AlterNet reports:
Imagine a world where fast food workers can pay their rent and utility bills plus buy their children food and clothes. Well, you don't have to imagine it because such a place exists. It's called Denmark.
A New York Times article on Tuesday (paywalled) chronicled the life of a Danish fast food worker named Hampus Elofsson, who works 40 hours a week at a Burger King in Copenhagen, and makes enough not only to pay his bills, but to save some money and enjoy a night out with friends. His wage: $20 per hour. Yep, you read that right. The base wage in Denmark is close to two and a half times what American fast food workers make.
Elofsson's pay is the kind of wage that Anthony Moore, a shift manager in Tampa, Florida can only dream about. [Moore] earns $9 an hour for his low-level management job, or about $300 per week, and like half of America's fast food workers, he relies on some form of public assistance to make up the difference between that wage and barely eking out a living.
[...] What Danish fast food workers have that their American counterparts do not is a powerful union and fast food franchise owners who are willing to make a little less of a profit...though they still do make a profit.
Economics professor Richard Wolff talked about Denmark in a webcast (20MB MP3) back in July.
I also found his discussion of the "recovery" of the USA economy (between the segment on the GM bailout and the one on "US" megacorps evading taxes) to be especially worthwhile. His weekly webcasts are also available for about half the bandwidth and storage space from KPFA's archive.
Related Stories
Raw Story summarizes a New York Times report that Colleges across the country this spring have been wrestling with student requests for what are known as "trigger warnings," explicit alerts that the material they are about to read or see in a classroom might upset them or, as some students assert, cause symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in victims of rape or in war veterans.
The debate has left many academics fuming, saying that professors should be trusted to use common sense and that being provocative is part of their mandate. Trigger warnings, they say, suggest a certain fragility of mind that higher learning is meant to challenge, not embrace. "Any kind of blanket trigger policy is inimical to academic freedom," said Lisa Hajjar, a sociology professor, who often uses graphic depictions of torture in her courses about war. "Any student can request some sort of individual accommodation, but to say we need some kind of one-size-fits-all approach is totally wrong. The presumption there is that students should not be forced to deal with something that makes them uncomfortable is absurd or even dangerous."
Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said, "It is only going to get harder to teach people that there is a real important and serious value to being offended. Part of that is talking about deadly serious and uncomfortable subjects."
A summary of the College Literature, along with the appropriate trigger warnings, assumed or suggested in the article is as follows: Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" (anti-Semitism), Virginia Woolf's "Mrs. Dalloway" (suicide), "The Great Gatsby" (misogynistic violence), and "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" (racism).
Note: The Raw Story link was provided to provide an alternative to the article source, the New York Times, due to user complaints about the NYT website paywalling their articles.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:31PM
I mean, those guys up in Denmark have unions and labor laws that are actually enforced and universal health care and strong public education systems from birth through university, which just goes to show the effects of the influence of the Soviet menace. Here in the God-fearing US of A, we're on our way towards eliminating all of that so that we can more effectively compete with Hondurus, Bangladesh, and China for those wonderful iPhone assembly and garment manufacturing positions that pay maybe $1 an hour.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:43PM
What is the income tax rate in the USA for a salary like that? In Denmark you pay something like 45% income tax with that salary and have 25%VAT on top of everything.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:04PM
> What is the income tax rate in the USA for a salary like that? In Denmark you pay something like 45% income tax with that salary and have 25%VAT on top of everything.
Yep. All the nordic countries have similar numbers and it is much more effective at reducing inequality than the american system. [vox.com]
(Score: 2) by emg on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:36PM
Because the easiest way to reduce inequality is to make everyone poor. This is why the left have stopped saying 'do what we say, comrades, and we'll make you rich!' and switched to 'do what we say, comrades, and we will make the rich poor!'
And, yes, that $20 in Denmark won't go anywhere near as far as $20 in America.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:54PM
Are you saying that everyone in Denmark is poor?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:59PM
> And, yes, that $20 in Denmark won't go anywhere near as far as $20 in America.
But in Denmark it is a lot easier to have an extra $20 than in America where you have to spend it on basic necessities like medical coverage.
So what's really going on in Denmark is not "making everyone poor" it is making the poorest less poor. Read the article next time before going off half-cocked.
(Score: 2) by MrNemesis on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:55PM
Only if you gauge what constitutes "poor" solely by comparing taxation rates and making direct dollar-to-kroner comparisons. You also need to take into account the quality of life and the fact that costs vary outside of US borders in a variety of different ways. Denmark is expensive - indeed most of the scandiwegian countries are, it can hurt your wallet going there as a tourist - but local earnings are much higher.
Given that as of 2012 at least the USA had a poverty rate nearly three times higher than Denmark [epi.org] I would hazard a guess that the "poor" in Denmark are still substantially richer than their american counterparts. And that's only based on income - the Danes also have national healthcare.
"To paraphrase Nietzsche, I have looked into the abyss and been sick in it."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @06:43PM
Because the easiest way to reduce inequality is to make everyone poor.
The McD worker in Denmark is less poor than the McD worker in Florida.
And, yes, that $20 in Denmark won't go anywhere near as far as $20 in America.
I bet it goes further than $9 + crap healthcare plan + crappier unemployment benefits + crap childcare.
The fact that McD tells their US McD workers how to collect food stamps should tell you who is poorer.
Guess who pays for those food stamps. Not McD. So yeah you bunch end up helping the poor too, but in crappier and less dignified ways.
(Score: 3, Informative) by turgid on Wednesday October 29 2014, @09:04PM
Here in the UK we're trying the USA-ian approach of demonising the poor, sick and incapable. People are committing suicide as a result, starving to death, or living on the street. The majority of people haven't had a pay rise (in real terms) since before the 2008 financial crash, in fact, we're getting poorer. Housing is scarce and rents are all but unaffordable,
Meanwhile, the rich capitalists (company owners, executives, managers) are getting richer and richer.
Inequality is the worst it's been since Dickens' day, and getting bigger.
Despite the "responsible austerity" from the conservative political establishment, we have only a smoke-and-mirrors recovery (house price bubble in Southeast England/London).
And what's worse, the ignorant masses are blaming it all on immigration and voting for a foaming-at-the-mouth psycopathic right-wing protest party, UKIP [theguardian.com].
I really wish that Scotland had voted for independence. Scottish politics are progressive social democracy, and I would have had somewhere to return if and when the rabid libertarian lunatics and the conservatives form a coalition next year.
In case it needs spelling out more clearly: the solution to failing right-wing political policies is not more further-to-the-right policies.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:35PM
It depends what you mean for "a salary like that":
- For a $20/hr, 40-hours a week (that's what's considered full-time in the US), employee, you're looking at something like a 28% tax on income and about 10% VAT, leaving you with a take-home pay of roughly $26,000 a year.
- However, since most fast food workers in the US make closer to $9/hr, and work 29 hours a week so the employer doesn't have to pay for health care: Income taxes come out to approximately 10%, with a 10% VAT, so you're left with a take-home pay of about $10,800 a year. And don't think they can find a second job to cover the remaining 11 hours, because most employers like this don't tell workers their schedule until the week before so there is absolutely no way to plan around it.
The Danish equivalent of the first guy (who works 40 hours a week at $20 an hour) would end up taking home $16,640 a year (assuming your estimate of taxes is correct), or about 60% better off than their US counterpart. And they get great health care and education for it, which means their expenses are significantly lower.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:45PM
Now is that total or marginal?
You pay 28% income tax in the USA only on the marginal part of income between $150K and $225K for married/jointly. On a very good year I pay a couple bucks at that rate but most income is well below that.
For a dude in the USA at $40K you'd pay 10% on the first 20K or so, and 15% on the rest. To the feds. State and local may apply. So doing the math in my head you'd end up with $35K or so after fedtax? Note that takehome would only be lower $30K range, Americans are fixated on massively overpaying their taxes every paycheck and then "getting a big pile of money" at tax return time. At a zero percent interest rate of return, and real world inflation I assure you is not 0% either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:51PM
But you would get crucified by the IRS if you owed them more than $1000 at reporting time. Better to have overpaid a little bit.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:06PM
Not if you file and pay quarterly. Some people are required to do that by law; for example, me, because I did some freelance writing and earned over a small but arbitrary magic threshold.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:14PM
Better to have overpaid a little bit.
A good rule of thumb is for every 1000 you get back add one to your w4 form.
I keep it to 100-200 dollars back if I can help it. I can at the very least toss it in a money market account and get 30-40 cents. Where as with handing it to the IRS I get 0 and no opportunity to use my money.
I know some people who got nearly 8k back. I asked them how they would like to have a 300 dollar per check raise. They were *ALL* over that.
(Score: 3) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:14PM
It's total. The 28% I quoted includes:
- an online federal tax calculator that says that the total tax on a $40K income, factoring in the standard deduction, comes out to about $4100.
- FICA (Social Security, Medicare, etc), which is a flat tax up to the income cap.
- state and local average, which according to the sources I was looking at averages out to another 10%.
And the 10% VAT is also based on what the sources I was looking at claimed was the US average when you combine state, local, specialized taxes like gasoline and cigarettes, and so forth.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @06:55PM
I don't think it's quite as high if you're earning 20/hour.
The Danish rates:
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/taxes/income-taxes-abroad/denmark/index_en.htm [europa.eu]
http://www.taxindenmark.com/article.69.html [taxindenmark.com]
Plus you probably get more holidays and paid sick leave: http://aattp.org/mcdonalds-employees-in-denmark-have-a-union-are-paid-21hour-and-enjoy-5-weeks-paid-vacation/ [aattp.org]
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/05/15/fight-for-15-try-21/ [reuters.com]
And you don't have to rely on food stamps to help make ends meet. Go figure...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:32PM
That's a pretty good analysis.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:09PM
I think arguing about tax rates is distracting from the basic point: the Dane makes "enough not only to pay his bills, but to save some money and enjoy a night out with friends." Presumably, taxes are included in the "bills." So at the end of the day, he's doing all right, and the size of the cut the socialist state takes is obviously worth it for him.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 30 2014, @03:19AM
People in the USA still keep thinking their way is better. They should beware - in one possible future it'll be hard to get a job earning $9/hour when McD has fast-food making robots (and just human cashiers).
