Fight for $15. (Fast food protest)

[A2K78]

A degree from any properly accredited institution Can provide a greater prospect of employment.

My logic...

If a degree is required and I do not have one, I am immediately ruled out.

Am I less employ-able for having a degree? No. However, I will always have the requisite of a degree when requested.

Do I work in the field of my degree? No.
Does that make my degree less valuable? No.
Am I a better person for earning my degree? In my opinion, Yes.

Degrees are becoming worthless thanks in part to the rise of specialty schools and it got the colleges and universities running scared. To things perspective, the higher education monopoly is coming to an end.

 

[niky]

Degrees are becoming worthless thanks in part to the rise of specialty schools and it got the colleges and universities running scared. To things perspective, the higher education monopoly is coming to an end.

What is this "monopoly" you speak of?

You do know that there are dozens of degree programs out there? Our institution features around 54 degree programs, and our course offering is nowhere near exhaustive. And we don't offer many arts degrees. Those are almost all business, science and medical.

No single institution can ever have a "monopoly" on higher education. There is no "monopoly"... just a vast number of Colleges and Universities of widely differing levels of quality and price points which offer a huge variety of educational services.

And those "specialty schools" and training institutions? We often do tie ups with them. "Running scared" means you compete directly. But if one business offers something completely different from another, where's the competition? If you lose students because they're all taking something else, then offer that something else.

In certain fields, there are definitely special courses (non-degree) that are very valuable to employers. And many employers still require special training after your degree program. But that doesn't render degrees useless. Nowhere near it.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Yeah what @niky said, you can easily get a trade school certificate in degree form at either a university as a Bachelors degree or at a College as an Associates degree. Instead of going to a trade school for welding and metallurgy I went to an actual college. And instead of going to a specialized school like Embry Riddle, I go to a University for my Aero Engineering degree. I really don't see how a more costly trade school trumps an instate college or University that has a set price for their residents, where a trade or specialty school doesn't.

My degree is as good if not better as those at the other places.

 

[niky]

Also think it's laughable at calling anything a "Higher Education Monopoly"... there is no monopoly. Any "specialty school" offering degree courses automatically becomes part of the Higher Education monopoly.

Could massive multi-course campuses die out because of specialized schools? Possibly... but it's also possible for a specialized school to die if its course becomes passe or redundant... lots of Nursing schools went belly up when the nursing boom ended.

A campus that offers a wide variety of degrees has the choice of dropping non-performing courses, or even subsidizing poorly subscribed courses with money from more lucrative ones. So... no... they're not going to go away anytime soon.

 

[1241Penguin]

It's painful listening to my political science professor rant about how unfair the world is with how the rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer.

 

[CodeRedR51]

It's painful listening to my political science professor rant about how unfair the world is with how the rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer.

Sad but true.

 

[1241Penguin]

I was thinking more about how he complains that "someone who works 2 or 3 jobs is struggling to make a living, meanwhile a CEO who's too busy golfing has more than enough money."

 

[McLaren]

The problem with that mindset is that your professor has zero backstory on how a CEO may have made his fortune. Through all the trust fund babies handed their companies, there are still folks out there who put in the hard work to earn their fortunes.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It's painful listening to my political science professor rant about how unfair the world is with how the rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer.

Sad but true.

This is the sad part to me:

1. 5 years ago the median salary for a professor at Wilfrid Laurier, my Alma Mater, a medium sized Canadian University was $142,905.

2. Fewer people than ever live in poverty

The World Bank announced recently that a mere 702 million people — about 9.2 percent of the global population — now live below the poverty line, the first time on record that rates for the most severe level of poverty have dipped into single digits. The last time the World Bank released similar figures in 2012, there were more than 900 million people living in extreme poverty, which at the time accounted for about 12.8 percent of the world's population.

 

[1241Penguin]

I should clarify that I meant "painful" in the sense that his hatred of rich people was so obvious and it was clear he lacked an understanding of what causes some people to become richer than others. Not saying that I'm an expert, but at least I'm not taking such an extreme stance on something that I'm not fully well versed in.

 

[FoolKiller]

Ask him how it is that if the poor are getting poorer that they have so many more things today that were considered extravagances after World War II.

All of most of the western world is getting richer. Just some not as fast as others.

 

[1241Penguin]

Ask him how it is that if the poor are getting poorer that they have so many more things today that were considered extravagances after World War II.

All of most of the western world is getting richer. Just some not as fast as others.

He'll probably just refer to how some people can spend boatloads of money on an extravagant wedding with limos and big halls and tons of food while the homeless guy sleeping outside the hall can't get any food (i.e. avoiding the question, because he certainly seems that way).

