Is it time we got together and PAID people NOT to work at McDonalds and Wal-Mart?

[reformist2]

How much would it cost, really? One McDonalds has what, six workers at any given moment? Mulitply that six by $8.00 an hour, then by 18 hours a day, by 30 days a month, and it comes to the whopping total of... $26,000 in payroll expenses.

Look how easy it is for politicians to get wealthy donors to cough up $1,000 a plate at their fundraisers. All it would take is 26 plates, and the entire staff of one McDonald's could be liberated for a month!

Doing the same for a Wal-Mart, would be considerably more expensive, admittedly.

[Catherina]

1. We could if we eliminated the MIC's excesses n/t

[drm604]

2. So how would that work exactly? And how long would we continue to pay them?

Anyone who wants a free income (an admittedly minimal one) can come to us and promise that they'll never apply at Wal-Mart or McDonalds if we'll pay them?

Maybe you're thinking of restricting eligibility only to those who already work there. Okay, so they'll leave their job, and then someone else will take the job. Do we then also pay them to not work there? And what about the ones after them? How far do we take it? People would be taking jobs there just so that we'd pay them to quit. The costs would add up pretty quickly.

[hunter]

30. Create good, satisfying, government jobs that pay more and are less abusive.

Create as many jobs as needed. Companies like Wal-Mart would have to compete with that. If you had a choice between working at Wal-Mart for low pay, or a satisfying higher paying job repairing the crumbling infrastructure of the U.S.A., which would you choose?

Unionization also works.

[Incitatus]

3. I don't follow.

What good would that do? Are you saying paying every employee to not work there for a month? They would just get fired and replaced. Then a month later they would have no job. Is there something more to this plan that would force these businesses to pay a living wage that I'm missing?

Keep in mind they have billions and billions. Would your plan would require the ability to raise more than they can outspend.

[reformist2]

15. If it's wage slavery, and I think it is, why not try to liberate them?

[delrem]

4. More sensible would be: a well-organized boycott movement.

[leveymg]

5. Believe it or not, Nixon seriously proposed a minimum income in America.

We would have far fewer McDonald's and Walmarts. Maybe, that would be a really good thing to consider going back to.

[factsarenotfair]

7. Yes, but do you know what happened when they tested it?

A lot of the women in bad marriages got divorces; I think that's a big reason the idea was abandoned.

[leveymg]

8. Happens with wives of billionaires, too. Probably more often.

Not sure that was exactly the whole reason it wasn't made law. It would create a different America.

[factsarenotfair]

42. Well, the people making the laws at the time didn't like the results of the test here.

The results of the test run in Cananda weren't even compiled properly and the test was abandoned at an earlier stage.
http://sociology.uwo.ca/cluster/en/PolicyBrief10.html
I think that the current Republicans would do anything and everything to stop a guaranteed minimum income. They'd be more likely to skewer poor people and roast them over hot coals than help them even in the tiniest way. Mitt Romney doesn't even think they deserve to have food, much less shelter, clothing, health care, etc.

[HiPointDem]

12. yeah, people who work at mcdonalds have such stable marriages otherwise.

low-income people are more likely to divorce and less likely to get married in the first place. guaranteed income would probably save more marriages than it would destroy, because economic instability is the #1 cause of marriage problems -- not evil men.

upper middle class people have the most stable marriages & the least divorce.

[factsarenotfair]

38. Based on my memory of this from 40 years ago,

it was because mostly women left their bad/abusive marriages in this test rather than vice versa. I posted an article (without details) that mentions the results to the post just below. The times were different then--more like Mad Men and with fewer opportunities for women to support themselves outside of a marriage. I wasn't trying to say that men are evil--llots of things that could bear on the results of this test of the GAI were different then.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

20. Where was it tested?

Nixon's original proposal never got out of Congress.

[factsarenotfair]

35. I'm not sure but here's an article that mentions it.

http://sociology.uwo.ca/cluster/en/PolicyBrief10.html
(scroll down to the grey box)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

39. Interesting...

If you Google around enough, turns out that the higher divorce rates may have been statistical errors, but they were significant enough (upwards of 50% higher) to cause support for the GAI to evaporate during the Carter years, even among its early proponents like Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

The link you posted, BTW, states that the Canadian experiments did not show a statistically significant increase in divorce rates.

Duke Study from 2011.

Of course, much of the impetus toward a Guaranteed Annual Income went into the creation of the Earned Income Tax Credit. Little History Here.

[factsarenotfair]

45. Thanks for the additional links.

It's just so sad that we went from a society that considered a guaranteed minimum income to a society that has a significant number of people (on the right) who want to eliminate all assistance to the poor, even food.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

46. The other sad thing...

When you look at the history of the debate, and the creation of EITC, it had many Republican supporters. Reagan thought it was the most effective anti-poverty program ever created.

Can you imagine trying to create a program like this in today's climate?

[factsarenotfair]

48. Today's "hunger games" climate would be unimaginable in the seventies. :(

Perhaps even to Richard Nixon.

[reformist2]

17. Minimum income really is the only way to force companies to provide decent wages.

If they're going to ask 30, 40, 50 hours of a person's time and energy per week, they've got to provide enough money to make it worthwhile!

[yeoman6987]

28. Minimum income really is the only way to force companies to provide decent wages.

So how would this work? We make everyone have an 18 dollar an hour job which sounds cool except for the people who are making 18 dollars now. Do we raise their earnings? Oh and you don't believe that the businesses will raise the costs of everything not to mention the people who rent apartments, sell cars, etc. We would have the same issue but at a higher scale.

[leveymg]

37. One would have to reregulate costs of housing, education, food, energy, other essentials.

That, too, is an idea worth revisiting, unless you're a billionaire. There would be quite a few less of those in America, as well.

[Puzzledtraveller]

54. This is important

Because $20/hr would be useless if gas was $10 a gallon, lol.

[sweetapogee]

55. let's start

with regulating the cost of education. Since a hugh percent of primary and secondary education is government owned and operated, should be easy. Next, regulate costs for all state colleges and universities and community colleges. The private schools and colleges will have to lower their costs to keep students in the classroom. Perfect and simple idea!

[reformist2]

49. The mimimum wage would have to be higher than the minimum income for just being alive.

The differential obviously would have to be great enough to provide workers with an incentive to go to work.

Imagine that, workers actually having a real say in whether they will offer their labor or not. The impudence!

[HardTimes99]

24. So did McGovern in the 1972 campaign. The passage of a Guaranteed

Annual Income (GAI) would mean that minimum-wage low-skill jobs could be filled by single teenagers, whereas adults with families would receive enough income to make ends meet, either by working higher-wage, higher-skilled jobs or by recieiving the GAI. Or, if the WalMarts and McDonalds of the world wished to hire those adult workers, they could raise their wages to above the GAI levels.

Now, if the Democratic Party actually still cared about the interests of the working class . . .

[factsarenotfair]

6. I helped someone not work at Wal-Mart. :)

On the other hand, I saw someone who had been mistreated somewhere else and fired working there. So, it's an ongoing battle.

[Fla_Democrat]

9. I don't work at Walmart or McDonalds...

can I get two checks for that?

[factsarenotfair]

10. Hmmm. Can you turn it into a kickstarter.com idea?

[YarnAddict]

11. Who is this "we" you speak of? n/t

[Capt. Obvious]

13. Better idea: everyone just excrete money

[Puzzledtraveller]

16. I like it!

[pipi_k]

23. Me too, but...

someone else can poop out the quarters and half dollars.

[ileus]

14. Is there a reason you don't want people to work?

[Iggo]

18. It's time we tax the rich.

[sweetapogee]

19. great idea!

A better idea though, PAY people NOT to shop at Walmart or eat at McDonald's! It would only cost $8.00 per shopper/big mac consumer! After approx. 6-12 months, Walmart and McDonald's would be shuttered forever! Problem solved.

[pipi_k]

29. So we pay people

not to patronize Walmart and McDonalds.

Unless they're followed 24/7, how does anyone know they're not taking the money they "earn" and patronizing those places anyway?

[FrodosPet]

33. Require them to have a GPS chip surgically installed to get their money

Eliminate currency - cashless society. Make ALL money electronic and tied to the RFID chip implanted in people's arm.

And if anyone thinks I am making this idea up, look up "Verichip" and "Digital Angel". This is EXACTLY what the companies that developed them want to do.

[pipi_k]

61. So John Doe

has an RFID chip installed to ensure he's not going to illegally spend the money he "earned" in McD's or Walmart.

So he gives the money to a friend or relative to buy him whatever he wants in either place.

That's a possible scenario, unless we're talking about microchipping the entire population of the US against their will.

Even if that were to happen, not everybody would be microchipped to keep them from buying in Walmart or McD's.

So....

[sweetapogee]

50. I'm glad

you like my great idea! To make sure no one takes the money and visits Walmart and McDonalds, use the honor system.

[pipi_k]

62. You are

being waggish, I hope....

[99Forever]

21. A livable wage law...

.. would infinitely more sensible and actually possible. Your "idea"? Not so much.

Not that the shitballs we have in Washington DC will do a damn thing about the slave labor market that is Wallyworld or Mcjunk, might cut into their corporate bribe money.

[leveymg]

40. How does a livable wage help the unemeployed? Guaranteed Annual Income covers everyone.

We also need a Public Option, and public funding of higher education, and a different tax structure, if we want a more democratic society.

[99Forever]

58. You have to start somewhere.

This OP was discussing people who are employed, not unemployed. Why you ragging on me because I stayed on topic? Why do you assume I am opposed to any of your want list?

WTF?

[leveymg]

59. Sorry, didn't mean to rag. Peace.

I agree, we have to start somewhere. A living wage would be a good start.

[99Forever]

68. No harm, no foul.

We are very much in the same place and of the same mindset.

Peace.

