the US made as GDP.


That doesn't even make sense.


Quote:
Go do some homework buddy, All this information is available via your Census Records.


I'm not questioning the data. I'm questioning your interpretation of it.

Quote:
Quote:
No system is perfect. So instead of contrasting the system you don't like with perfection, why not compare it with a proposed alternative?


Why so we can sit here and read how little you know about Socialism?


We just sat and read how little you know about capitalism, so why not?


You seem very angry for some reason. I'm not sure why.

Edited, Oct 25th 2013 4:07pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#184 Oct 25 2013 at 5:12 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Gbaji wrote:
You need to learn the difference between average and median. The median individual income in the US is right about $30k. The median household income in the US is right about $50k. What part of this is complicated for you?


So, you're saying that the median pay for public school teachers is the same as the starting pay of a Brigadier General? Or am I missing something?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#185 Oct 25 2013 at 5:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Way to miss the point, which is everyone think "wages" as the sole profit killer, without looking at other spending.
Who's everyone? It's not the sole, it's just the biggest.


Let me clarify my point. Yes, wages is a major factor in profit, you can't hire people at any random outlandish wage. However, simply increasing wages to a more reasonable amount will not kill your profit if you're budgeting everything else right. If you've cut every single cost that you can make and paying your waiters $7 hour will cause an issue, then your business is probably on the urge of failing anyway.


That's true. But I think the bigger flaw with this entire line of reasoning is the idea that someone should be paid based on how much someone else can afford to pay them. If we assume that's true, then the assumption that the only reason someone isn't paid more is because their boss can't afford to, makes sense. But I disagree with the starting premise. Wages should be based on the market price of the labor being performed. It is subject to the same cost forces that any good or service is subject to.

Brings me back to the question I asked earlier: Why doesn't a loaf of bread cost $1000? Because people wont pay that much. Someone will offer to sell it for less if you try to charge that much. A host of market forces are in play. This is the same reason why McDonalds isn't going to eliminate 90% of its profits in order to double the wages of their employees. They don't need to. Why pay $18/hour for someone to work the grill if you can hire someone to do the same job for $9/hour? Why pay $1000 for a loaf of bread if you can by the same loaf for $3? It's the same question.

You don't walk into a store and look at something and think "I could afford to pay twice as much for this as the price tag says" and then pay twice as much, right? So why on earth think that a business should pay more for labor than the labor can demand in the market? Again, it's the same concept. I just think a lot of people are looking at this issue completely backwards. It's not about how much someone could afford to pay, but how much the market can require that person to pay. And that's going to be the result of a bunch of different factors like competition, supply, demand, etc.

Edited, Oct 25th 2013 4:37pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#186 Oct 25 2013 at 5:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
You need to learn the difference between average and median. The median individual income in the US is right about $30k. The median household income in the US is right about $50k. What part of this is complicated for you?


So, you're saying that the median pay for public school teachers is the same as the starting pay of a Brigadier General? Or am I missing something?


That was a completely different topic. But if you must know, someone in a long past thread tried to argue that teachers made less than waitresses. I said that was incorrect, and that the better comparison was to titles like senior engineer, middle managers, and brigadier generals. Those professions start at a level that is "slightly higher" than the median pay for public school teachers.

I honestly don't remember what numbers I was looking at back then. But I made the statement based on some site that listed pay ranges for different professions, and noted that the three professions had "starting pay" levels that were just a bit higher than the "median pay" for public school teachers. The problem is that for some bizarre reason the pay range for brigadier general was listed based on "years in the military", with the lowest rung listed as "less than 2 years". I didn't look that closely at the chart because I was just looking at ranges of pay, not what criteria defined those ranges. Obviously, you can't be a general in the military with only 2 years experience in the military, so the comparison was incorrect.

But predictably, instead of folks just saying "gee that chart is kinda silly for listing a pay for a general with two years experience in the military", they jumped up and down on how I was wrong on this one minor detail, while ignoring the other two professions I'd listed or why the data was wrong. It was an honest mistake. I just looked at pay scales, took the lowest value in the listed range, and found some that median teacher pay was "just lower than". But try explaining that to a group of folks who are more interested in the quick "gotcha" than making a **** bit of sense.


Um... All of which has absolutely zero to do with this thread. It was, at best, a silly attempt at "gbaji was wrong this one time, so he must be wrong this time" logic. And it was a pretty poor example of me being wrong at that.

Edited, Oct 25th 2013 4:36pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#187 Oct 25 2013 at 6:12 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
I want to touch on this first. I'll respond to the other later.
Gbaji wrote:
That was a completely different topic. But if you must know, someone in a long past thread tried to argue that teachers made less than waitresses. I said that was incorrect, and that the better comparison was to titles like senior engineer, middle managers, and brigadier generals. Those professions start at a level that is "slightly higher" than the median pay for public school teachers.

I honestly don't remember what numbers I was looking at back then. But I made the statement based on some site that listed pay ranges for different professions, and noted that the three professions had "starting pay" levels that were just a bit higher than the "median pay" for public school teachers. The problem is that for some bizarre reason the pay range for brigadier general was listed based on "years in the military", with the lowest rung listed as "less than 2 years". I didn't look that closely at the chart because I was just looking at ranges of pay, not what criteria defined those ranges. Obviously, you can't be a general in the military with only 2 years experience in the military, so the comparison was incorrect.

But predictably, instead of folks just saying "gee that chart is kinda silly for listing a pay for a general with two years experience in the military", they jumped up and down on how I was wrong on this one minor detail, while ignoring the other two professions I'd listed or why the data was wrong. It was an honest mistake. I just looked at pay scales, took the lowest value in the listed range, and found some that median teacher pay was "just lower than". But try explaining that to a group of folks who are more interested in the quick "gotcha" than making a **** bit of sense.


Um... All of which has absolutely zero to do with this thread. It was, at best, a silly attempt at "gbaji was wrong this one time, so he must be wrong this time" logic. And it was a pretty poor example of me being wrong at that.


My respect for you has risen 0.331 points. See it's not that hard to admit being wrong. I understand your confusion on the chart, but the reality is, if you actually knew anything about military pay, you would know that your conclusion was wrong. There are some instances, like specialty doctors who can come off the street into the Military, who have less years in service than the average Officer at the same pay grade. The military can translate their civilian years into military rank experience. So, it technically can happen (not sure for Generals), but very unlikely. Your lack of understanding led you to believe your statement. It wasn't the chart's fault.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#188 Oct 25 2013 at 6:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Really, anyone higher on the primate chain than "lemur" should have immediately questioned the "fact" that a Brigadier General in the US Armed Forces makes the same pay as your average schoolteacher. And perhaps looked into it before slapping that card on the table.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#189 Oct 25 2013 at 6:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Almalieque wrote:
My respect for you has risen 0.331 points. See it's not that hard to admit being wrong. I understand your confusion on the chart, but the reality is, if you actually knew anything about military pay, you would know that your conclusion was wrong. There are some instances, like specialty doctors who can come off the street into the Military, who have less years in service than the average Officer at the same pay grade. The military can translate their civilian years into military rank experience. So, it technically can happen (not sure for Generals), but very unlikely. Your lack of understanding led you to believe your statement. It wasn't the chart's fault.


Er? Ok. But it wasn't about confusion over the chart. I literally wanted to find professions in which the "starting pay" was "slightly higher" than the median public school teachers pay. In this particular case, I looked at a chart of military pay grades, and found the first column, then went up the list until I found a grade that paid about $5k/year higher than the median pay I was looking at.

At the time, that resulted in an O7 rate. Which is a Brigadier General. So I listed it as one of the titles with a starting pay rate that a public school teachers is "slightly less than". I did this for several professions (like engineer and manager) as well. Whether the chart was misleading, or confusing, or whatever really isn't the point. The point I was making was that it was incorrect to label teachers pay as "slightly less than a waitresses" pay, when in fact, it's "slightly less than" a number of professions/titles we normally associate with as professional and well compensated.