 

[x3ra]

The richest 1% are getting richer. They will soon own 50% of everything. Yes, we can get better toys than we used to be able to have. Means nothing. Also unless you define some parameters of the discussion, like over a year, the last ten years, 100 years etc then you can't even start a debate. You also need to define what you mean by poor and rich. Back to the topic.

If the powers that be are considering minimum wage hikes, then they at least recognise that the natives are getting restless, and something needs to be done to placate them/us.

 

[Danoff]

The richest 1% are getting richer. They will soon own 50% of everything.

...and that means? Nothing.

Yes, we can get better toys than we used to be able to have. Means nothing.

Yea, standard of living... psshhh... who cares about that?

If the powers that be are considering minimum wage hikes, then they at least recognise that the natives are getting restless, and something needs to be done to placate them/us.

Minimum wage disproportionately hurts poor people. Think of minimum wage hikes as anti-poor person legislation.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

He'll probably just refer to how some people can spend boatloads of money on an extravagant wedding with limos and big halls and tons of food while the homeless guy sleeping outside the hall can't get any food (i.e. avoiding the question, because he certainly seems that way).

I always have a hard time taking professors ranting about the rich seriously, for the simple fact that by dint of their occupation, they are the rich. A few years ago, the university I attended was essentially shut down for weeks, when the profs and TA's went on strike. Their demands? A 30% wage increase (on average) across the board, and free tuition to TA's. This was despite the TA's already being some of the highest-paid in the entire country, and the professor wages were very competitive as well.

Eventually, the province had to force them back to work, three months in. It messed up countless student lives – my ex-girlfriend dropped out because of it – and actually presents an interesting parallel to this whole minimum wage issue.

If the powers that be are considering minimum wage hikes, then they at least recognise that the natives are getting restless, and something needs to be done to placate them/us.

That's all it is; placating. That's what the demand really breaks down to, anyway. It's certainly not about self-improvement, or working harder, or anything like that. It's about wanting (roughly) twice the pay for the same work.

As someone that has hovered just under the poverty line more years than I've not (perpetual student, woops), I've never had a problem living day to day. I don't get absolutely everything I want, but I'm not a child: I don't expect to.

 

[Parker]

When I started the academy we weren't making much more than $15 an hour and we were getting our asses beat every single day. There are many Law Enforcement agencies that start at less than $15/hour here, why would I risk my life when I could sling burgers and make the same or more money?

People working these jobs aren't meant to make a career out of them. I had a son with my then girlfriend when I was 18 years old and she was 17, still in high school. Guess what I did to support my family? I worked all day everyday, when I wasn't getting enough hours at one job I go another, when that slowed down I got yet another job. I slept in the back of my truck (that topper was a good purchase ) many times when I was too tired to go home and had to report to my next job in a few hours. Yeah, it wasn't the best time of my life but I made the decision to have sex without protection and I understood the potential consequences. When that happened I took care of my family like I'm supposed to, never got on government assistance and never expected any help from anyone else.

I then put myself through school, my wife through school, got a better job with a pension where I can retire when I'm 46 (just missed the 20 and out system, I could've been 41 ) and things are great. It seems a lot of people these days don't want to take responsibility for their actions and they demand everyone else help them out.

 

[1241Penguin]

I always have a hard time taking professors ranting about the rich seriously, for the simple fact that by dint of their occupation, they are the rich.

It bothers me that some people can be so quick to point fingers at the rich and accuse them of not helping the poor as they live in excess while the finger-pointer themselves own a laptop, smartphone, TV, video game console, and other luxuries that many people can't afford, let alone water or food. I think there's a notion for people to want to help others, as long as they don't have to do any of the work.

 

[Exorcet]

Yes, we can get better toys than we used to be able to have. Means nothing.

I could argue that that is everything. I don't really care if I'm in the bottom 1% of wealth if I have what I want. If the 2500 AD equivalent of working in fast food allows one to live like someone with $250,000/yr income today, that's a better life than I have. I myself am pretty content with what I have compared to the wealthiest people in the world a century or two ago.

 

[Danoff]

I could argue that that is everything. I don't really care if I'm in the bottom 1% of wealth if I have what I want. If the 2500 AD equivalent of working in fast food allows one to live like someone with $250,000/yr income today, that's a better life than I have. I myself am pretty content with what I have compared to the wealthiest people in the world a century or two ago.