In a welfare state like Denmark they'll just transition to evil socialist schemes of taking care of the jobless.
In the USA there are so many supposedly intelligent people that don't want to pay for the poor (healthcare, food, shelter). But if the poor aren't dead there's a high chance you end up paying for them anyway, in inefficient or bad ways like crime, prison, sick people making ER inefficient.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:24PM
And yet he can meet his needs, save some back and still go out occasionally. Clearly the taxes aren't taking back all that the better wage gives.
In the U.S. you'll pay 25 to 30% income tax (fed and state), then 5-10% sales taxes. On top of that you have to buy your own health insurance. When all is said and done, the European taxes + healthcare work out about the same in the U.S.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:32PM
I think the last quote in the article highlights the difference between the US and Denmark best:
“We don’t want there to be a big difference between the richest and poorest, because poor people would just get really poor,” Mr. Drescher added. “We don’t want people living on the streets. If that happens, we consider that we as a society have failed.”
In the US the guy living on the street would be considered to have failed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ilPapa on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:37PM
I guess for me, it comes down to a preference. Either being a rich guy surrounded by poor people or a rich guy surrounded by people who can live with some basic standards of life.
I don't want to be the richest guy in a third world country. The idea of being carried down the street in a sedan chair looking at all the beggars along the road does not appeal to me. It does however seem to appeal to a lot of my fellow countrymen.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by jcross on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:57PM
I'm not sure who your countrymen are, but in the USA I think many people want to be rich and ride a limo with tinted windows instead of a sedan chair, so they can be shielded from seeing the beggars in the street or even the driver. Meanwhile they may rail about "entitlements" but if they ever eat fast food, the cost of their burger is subsidized by the government, whose welfare payments make it so the chain doesn't need to raise their wages to keep their employees alive. My tax dollars are effectively being converted into McDonald's profits while at the same time keeping workers in a psychological state of abject dependence. Welcome to the United States of Denial!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:59PM
Actually, it's more like the guy living on the street would not be even noticed. For example, someone did a social experiment of taking ordinary people and dressing them up like somebody who lives on the street, and then walking their relatives by. In many cases, people walked right by their own parents and siblings without realizing it. We've trained ourselves to ignore strangers or see them only as potential threats (I remember having books entitled "Never Talk to Strangers" read to me in primary school, for example). We've trained ourselves to see people who interact with us to do their jobs as relevant solely because of the business we have to do with them: How many times do you walk into a fast food place or a bank branch and think "I wonder what kind of life that woman behind the counter is living?"
There is also a significant racism factor in the US: I have frequently heard the argument that "We can't have the same kind of society as Europe because of our cultural diversity." Which is another way of saying "I don't want to have labor protections or a high minimum wage or a union or universal health care for me because that means giving them to black and Hispanic people too."
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:26PM
We've trained ourselves to ignore strangers or see them only as potential threats
I work in what might optimistically be called a "transitional" neighborhood in an urban area, and a huge hobby of mine is hiking.
Trust me, you do not want to look at the bums or young men just kind of loitering at street corners with their friends. Eye contact is seen as aggressive and intentional avoidance of eye contact is seen as almost a form of respect (I see we are stuck on this little sidewalk together, but I acknowledge the space you're standing on as yours).
I've never gotten into a fight probably because I'm somewhat physically imposing, but I've heard of coworkers getting mugged and my female coworkers wisely don't go outside at all. I only hit the streets during odd hours of daytime during the week when the sidewalks are mostly empty. Weekends and after dark you're best not on the streets in the city.
They've been trying to "gentrify" the area which means the cops beat the shit out of aggressive panhandlers but leave the semi-aggressive ones alone. The local cops do nothing about street crime at all. Nothing. They also don't enforce traffic laws beyond collecting their speeding ticket taxes off the middle class people passing thru at rush hours. I don't have much respect for the cops because they're ineffective. I live in a nice burb and one neighbor down the block has a kid who's a genuine outlaw biker and I'm OK with that because he's smart enough not to shit where he sleeps. Between the outlaw biker and the hypermilitarized cops, the burbs are a pretty nice place to live because however crooked the local enforcers are, at least they're effective. I wish a strong and effective drug gang would move into the neighborhood where I work so we could finally get some peace and quiet and have safe streets.
Also to be honest I'm just tired of seeing panhandlers line "my" streets. Its a socially unacceptable but financially profitable gimmick. I assure you as a vet that I've never talked to a panhandler claiming to be a vet who actually was "Army? So where'd you go to basic? Your MOS? AIT?" and they just get aggressive because they know they're busted. I feel morally superior to the urbanites, because I admit I don't like panhandlers and street crime so I live 20 miles away in a great suburb, but the urbanites refuse to admit their feelings even though all but the craziest urbanites hate panhandlers as much as I do.
So the TLDR is anyone who's actually got experience with bums, knows to pay attention at your own risk...
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:30PM
"Young men just kind of loitering" are definitely potentially dangerous - especially if they're all wearing similar clothing, it's quite possible they're an organized criminal gang.
Bums, it depends. Some of them are crazy, which makes them potentially dangerous. Some are not. I've befriended people who once were bums, who were perfectly normal people until bad stuff started happening to them that left them unable to pay the rent. I don't mind them in my area as long as they aren't hurting anybody. And when it comes to veterans, currently the government thinks there are about 50,000 homeless veterans out there.
Panhandlers are not necessarily bums. I know that in my city it was a different group of people than those I saw waking up on the sidewalks downtown as I was arriving at work, and other folks have observed the start of at least one panhandler's shift when a nice car pulled up and somebody in rags came out, walked to his spot, sat down, and held up his sign saying "Broken Leg - Need Food".
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:03PM
Every time. For my part, I also wonder what sort of life the animal had when I eat meat and hope it was a happy one. Am I so different from everyone else?
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:14PM
Every man for himself.
The USA had its collective mind poisoned by the idealism of the individual working man. Hard working, christian men who earn their keep are celebrated. Anyone who needs help is weak or a moocher. The kids should be out of the house and working by 18 or going to college. Living at home and your 25 (yet you have a $9 hour job and can't pay rent)? You are a failure and a moocher. It's your fault you can't make rent or get a better paying job even though you work your ass off. The rich men of this nation are gods among men, because money = success = a really great man.
That thinking is what completely screwed us over. Selfish attitudes like that is why we have such a screwed up and divided nation. The republican party pretty much usurped that thinking for its platform and use it to bait those "good" hard working men into following them blindly and hating anyone who doesn't think like them. Remember, if you can succeed on your own then you are a screw up. You dont deserve help.
Good luck America.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:15PM
Don't conflate the Protestant work ethic with social Darwinism. They're different. The Protestant work ethic is just that you should work hard to better yourself, your family, and your society. Social Darwinism is that successful people succeed because they're superior and therefore unsuccessful people deserve to starve and die. It's only the latter that is a cancer in American social discourse, and it is fairly new. I suspect it arose as a reaction to the social policies of the New Deal.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 1) by fritsd on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:09PM
Good point, because I was thinking "but aren't both the USA and Denmark coming from quite strict Protestant (Lutheran?) societies?"
I mean, Søren Kierkegaard is not considered to be a philosopher of the "eat, drink & be merry" kind..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:42PM
It isn't the protestant work ethic, but prosperity gospel. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:33PM
The problem is the the line between the Protestant work ethic and social darwinism became blurred. I dont feel like typing up a thesis about this but I have often come across people who claim to be hard working, god fearing men. But they always display the same few traits:
Racism
Homophobia
Hate Obama
Blame Obama for everything wrong
Democrats are evil and want to turn america into a 3rd world police state
Hate social programs and people on them
Misogyny
etc.
Though, they are subtle. They have to be. Get then in a group and shit turns ugly real fast. I hope their thinking fades into oblivion one day but they always manage to poison the next generation and pass the hate along.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:39PM
Oh and to add one more thing:
The republican party appears to have built a nice platform around this kind of thinking during the past few decades. It is based on fear and relies on religion to maintain control. Good christians like to obey. So they obey their party leaders. Vote republican! It's pretty sad but this is where we stand. And it is a long, uphill battle that has the intelligent people worn out and weary.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Wednesday October 29 2014, @06:46PM
Social Darwinism was popular with conservatives far before the New Deal. Basically, it became a "thing" right after Darwin and TOS became "well known". It's amazing how conservatives deny evolution and decry Darwin, but love him when it boosts an argument for them. But, yes, now it's another stupid and ugly and false bit of detritus that's become pinned to America's soul.
That is all.
(Score: 1) by srobert on Wednesday October 29 2014, @08:43PM
In the U.S., the fact that someone is living on the street is a sign that society is successfully controlling its labor costs.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by bradley13 on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:42PM
"willing to make a little less of a profit...though they still do make a profit"
Of course they make a profit, otherwise they would go out of business. The entire purpose of a company is to make money; a business is not a charitable enterprise.
Here is Switzerland, you also earn around $20 per hour working for McDonalds. That's great, why doesn't McDonalds in the US also pay its workers $20, and "make a little less of a profit"? Because McDonalds in the US doesn't charge $7 for a Big Mac (which is what it costs here), of up to $15 for one of their menus. If they did charge that much, guess what, nobody would buy their stuff, and they would indeed go out of business. So they charge less - and pay less.
Different cultures, different situations. Eating out here is expensive, because even the bus boy gets his $20/hour. So people rarely eat out, so there are (compared to the US) few restaurants. It's a different situation, and even if you could transform the US into this kind of culture, I don't think all the out-of-work restaurateurs, cooks and waiters would thank you for it.
tl;dr: The author is a damned leftist idiot living in a dream world.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:11PM
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2837810/automation-arrives-at-restaurants-but-dont-blame-rising-minimum-wages.html [computerworld.com]
http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/25/the-fight-for-15-suffers-a-setback-as-mcdonalds-flirts-with-automation/ [dailycaller.com]
That little less profit is 30% which a 5% decrease in net gets you. Those dudes in denmark will soon be out of a job in 3-5 years. A few locations McD's can handle being lower profit. Overall? Not so much.