The whole "OMG! That's totally not what a Brigadier General makes" bit, while I'm sure it was an amusing distraction for some, was just that: a distraction. It was yet another case of ignoring the core point and zeroing in on an irrelevant fact, finding something "wrong" about it, and dismissing my entire post based on that.

Which, ironically, is more or less what this entire tangent is about. Instead of addressing what I wrote, we're now talking about something completely unrelated because someone decided that "gbaji was wrong back then, so we can ignore what he's saying now" would be the best way to counter what I wrote.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#190 Oct 25 2013 at 6:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Really, anyone higher on the primate chain than "lemur" should have immediately questioned the "fact" that a Brigadier General in the US Armed Forces makes the same pay as your average schoolteacher. And perhaps looked into it before slapping that card on the table.


Sigh. Again. I just looked at the first column for military pay, went to a rate that was $5k/year higher than whatever number we were using for "median teacher pay" at the time, and then checked what row that resulted in. Not my fault that's how the DoD lists their pay grades Joph. I honestly gave it no more thought than that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#191 Oct 25 2013 at 6:56 PM Rating: Good
******
43,443 posts
gbaji wrote:
Er? Ok. But it wasn't about confusion over the chart.
You purposely read it wrong?
gbaji wrote:
It was yet another case of ignoring the core point and zeroing in on an irrelevant fact, finding something "wrong" about it, and dismissing my entire post based on that.
Kind of like how you're trying to distract everyone from a little earlier on how this sequence of events never even happened?

If you don't want people to get distracted by the errors of your posts, then might I suggest you not try to pass off those same errors as facts?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#192 Oct 25 2013 at 7:06 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Er? Ok. But it wasn't about confusion over the chart.
You purposely read it wrong?


I've explained twice in great detail exactly what I did. I looked at the first (lowest) column of pay for a given profession. I didn't look at what requirements that first column represented. It was the "lowest pay for this title". That's it. Don't read any more into it than that.

If you have an issue with why the DoD lists O7 pay rates (all pay rates actually) for people with 2 years or less in the military, then take it up with them. But that is what the lowest pay column is. And that's what I used. Just as I used the lowest pay rates in a given range for other professions when making the comparison. I used the same methodology to determine "starting pay for Brigadier Generals" as I did for "starting pay for middle managers" or "starting pay for senior engineers". If that resulted in something strange or unusual, it's not my fault.


Quote:
Kind of like how you're trying to distract everyone from a little earlier on how this sequence of events never even happened?


Huh? I'm sorry. Is this topic about public teacher salaries? No? Then which tangent do you suppose is a distraction?

Quote:
If you don't want people to get distracted by the errors of your posts, then might I suggest you not try to pass off those same errors as facts?


Errors in a post I made a year ago in a completely unrelated topic? Really?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#193 Oct 25 2013 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
******
43,443 posts
gbaji wrote:
I've explained twice in great detail exactly what I did.
Yes, you said you weren't confused and went on to describe, "in great detail" about how you did it wrong. You can either do that by being confused or you did it purposely.
gbaji wrote:
If you have an issue with why the DoD lists O7 pay rates
Why would I have an issue? I'm the one that corrected you. I can read charts, and it really didn't take me long even in boot camp to figure out that two years or less wasn't really accurate for many of the numbers.
gbaji wrote:
Is this topic about public teacher salaries? No? Then which tangent do you suppose is a distraction?
No, this topic is about pay rates, and that was an example of you being woefully inept at discerning those. I'd say this is your attempt at distracting everyone else from that.
gbaji wrote:
Errors in a post I made a year ago in a completely unrelated topic? Really?
Ahh, your classic "it's irrelevant!" argument. Just because it weakens your point doesn't mean it's unrelated. It just means you're incapable of linking topics together.

Edited, Oct 25th 2013 9:16pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#194 Oct 25 2013 at 8:59 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Gbaji wrote:
That's true. But I think the bigger flaw with this entire line of reasoning is the idea that someone should be paid based on how much someone else can afford to pay them.


I don't support this notion at all. I disagree with the notion that a successful business can't afford to pay waiters/waitress more than $2.00 an hour.

Gbaji wrote:
Wages should be based on the market price of the labor being performed.