You mean like an emergency room with doctors who understand the concept of germs? Effective pain killers? Air conditioning? Fruit from the southern hemisphere during the wintertime? Entertainment that is better than any court jester pumped into your home 24/7 with a variety of choices that can be made instantly? Home insulation? Clean water? Hot showers? Toilet paper?

Yup... we live better than kings by that comparison.

 

[Exorcet]

Yup... we live better than kings by that comparison.

Indeed. One of my favorites is my fire breathing immortal horse; it only required a modest down payment. It hardly gets sick, but when it does there's a hall of wizards on nearly every street that offer their service to heal it for little cost. Arthur only had Merlin and a sword.

 

[A2K78]

Minimum wage disproportionately hurts poor people. Think of minimum wage hikes as anti-poor person legislation.

This is true, but the the minimum wage is more that its outright discriminatory...

https://mises.org/library/minimum-wage-discrimination-and-inequality

@x3ra

you're on the fact that the rich are getting richer thanks in part to the Federal Reserve and its stupid ZIRP policy. Sadly leftist in the america who like to decry the 1% and supports the Federal Reserve stupid policy would never tell you this.

 

[x3ra]

This is true, but the the minimum wage is more that its outright discriminatory...

https://mises.org/library/minimum-wage-discrimination-and-inequality

What that article says, is that a reformed criminal is being punished, because he can't offer his services for less than white-collar guy. So the minimum wage in that example, is stopping someone getting even less money!!!

Surely

 

[Sanji Himura]

Obama Expands Overtime Pay for Fast Food Workers, Among Others.

The new rules would double the annual threshold that companies can deny overtime pay from $23,660 to $47,500. This means that fast food workers who makes $14 an hour - or roughly $30,000 a year - can now be eligible for overtime pay. The White House estimates that the rule change will raise pay by $1.2 billion a year over the next decade. However, critics are quick to point out that employers can cut worker's hours to offset the costs.

The new rules will take effect Dec. 1

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...obamas-new-overtime-expansion-under-fire.html

 

[allyourjazzz]

The White House estimates that the rule change will raise pay by $1.2 billion a year over the next decade.

So they take a wild guess that 12.5 million workers will be able to share an extra $1.2 billion a year, they can't possible know that. Why not just increase the minimum wage to $30 an hour, or $60 an hour? Oh right that thing called inflation maybe, or unemployment numbers through the roof. I can't wait for either $20 big macs or zero big macs as the cost of selling them will be defeated.

The DOL is a cabinet level bureaucracy with a budget of well over $100 billion a year and employ 20,000 people at the most. We could just fire them all and hand out that $100 billion to 1,250 million full time workers a year.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Obama Expands Overtime Pay for Fast Food Workers, Among Others.

The new rules would double the annual threshold that companies can deny overtime pay from $23,660 to $47,500. This means that fast food workers who makes $14 an hour - or roughly $30,000 a year - can now be eligible for overtime pay. The White House estimates that the rule change will raise pay by $1.2 billion a year over the next decade. However, critics are quick to point out that employers can cut worker's hours to offset the costs.

The new rules will take effect Dec. 1

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...obamas-new-overtime-expansion-under-fire.html

These new overtime rules are for salaried employees only. Hourly employees are already paid for every hour worked and overtime depending on the length of day or week and company policy.

 

[Pupik]

These new overtime rules are for salaried employees only. Hourly employees are already paid for every hour worked and overtime depending on the length of day or week and company policy.

^ This.

It only affects the percentage of the population which has a salary under $47K and works over 50 hours a week. Most salaried employees probably make more than that per year, and those that don't will just see shorter hours, or changes in "pay plans" which potentially put bonuses into the base salary to circumvent this.

I think it probably helps those few who've been asked to make up for the loss of another employee by working from around 40 hours to much greater amounts of time. It would probably nudge a few companies to balance between adding labor units and overworking/overpaying the existing ones; or just paying folks less to get in the door knowing they'll have give them overtime.

 

[Danoff]

Obama Expands Overtime Pay for Fast Food Workers, Among Others.

The new rules would double the annual threshold that companies can deny overtime pay from $23,660 to $47,500. This means that fast food workers who makes $14 an hour - or roughly $30,000 a year - can now be eligible for overtime pay. The White House estimates that the rule change will raise pay by $1.2 billion a year over the next decade. However, critics are quick to point out that employers can cut worker's hours to offset the costs.

The new rules will take effect Dec. 1

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...obamas-new-overtime-expansion-under-fire.html

So they take a wild guess that 12.5 million workers will be able to share an extra $1.2 billion a year, they can't possible know that. Why not just increase the minimum wage to $30 an hour, or $60 an hour? