6 ms·
Coming from Norway, this article is horrendous. I can never understand the mentality that lies behind all of the arguments most you guys are presenting here - d
by cixter 7y ago
Coming from Norway, this article is horrendous. I can never understand the mentality that lies behind all of the arguments most you guys are presenting here - defending the employers shit salary and rights.
You guys know that McDonalds manages to run in countries with decent wages as well, right? And that maybe a company with a yearly global profit of over 10 billion dollars might be able to afford giving their employees a livable wage. Hell, just the fact that it`s possible to have a full time job in the US, and still need food stamps should be a massive, red flag about your situation. But for some reason you prefer to (by extension) defend the extremely rich owners of these companies.
- systemtest 7y agoI'm not from Norway but the Netherlands. If you have a fulltime job at McDonalds, the only way to live on that wage is with heavy subsidies from the government. You will need healthcare subsidy, rent subsidy, social housing, various municipal arrangements and perhaps even go to the "voedselbank" (food bank, free food charity). So while you can live on a McDonalds income, it's only because your fellow citizens are chipping in. Effectively we are subsidising McDonalds as they can now give you a lower income and get away with it. I'm not sure if that is the best way to go.
- fock 7y agoSecond that for Germany (though we are well known for our low-wage-sector allowing us to export a lot for a developed country). In addition a good lot of people working there are kids, which (like in most services) is quite an unfair competition for people having to earn their living wage with those jobs...
- 2rsf 7y agoI checked and in Sweden a low level employee in McDonalds would earn 21930 sek (2300 dollars), or 17593 sek after taxes, which might be just enough to live from if you live outside of big cities.
- apexalpha 7y agoDutch here, too. While everyone below a certain income gets benefits like healthcare subsidy you can still live okay on a McDonalds salary. If you make €10 an hour you get €1600 a month. And at that level you pay almost no income tax. While not a lot, you don't necessarily need the foodbank or other subsidies than the regular ones to make ends meet.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- eptcyka 7y agoJust 5 years ago, I would've considered 1600 Euros or the pound equivalent a month to be plenty of money. At the time, I was a student living in the UK. Some years earlier still, whilst back in my native baltic state, that kind of a monthly income would seem super comfortable.
- ido 7y agoThe biggest difference is that housing is a lot more expensive in western cities - it is likely that even a modest 2-room (1-bedroom) apartment in a major city like Amsterdam would cost the majority of that wage to rent (and we're not talking about just students, but older people who can't get better jobs).
- tripzilch 7y agoYou say it like you just grabbed a random example, but Amsterdam is one of the most expensive places to rent in NL. It's also generally not at all representative for the Netherlands as a whole.
- ido 7y agoOk, you may replace it with London, Paris, Zürich, Munich, Copenhagen, Stockholm and probably a dozen other western european cities (not to mention major American cities, which are sometimes even more extreme).
- ed_balls 7y agoRent is the main problem. We are not subsidising McDonalds, we are subsidising landlords. If rent price would stay the same, the minimum wage job wouldn't need subsidies from the state. The problem is that all powerful people own properties and they want to keep prices high. Main voters base also owns properties. It's an unsolvable problem.
- HenryBemis 7y ago> Rent is the main problem London. The problem is the same in all large cities/capitals. I was listening on a BBC podcast a couple of years back discussing how the "not living where they work" is the main thing holding them back in progressing with their lives as much/fast as they could. Especially in London, where near the center you can't get a decent studio for less than 1000-1300 pounds per month (just the rent now add council tax, utilities, etc.). The only way to make it is live on a flat with 3-5-7 more people. There are some "maps vs rent" for London. I assume you can find some for other cities as well. https://d36tnp772eyphs.cloudfront.net/blogs/1/2018/05/londonrrentmap.jpg https://d36tnp772eyphs.cloudfront.net/blogs/1/2018/05/london... https://static.homesandproperty.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/12/21/12/tuberentingmaptotallymoneycroplarge.jpg https://static.homesandproperty.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails... https://www.thrillist.com/lifestyle/london/london-underground-rent-map https://www.thrillist.com/lifestyle/london/london-undergroun... If you see prices below 1k, it's per week.
- duelingjello 7y agoThis is the same problem in America. The corporations already get tax breaks and subsidies, but then they underpay their employees to make the taxpayers subsidize an effectively living wage by providing welfare. It's not the employee's fault, but communities and employees could organize and press for living wages in order for the corporation to pay a living wage.
- agumonkey 7y agoIt's a bit odd to think that fast food is indirectly sustained through national funding. One tiny benefit of these kind of jobs, if you ever need something to do to earn money, they'll most probably hire you. But it's not a great thing.
- yahwrong 7y agoIt's the same in the U.S. except you have to qualify and jump through a bunch of hoops to get assistance. And the pay is shit that you can't live off of. i.e. in the u.s. you get fucked from both ends.
- dragonwriter 7y ago> So while you can live on a McDonalds income, it's only because your fellow citizens are chipping in. Effectively we are subsidising McDonalds as they can now give you a lower income and get away with it. No, before social support networks of the modern mixed economy companies paid worse for basically unskilled jobs. The surplus of people desperate for work meant that if the pay was better than no job but inadequate for survival in the long term, people would still take it, and if the inadequate pay meant they died or became unable to work, well, there were always more people in the surplus labor pool to replace them. Decreasing the desperate need for employment puts more power in the hands of labor, not capital.