Dont think McD's can pull it off? Who do you think owns redbox? Between them and netflix they pretty much put every mom and pop video store and blockbusters out of business. They did it with automation. They are spinning it as 'order accuracy'. Know who usually screws up my order? The guy in the back.
The mistake this guy is making is if we give money to disadvantaged people they will spend it. That is debatable. Giving it to rich people does nothing either. The *only* way to raise wages is to create scarcity out of jobs. Unions can do that but at a social cost and barriers to entry. A much better way to create more jobs is to create things. If you take money from someone else to give it to someone else (aside from usually being called theft) does not create things. It has the opposite effect of destroying wealth. Create things = prosperity. Moving money around does nothing but waste our time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by romlok on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:35PM
Creating things does nothing if nobody has the money to buy them.
Prosperity comes from a thriving marketplace.
A thriving marketplace comes from many people with money to spend.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:21PM
Creating things lowers the price of the things, by altering the supply/demand balance.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:22PM
And needing people to create those things... i.e. jobs.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Wednesday October 29 2014, @10:07PM
If I have no job, my income is $0, I have zero dollars to spend. So they'll need to get the price all the way down to $0 for me to afford it. See any problems with that?
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday October 30 2014, @02:45AM
If you have no job your income is what you can get from the government and panhandling. Panhandling can get you upwards of $20/hr btw.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 30 2014, @02:45AM
No job? Then you're a failure mooch who needs to stop suckling off the government's teats. Now go pull yourself up by your boostraps and get a job at minimum wage so that you'll have no choice but to be on Food Stamps just to be able to scrape by.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 29 2014, @08:58PM
Creating things does nothing if nobody has the money to buy them.
Oh, look. There's unintended consequences to low skill jobs being $20 an hour. Who knew?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @10:25PM
Wait, what? I think you have that backwards. Paying $20/hour for low skill jobs means people would have money; paying significantly less than a living wage for low skill jobs means nobody has money to spend, which currently has many businesses in the US worried. Many businesses in the US are stating flat-out that decreasing wages (eg, "flat", not rising to at least match inflation) are threatening their bottom lines, because nobody has any money to spend.
If wages were higher, like say Denmark's apparent minimum wage of $20/hr, people would have a lot more disposable income and higher qualities of life, which is exactly what this story is saying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 30 2014, @11:39AM
I think you're forgetting your trickle-down dogma. There is no possible business strategy to accommodate a $20 minimum wage. All good capitalists know this, and would immediately close all businesses that employ low-skill workers. They would subsequently move to Indonesia, where low labor costs will allow them to reopen the McD franchise with much higher margins. Americans will quickly adapt to the complete absence of grocery stores, restaurants, and bars, because, I guess, the people would rather try to grow soybeans on their apartment balcony than pay $8 for a big mac.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 30 2014, @03:04PM
Paying $20/hour for low skill jobs means people would have money
And getting paid $0/hour means they wouldn't. As the other replier noted, a lot of these jobs can be moved to Indonesia. They can also be automated. These are the unintended consequences that get ignored over and over again.
Many businesses in the US are stating flat-out that decreasing wages (eg, "flat", not rising to at least match inflation) are threatening their bottom lines, because nobody has any money to spend.
Too bad. Sounds like maybe those business should restructure themselves for the new economy.
If wages were higher, like say Denmark's apparent minimum wage of $20/hr, people would have a lot more disposable income and higher qualities of life, which is exactly what this story is saying.
And if they're lower, because many people are unemployed, then they wouldn't have more disposable income. Denmark is doing well, but the same can't be said of most of the rest of the EU to which Denmark is attached and profiting from. I think the entire EU experiment will collapse in a few decades. Then I doubt Denmark will be doing as well as it is now.
Your beliefs are inherently bankrupt. You would like higher wages, but you can't figure out to make an economy where that is possible. Instead, things, like higher minimum wages or a more expensive social safety net just make the problem worse. There's a lot of "we'll force employers to do this" without understanding why they don't already. Why aren't McDonald's employees in the States paid $20 an hour already? Why are so many people not employed at any wage?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:41PM
It won't be just them. It will be everyone below mid level management soon.
up to and including low level writing and programing jobs, the next wave of automation is coming and it's going to put a good 20% to 25% into the unemployable category.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:15PM
> Of course they make a profit, otherwise they would go out of business.
No, as long as they don't make a loss they don't need to go out of business.
> The entire purpose of a company is to make money; a business is not a charitable enterprise.
That's one possible purpose, but not the only one. Co-ops for example are not charities but are not intended to make money. Same thing with credit unions.
> tl;dr: The author is a damned leftist idiot living in a dream world.
Seems like you've spending too much time in your own dream world too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:05PM
No, as long as they don't make a loss they don't need to go out of business.
That is not how these guys think. That is how you think.
If it is not growing by at least inflation it is losing money. If it is not making 5-10% yoy. It is an opportunity cost.
These guys do not talk about building businesses that 'break even'. They want home runs or at least a tax write off for the one that did make tons of money.
Seems like you've spending too much time in your own dream world too
Having read much of what this guy is pushing, it is leftist propaganda that does not consider most people are lazy dicks. Sorry. It just is not very good economic policy. It is feel good policy that assumes everyone is nice and will play by the rules. Much like 'pure capitalism'. He held up Jessie Jackson as a bastion of good. That is not what I would associate with someone that exploits his own 'race' for the financial windfall he extorts out of companies.