[PD Turk]

22. Better Yet

Better yet, repeal Taft-Hartley and restore the 1935 NLRA to the way it was. Enable workers to unite and organize in strength.

[HappyMe]

25. What?

What the hell is that going to do? Who do you think will participate in this? What are those people going to do after the month is up?

[markiv]

26. i take it you havent done the math on that

either that, or you have an extra trillion laying around

[leveymg]

41. Defund most of the DoD/CIA/NSA contractors.

They have it in their back pockets.

[markiv]

43. why hadnt i thought of that?

i have way more power that general eisenhower did

[Lee-Lee]

27. Wouldn't it be better

To get together, open our own fast food franchise or independent place, and pay a living wage?

You could have employee ownership and management, with workers having a true say in how it is run.

True workplace democracy.

It wouldn't be that far fetched from what it would cost to pay 10 people not to work under the OP proposal. $260,000 would easily open a franchise or independent place in some areas. Or buy one that is for sale- heck, I have seen established, running diners for sale here for half that or less, minus real estate.

Get those same wealthy donors, but raise money, buy or open the place, hire workers, and then hand it over to the workers. They own it, they run it, they get a living wage plus all profits are shared, so they have incentive to really make it great.

Then have a stipulation that 10% of profits go into a fund until they have enough saved to pay it forward and help open another one, and so forth, so the idea grows and grows.

[pipi_k]

31. Here's an idea...

Why don't all of us here contribute a share of money to open up a McDU's...

GD Burgers
Skinner Fries
Lounge Salad

Hell, we could even offer a Gungeon Grub Lunch just for the hell of it.

[Lee-Lee]

32. LOL

But seriously, I have not been here long but I bet a group the size of the folks here could easily raise the funds to buy a small restaurant or similar business and present it to the employees to own.

[sweetapogee]

51. ok

give it to unemployed or under employed DUers!

[pipi_k]

63. OK, but...

I get to be the boss.

Because.....

um...

Because...

I'm the tallest!!!

[onenote]

34. $325 million

That's what your idea would cost if was applied to every McDonalds in the US.

Covering the wages of the staff of a single McDonalds may not seem like a lot, but closing one McDonalds for a month is like stopping one raindrop in a thunderstorm. There are around 12,500 McDonalds in the US and covering the staff costs of all of them for a month would be a whopping $325 million dollars. Just shutting 25 percent of the stores would cost $81 million for a month.

Good luck with that.

[leveymg]

44. Roughly $3.5B/yr compares to $5.2B annual net profit. Turn over ownership to employees - double

their earnings.

[sweetapogee]

52. total genius

Imagine how bad it will look for the corporate tools when one out of the 1000s of McDonald's stores out performs and out services all the others AND pays the employees a living wage!

Do it now!

[leveymg]

56. Turn all of them over to the employees.

Do the same for WalMart and all the other large chains and multinational corporations. Break up all these publicly-listed franchize operations into more local, competing units. Return Main Street to America and tax Wall Street.

[sweetapogee]

57. good

do it right now leveymg, you are the boss!

[leveymg]

60. Why does one get the feeling you said that with a trace of Irony?

Last edited Thu Jul 18, 2013, 07:34 PM - Edit history (1)

[hughee99]

66. And that number is still too low.

During most busy hours (7am to 7pm), more than 6 people will be working (and that's for a small store, a big one would have to have far more), and given that you have a manager, assistant manager, and or a shift manager working, it's a safe bet they're making a little more than the person they hired yesterday (though probably not a huge amount, but something that would certainly add up over 12,500 stores).

[Cal Carpenter]

36. No, it's time we get together and fight the *system*

that allows this to happen.

It's time we get together and fight for a real, mandatory living wage for all working adults. With real benefits and security and no fear of starving in retirement.

Throwing good money after bad ain't the answer. Sorry for the bad use of a mediocre cliche.

[sweetapogee]

53. good!

let's fight the system! When are you starting?

[Dreamer Tatum]

47. OK...what do you do next month? nt

[Quantess]

64. I have some sympathy for mcdonalds because they are franchises.

(Not that I would ever eat there at any time).
I think a better idea is to just raise the minimum wage.

[Apophis]

65. We need to raise the minimum wage to $10/hr.

[Munificence]

67. A better representation of cost is

typically a multiplier of around 1.5 times the wage. So you are now at $39,000.00 per month. You also missed the other 3 people that work for the 4 hour time frame to get to 24 hours a day (kind of make-ready folks that clean up/process the grease for the next go round).

Most MCDonalds are Franchise owned.

Corporate is different than the Franchises (although there are some Corporate Franchises).

Also, with 6 employees I'd say the top employee makes around $40K a year, so if you don't want them to work it will cost more.

Believe it or not I know of 2 managers that are over 3 franchises for one owner and they pull in around $50K each a year. They started by asking "Would you like fries with that".

Even worked at McD's myself in college, it sucked ass... but it did help me make an extra $400 or $500 a month to get by on and get through college.