I agree.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#195 Oct 25 2013 at 9:14 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Er? Ok. But it wasn't about confusion over the chart. I literally wanted to find professions in which the "starting pay" was "slightly higher" than the median public school teachers pay. In this particular case, I looked at a chart of military pay grades, and found the first column, then went up the list until I found a grade that paid about $5k/year higher than the median pay I was looking at.

At the time, that resulted in an O7 rate. Which is a Brigadier General. So I listed it as one of the titles with a starting pay rate that a public school teachers is "slightly less than". I did this for several professions (like engineer and manager) as well. Whether the chart was misleading, or confusing, or whatever really isn't the point. The point I was making was that it was incorrect to label teachers pay as "slightly less than a waitresses" pay, when in fact, it's "slightly less than" a number of professions/titles we normally associate with as professional and well compensated.

The whole "OMG! That's totally not what a Brigadier General makes" bit, while I'm sure it was an amusing distraction for some, was just that: a distraction. It was yet another case of ignoring the core point and zeroing in on an irrelevant fact, finding something "wrong" about it, and dismissing my entire post based on that.


Soooo...you attack others for mislabeling the rate of public school teachers, but get upset because people attack you for mislabeling the rate of O7s?

Gbaji wrote:

Sigh. Again. I just looked at the first column for military pay, went to a rate that was $5k/year higher than whatever number we were using for "median teacher pay" at the time, and then checked what row that resulted in. Not my fault that's how the DoD lists their pay grades Joph. I honestly gave it no more thought than that.


Which is why his point is valid. If the paychart for Engineers capped out at 10k a year, you would think something was wrong. You wouldn't argue that Engineers make less than McD employees because of what chart x said. You were obviously clueless on the pay scale, else there would be no way you would make that comparison with or without the chart.

Edited, Oct 26th 2013 5:19am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#196 Oct 25 2013 at 10:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Remember, kids: gbaji doesn't get his news from anywhere, but he does get his economic information from McD's employees who drive used Lexus'. Smiley: schooled

Edited, Oct 26th 2013 12:35am by Bijou
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#197 Oct 26 2013 at 12:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I honestly gave it no more thought than that.

Kind of my point.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#198 Oct 26 2013 at 10:37 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,530 posts
gbaji wrote:
"gbaji was wrong back then, so we can ignore what he's saying now"


Just what we need, more reasons to ignore Gbaji.

Also, editing down a Gbaji post on a phone SUCKS!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#199 Oct 26 2013 at 11:07 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Are you sure it's 12.5% of profits and not 12.5% of revenues? Profits really doesn't sound right from a franchiser.


That is correct, mislabeling on my part, point still stands however.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#200 Oct 26 2013 at 12:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
5,608 posts
The things American's will believe so adamantly-- like how only teenagers in highschool work for low wages. I once worked at a liquor store with a 32 year old single mother, and there was nothing more depressing than watching her break down with stress over how she was going to get through the next week time after time. After a while I began to realize that this was the life of most everyone I know. I was, and to this day, living in a vast sea of poor people. The only people here with money are the elderly from the northern states, and the young Saudi Arabian aristocrats here to attend the college across the street.

The idea of having "unpaid interns" is becoming more and more popular these days. It might lead to a better job, or you might just be a sucker. If you do get a paid position, its with a employer who follows the Walmart model of paying you as little as legally allowed, and keeping you there, be it an office, a factory, etc. You aren't going to make more than $10p/h. Meanwhile your rent is $900-$1500 a month, and food and gas cost a fortune.

If you don't live with your parents, or your parents are as broke as you are, you probably won't be going to college because you'll be working 40 hours a week just to make ends meet. If you do manage to take classes, and do well, you have to specialize in something marketable, not what you are passionate about. Either way, you're in debt for years to come, and if you don't get a good paying job out of it, you're ****

Finding a job, be it good or bad, means filling out 30 pages of psychological evaluations to determine if you are enough of a soulless robot for said employer to want to hire you, in which you have to be very skilled at **** in. Your **** skill will have to come in handy yet again when you're called in for an interview in a city 500 miles from where you live, so you can scrape together what little money you have for the gas to get there in hopes it won't be an absolute waste of your time.