They are of the mind destruction of wealth is the way to create wealth. It is not, and never creates wealth. In their case they usually distort the market and in the end hurt the very people they try to 'help'. That is the broken window fallacy.
If anything I would mark the grand parent not a 'troll' but an interesting. As he lives there and deals with it every day. McDonalds is no big deal to us in the states you can get a full meal for under 4 bucks. He probably spends 10-15 for the *exact* *same* *meal*. So he does not go there. It is too expensive to eat there. He is a bit bitter because the market distortion keeps what is arguably a very cheap meal out of his financial reach.
Co-ops for example are not charities but are not intended to make money
They are not 'supposed' to make money. But look to those who usually run them. Finding good charities or co-ops is actually tough (I keep looking). Most are very poorly run or mismanaged to make those running it very rich. It is like telling your sever that you do not need to tip because the business 'is supposed to make up the difference'. Very few actually bother to follow the rules and it just does not happen (which is why I tip well). Good intentions and laws are rarely followed unless someone enforces it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:47PM
> If it is not growing by at least inflation it is losing money.
Do you mean revenues must match inflation? Sure, I'll agree with that. But that's not growth by any reasonable definition of the word and thus a red herring. Much like the rest of your weird post.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jcross on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:15PM
Sure, every man for himself, the Free Market, and so on. Everyone likes to make a big deal about these ideals while at the same time chasing subsidies from the government. As long as McDonald's and their ilk can rely on the US government to help support their workers, they're getting a subsidy. All subsidies have a hidden or not-so-hidden cost on the other side. In this case it's the taxpayer bearing the burden, and also (hypothetical) ethical restaurant chains who can't pay their employees a living wage and still compete with McDonald's pricing. If there were the political will, the trick would be to remove the subsidy without weakening the social safety net. Raising the minimum wage seems the simplest way to do it, and actually this has support from many on the right because it makes good business sense and leads to smaller government.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Thursday October 30 2014, @07:08AM
I read after Seattle raised the minimum wage, the rent increased the same amount. I don't think less government is the right idea. Less government in the right mindset means if we could pay you less we would. We would work you till you die because there are plenty of poor people out there who can replace you. The poster above talking about 29 hour weeks and not being able to schedule a second job should be modded up. Raising wages is cool if they have some laws that say rent and gas and shit doesn't immediately skyrocket to compensate for the pay raise.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by jcross on Thursday October 30 2014, @01:19PM
That's an excellent point. I think just raising the minimum wage is an inadequate response but I didn't want to get into the messy and controversial details of how welfare policy would have to change too, and I just don't know how that would work best. Totally pulling the numbers out of my ass, but if workers are being paid a minimum wage of $7 an hour and can get welfare to boost that to $12 an hour for a living wage, then raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour while retaining the same welfare benefits would mean landlords could raise rent until $20 an hour was a living wage. I'm pretty sure it's more complicated than that, though, and that welfare benefits do depend on how much money you're making or something like that. Also I haven't looked at the numbers but my guess is that Seattle rents would be rising anyway because it's a boom time there. Likely minimum wage workers will increasingly have to bus in from further out of town, but maybe at $15 an hour they can live a little closer if they choose to prioritize that. It's not an easy problem to solve, for sure, and I'm in no way advocating "small government", just a government that allocates its resources more for the benefit of the people than the corps, and takes into account the unintended consequences of any economic regulation.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:26PM
That's great, why doesn't McDonalds in the US also pay its workers $20, and "make a little less of a profit"? Because McDonalds in the US doesn't charge $7 for a Big Mac
Which probably seems less unreasonable if everyone's making more money...
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:37PM
The entire purpose of a company is to make money; a business is not a charitable enterprise.
But businesses are delighted to treat everyone else as a charity. Little detail you overlooked from TFS:
in Tampa, Florida can only dream about. [Moore] earns $9 an hour for his low-level management job, or about $300 per week, and like half of America's fast food workers, he relies on some form of public assistance to make up the difference between that wage and barely eking out a living.
The only reason the low-pay economy in western countries works is because the taxpayers subsidise businesses by keeping their underpaid workers alive and educating their children. Even the capitalist paradise of the US forks out public money on benefits. So businesses get to make nice fat profits (and pay as little tax as they can get away with) by paying third-world wages to workers who have to pay the first-world cost of living.
(Score: 1) by Entropy on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:46PM
It's actually not third world wages. Check out what a chinese factory worker makes, and they are second world. The "give everyone more money" approach
doesn't work and "would you like fries with that?" guy doesn't deserve $20/hour.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:23PM
Yeah, but the "let's leverage baby steps to empower the synergies of the vertical corporate values" guy deserves $20 million/year.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:46PM
Are you claiming that Denmark doesn't exist? Because the give everyone more money sure seems to be working there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:13PM
and yes. we are paying 3rd world wages.
and we're doing it in the stupidest way possible.
by moving the money thru the goverment and handing it out as benefits instead of just paying it directly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @08:45PM
Yeah, but just think of the power it provides: There's this whole crew of people who work hard all day long, and at the end of the day they still have to take hat in hand, stand before The Man, and ask if they couldn't, please, have just a little cheese? If you want a mechanism for keeping masses quiet and cowed, just make sure they've got to beg for their dinner.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:17PM
And you didn't really get the point. It doesn't matter if he makes 20/hour or 0.20/hour or 20,000/hour.