- inoop 7y agoDutchie in NYC here. Dude(ette), I hear you, things aren't perfect back home. But frankly, you have no idea how much better things are for the low age earners in the Netherlands compared to the US. Working at a FAANG company here in NYC, you get 200-400k/year, and you use that money to pay thousands of dollars to live in a nice area in a building without rats and cockroaches and with proper sound proofing, which qualifies as luxury here. And then you go to stand in line at the local wholefoods to buy $2.5 local chocolate croissants and $2 kombuchas from a teller who earns $15/hour. Tip well, my friends, tip well.
- plumednom 7y agoHere's the American argument in a nutshell: "I got mine, fuck all of y'all" Americans are greedy, we lack empathy, we lack humanity. Our nation was founded on religious genocide by radicalized christian terrorists. I don't understand why anybody expects better from us. We have never been good citizens of the world. Not once.
- shrimpx 7y agoAmericans are generally reluctant to allow rich social benefits that aren't "earned". People who don't earn are called "lazy". In reality they're unable. They're unable because they lack access to good education starting very early in life. They lack access because their parents also lacked access, and nobody with access is willing to give these "lazy" people a "handout". This sharp (and sharpening) class divide is the modern American tragedy and it has pretty much nothing to do with political affiliation. It's core culture.
- duelingjello 7y agoStockholm syndrome meets conditions tantamount to slavery. Americans don't know how bad they have it. And what's worse, the pervasive American fallacy of "suffering equals merit equals reward." Too many suffering slaves accuse the slaves in the house of being lazy, and vice-versa. A divided-and-conquered people who will also buy into partisan right/left nonsense rather than see their true, common enemy who has systematically cheated them: the very rich - the ones who own the same corporations they work for.
- shrimpx 7y agoIn my view the divide is more subtle, something like the enlightened vs. the unenlightened. The general fallacy is that all poor people can rise to riches. But in reality only the "enlightened poor" are capable of doing this. The enlightened poor come from lineages that don't focus on money but maintain high standards for knowledge and ethics. The potential to rise is there. The unenlightened poor have fallen into vicious generational cycles where incapable parents breed incapable parents, simply because it's beyond their ability to see outside their box. To me, if there's any meaning to "social welfare", it's to break these cycles that breed incapable adults but there's little being done. Even Bernie, who makes a big fuss about education, is focusing on putting more kids in college. But by that time, for many people, it's way too late.
- jrs235 7y agoI think this ties in nicely right here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21714138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21714138 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21715246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21715246
- dm319 7y agoI'm from the UK and I'm shocked at the discussion going on here. Most people commenting here are in vastly different situations to the person written about - probably both in terms of natural ability as well as education, not to mention actual salary or opportunity. Do we agree as a society we need people to work these jobs? Because if we do, it is not an argument to point out ways an intelligent person can manuveure themselves out of it. How can people be so callous and selfish?
- apexalpha 7y agoPeople grow up with a silver spoon thinking they feed themselves every time they put it in their mouth.
- ollie87 7y ago>How can people be so callous and selfish? Quite easily when they've spent their entire lives being told poor people are evil. That's American's for you. There's too much of "I've got mine, so fuck anyone else" going on.
- LandR 7y agoAmerica, a nation of temporarily embarrased millionaires. If you are currently poor, you just aren't working hard enough / smart enough and need to pull yourself up by your boot straps! Anyone can get ahead, get the American dream! If you're poor, well, you must be lazy or stupid. “America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American humorist Kin Hubbard, 'It ain’t no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be.' It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: 'if you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?' There will also be an American flag no larger than a child’s hand – glued to a lollipop stick and flying from the cash register. Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say Napoleonic times. Many novelties have come from America. The most startling of these, a thing without precedent, is a mass of undignified poor. They do not love one another because they do not love themselves.” -- Vonnegut.
- JD_MRT 7y agoYou 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 competitors with margins closer to 2-3% and that also pay low salaries. Just pointing out economics.
- cixter 7y agoYeah, 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?
- JD_MRT 7y agoIn 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.
- cixter 7y agoWith 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.
- efa 7y agoI haven't read the article and have no opinion either way, but I want to make it clear McDonalds are franchises (at least in the US). I'm not positive but the local owner can pay what they want. McDonalds making 10 billion a year has nothing to do with it. You'd have to see how much the franchise owner makes. You of course can argue McDonald's charges the franchises too much leaving little room for higher wages.
- SauciestGNU 7y agoFranchising is also a contractual process. If McDonald's Corp decided to, they could dictate a wage floor to their franchisees.
- stevenwoo 7y agoIn America, people in charge of policy love to talk about "personal responsibility" as if that by itself can overcome structural issues in our economic system, Texas is pretty proud of itself for low taxes and making people fend for themselves, including pregnant women https://www.texastribune.org/2019/12/06/extraordinary-danger-being-pregnant-and-uninsured-texas/ https://www.texastribune.org/2019/12/06/extraordinary-danger... It's also postulated in a recent book that a primary belief held by supreme court justice Clarence Thomas that the best way to improve the lot of African Americans is to make life as difficult as possible politically for them so they work harder(!) - this aligns his views on a lot of subjects with the conservative side of interpreting the Constitution but he's not really consistent on the latter as much as his belief. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/books/review-enigma-clarence-thomas-corey-robin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/books/review-enigma-clare...
- ArmThePoor 7y agoMany Americans who use this site are wealthy urbanites from upper-class families. They were born so far ahead of everyone else, they can't relate.