Oh, but here in 'Murica, its all because we're lazy, and stupid, and make poor choices, and drugs. Because only poor people use drugs. We won't raise minimum wage because we superstitiously believe it will magically force everything else to become more expensive, which would be inconvenient for all those hard-working cowboys who got real jobs working with their dad. Meanwhile, **** gets more expensive anyway, but that's cool as long as those peasants aren't keeping up, right?
____________________________
my Tumblr
Pixelmon Server Info
Rust Server Info
#201 Oct 26 2013 at 12:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:

God you are special aren't you. Do you even know what this discussion is about. Again you are targeting one aspect of a very large thing and using it to support your position, and it doesn't even do that. The average income in the US is under 30K/yr. sh*t 75% of your population makes under 50KYr. 52% of your population makes less than 27K /yr. 35% of your population makes less than 18K/yr. 10% of your population makes less than 10,000 per year.


You need to learn the difference between average and median. The median individual income in the US is right about $30k. The median household income in the US is right about $50k. What part of this is complicated for you?


Do you know why Median is not relevant, and why the average must be done step by step through various income levels? ~55% of your population does not even reach that median according to US Census Records. Ergo its not really a median is it. I mean it is close, but it is inaccurate. The Median personal income is more so along the lines of about 28K. Which is about a 49/51 Split, the average is a little on the under side at about 27500, which happens to coincide with the value of income required to live a life without government assistance. I mean sure if you feel like misrepresenting 5% of your population Median is a great number, in actuality it is highly incorrect, especially when discussing why 52% of your population needs some for of Government assistance, and over half of them being below the poverty line.

Quote:
Um... which means that 65% of Americans are earning more relatively speaking today than they did in the 1950s. How is this a disaster?


100% of Americans are paying more that they have gained. Personal Income has not kept up with Cost of Living at all, and has barely maintained pace with inflation. So while 65% might make a higher dollar value, they are spending much more. For example in the 50's 21% of income went to housing, in 2012 that value was 45%. Fantastic you are making twice as much as someone in 1950, you are also paying over twice as much just to put a roof over your head, and that is a similar trait across pretty much anything one purchases in todays society.


Quote:
Incorrect.


You are right, its more accurately around 54% Today if you want to really dig into the numbers. Considering just in the last decade Wage increase has trailed Cost of living increase by a bit under 15% I am sure that since 2008 (the last "fair" indicator due to unexpected recession) more people have fallen behind, and some likely have even dropped off the radar completely. Of course that is just an estimation based on the trends over the past decade or so, but it is highly likely that number could be closer to 60% when all is said and done. I mean 10K is a fine line to walk when it could mean your entire lively hood being at stake. Thats just an estimate though, the data supports 54%, I was fair and said 50% because I personally don't think the 2008 recession should be included in a discussion about over time degeneration of income equality. (same reason I have ignored the spikes caused by the S&L in the 80's). Although it has certainly helped to accelerate it in recent times.

Of course don't take my word for it, go ask the middle class who are the fringe people, go ask them how they have enjoyed shrinking bank accounts and rising personal debt over the past decade. Ask the vast majority of them who for the first time in their lives are dependent on government assistance of some form. The robust middle class of the American Dream era is crumbling, and the majority are losing the fight between cost increases and stagnant wages.

Quote:
I'm not questioning the data. I'm questioning your interpretation of it.


I don't understand how you can question the fact 52% of Americans are at or under the income value to live a life without government assistance, nor the fact that every year more and more enter poverty because they can not keep up with increased costs. But hey everyone sees things a bit different, and everyone has their own opinions, mine are just based in facts and logic, and supported by economists in nations around the world, but hey I am sure some support your opinion to.
Quote:

That doesn't even make sense.


Yes others mentioned that also so I clarified I was comparing growths not final dollar values, in continuation of the link I provided last page.

Edited, Oct 26th 2013 2:28pm by rdmcandie

Edited, Oct 26th 2013 2:38pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 27 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (27)