The hole point is that in the US, there are full-time workers who can't live properly with his salary and need help from the State. Their children will most likely be raised improperly and grow up to perpetuate the poverty. In Denmark, a full-time employed person is guaranteed to have a decent standard of living on his wage, raise his children properly and even save some money.
Forget about the numbers. If you don't think any full-time working person deserves a decent living, just say so. Ok, you're a sociopath. Admit it.
(Score: 2) by khedoros on Wednesday October 29 2014, @08:43PM
(Score: 2) by tathra on Wednesday October 29 2014, @10:47PM
i'm with you there. the absolute basics to survive - food/water, shelter (w/plumbing), healthcare, and internet - should be provided by society, paid for out of taxes. any luxuries on top of that would have to be worked for. without the "work or die" bullshit thats currently forced on everyone, people would be able to focus on their strengths, and automatization could be fully embraced because people wouldn't have to fear starving to death because a robot took their job. the benefits to society would be unimaginably huge.
if we can't at least help everyone survive, can we at least be merciful and execute the unemployed rather than forcing them to suffer by slowly starving to death, or dying from gangrene because they got an infection and couldn't get it treated since they don't have any form healthcare (or get driven to bankruptcy due to medical costs)?
(Score: 1) by Entropy on Wednesday October 29 2014, @10:47PM
Actually you're right.. I don't think some guy working at burger king should be able to support his 4 children and non-working baby factory "baby momma". Go get a education, and learn to do something useful. There are professions kids choose (like burger king) and stuff you grow up and do...Burger king isn't a career.
All this "living wage" crap has just resulted in full time jobs becoming 30 hour/week part time jobs. Now you have to have 2 or 3 of them. No amount of burgers is going to pay for those workers to pump out kids, sorry.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Thursday October 30 2014, @11:51AM
A bunch of bigoted prejudicial bullshit not supported by any valid scientific data about the demographics you're trying to bash.
What? They don't have bread? Why don't they eat brioche instead?
I guess you cook your own burgers yourself. But millions of people use their services every day. That makes them, by definition, "useful".
(Score: 1) by Entropy on Thursday October 30 2014, @03:41PM
By not "useful", I mean "not useful enough for $20/hr". Anyone can do the job, it's "entry-level" which is code for "you have no skills". When I was working a entry level job paying my way through college, kids worked entry level jobs.
The one guy that I know that works for a entry level job has 5 kids.(none of which he has custody of) the woman he lives with has 3, she doesn't work and instead lives off welfare. The individuals I've met that also work at that entry level job also have a bunch of kids.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Thursday October 30 2014, @06:40PM
"anecdote" is not the singular form of "data".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:42PM
Here in the U.S. the fast food places steal money out of our pockets in the form of taxes even if we never eat out. They do that by paying their employees less than starvation wages and having our tax money make up the difference so they don't actually die. Naturally, our taxes go up to pay for that.
I would much rather see the externality internalized by forcing them to pay enough to keep their employees off of food stamps.
(Score: 1) by DeathElk on Thursday October 30 2014, @04:49AM
Don't forget the billions in healthcare costs due to obesity and diabetes from eating that shit.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:46PM
The entire purpose of a company is to make money; a business is not a charitable enterprise.
Well, in the US, and also under the law of England and Wales (Scotland has a separate legal system), there is no obligation for companies to maximise their profits. These links go into this in detail, but the term 'maximising profits' is ill-defined, as no timescale is given, and in any case directors are more interested in the company being successful, which can be measured by more than just profits.
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders [stackexchange.com]
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/01/07/companies-do-not-have-a-legal-duty-to-maximise-profit-or-to-avoid-tax/ [taxresearch.org.uk]
What a company is actually for could be difficult to determine: Memoranda of Assocation beyond a pro forma and associated Objects clauses are no longer necessary in England & Wales. I have no idea about the USA. Essentially, in England & Wales, comapanies are free do do what they like, so long as it is legal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @10:37PM
So in Denmark we have $20/hr workers and $7 Big Macs. In the US we have $7/hr workers and $4 Big Macs. 20/7 - wages are increased by 2.8 fold - and 7/4 - a burger price increase of 1.75 fold - Denmark has a much better deal there, I'd trade in a heartbeat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:44PM
Seattle
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:21PM
I am so tired of reading "well in Denmark". Then fucking move there and when you see how your bills are higher and you $20/hr doesn't stretch like America then you can complain about that. You want to make more then go work at a different job. The inflation that would cause in America would be insane and then what would you do will everyone on disability or a fixed income? Now that every burger flipper make $20/hr and inflation hit those on a fixed income would not be able to survive. Let me guess your answer ...have the government step in and freeze inflation and the price of rent from going up. People here don't understand how cheap shit is......gas isn't $7 a gallon. Lazy whiney fucktards with no people skills want that much for being a drive through worker? Get my order right, say please and thank you, and when I ask for a packet of salt don't put a packet of ketchup in my order instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:20PM
Then fucking move there
No, wait, you are right. It's horrible here. Please don't come!
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:44PM
You're right of course, and for proof we need look no further than Denmark itself, which is clearly an unsurvivable apocolyptic hellhole, where overpaid food service employees stalk a blasted urban shitscape, feasting on the flesh of the living. Compare with the US, where everybody is rich and has really shiny teeth, just like on TV, and there is no poverty, deprivation, corruption, crime or inequality at all.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:59PM
tl;dr version of your comment: "don't tell me there are things I could learn from so I can stay in denial about USA! USA! USA! We're number ONE! We're number ONE! We're number ONE!"
You make me sick
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:20PM
I'm not the AC you're replying to, but here's the tl;dr version of your comment:
"Don't tell me there are things I can learn from so I can stay in denial about economics! 'Murrica is a terrible place! Full of idiots, idiots, idiots who should just pay more taxes!"
Funny how that works, now isn't it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:55PM
Ah, you are one of those guys who thinks the superficial form of an argument contains the full sum of the meaning of the argument. I guess that makes your life simple because you never have to think about the content. You can just be satisfied that all content is the equal if you can twist the words into the same shape.
In this case you are trying to create a false equivalence between a functioning real-world example (Denmark) and your internal, unstated, beliefs about human psychology ('economics').
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:09PM
We get comcast.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:50PM
As a Norwegian with no higher education (you don't need it to do OK here) I sure am happy as hell I'm living in a high cost country, especially since I love travelling. When I visit different places, prices are always lower than at home. Even in the US I can live way above my own "class" for a few weeks, living at nice hotels and dining at decent restaurants.
And it's not like I can not afford to eat at fancy restaurants once in a while at home, it's just a lot cheaper abroad. Also goods are a bit more pricey, but compared to salary levels they are still dirt cheap for us, so even the cleaners can have a decent car and a big flat screen TV at home. Some Americans probably find that provocative.
A lot of Norwegians are complaining about prices and taxes, but they are usually very uninformed, not realizing they spend a lesser percentage of their income on necessities and more on leisure compared to the rest of the world.
Had I been a normal working American I sure as hell would not be able to travel and live like I do. I've been to 20 different countries in three continents, always flying and staying in comfy hotels.
Another bonus: the safety a society with less differences gives.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:32PM
Another bonus: the safety a society with less differences gives.
It also helps that your society is racially homogeneous. The USA is a giant melting pot of races and cultures, and statistically a lot of the crime comes more frequently from some races that are very in the minority for you.
Of course, the way America does things exacerbates the problems. It used to be that people assimilated quickly but these days not so much. Personally I believe that, even though the violence correlates with race, culture is what actually matters (it's just that culture correlates with race too). I think your country has a healthy culture as well.
Your country could legalize all guns and not have any increase in crime. America could ban all guns and not have any decrease in crime. Culture is what matters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @06:28PM
Wait until oil collapses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @07:14PM
Another bonus: the safety a society with less differences gives.
I know what you are inferring there. What I find funny about your post and the final point of how you don't have to deal with minorities is that you spend the entire post defending and standing up for the lowest class of citizens in the US, which is a far greater percentage of minorities than the upper class, but then in the last line you take all that back as you basically say that if those "cleaners" were minorities in your country, you might also not give a shit about them making less than a livable wage.
So yes, Americans might find it provocative for the Janitor to make enough for a middle class lifestyle in America, but it seems to me that you would find it provocative for a Mexican to earn enough for a middle class lifestyle in Norway.
So unless I took that statement totally wrong, I think you are the bigger asshat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @08:53PM
It's clear what you inferred, but I don't think it's what he implied. I think the "differences" he was talking about were not racial but economic. That is, that the Norwegian system ensures that there are not people living on the street, schizophrenic because they can't afford their meds, robbing because they've got nothing left to lose, or just frustrated because they can't seem to get ahead. Lesser differences in income; lesser differences in opportunity; less shame.
(Score: 1) by srobert on Wednesday October 29 2014, @08:50PM
"Even in the US I can live way above my own "class" for a few weeks, living at nice hotels and dining at decent restaurants."
OK. But you should know you're taking your chances when you eat a restaurant in the U.S. We don't actually give employees sick time. Especially if they work at low paying service jobs. So when your waiter, server, cook, etc. get the flu, or whatever, they just take over the counter meds to mask the symptoms and go to work. Otherwise they lose a day's pay.
(Score: 1) by m2o2r2g2 on Thursday October 30 2014, @04:01AM
wow you DO learn something everyday.
I knew most in hospitality over there survived on tips and government welfare. OK it is a stupid idea as it is leading to excessive wealth transfer to the capital owners. But whatever, I'm used to hearing that.
But no sick leave... why encourage your entire workforce to infect each other? Surely paying one or two people to stay home will be cheaper than having an entire staff barely operating? It doesn't make business sense. And it's barbaric.
Glad I don't live there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @08:08PM
Just Eat the rich. Hard to be poor when you eliminate them
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 30 2014, @09:57AM
LOL. Eat the Rich and all that will be left is the poor.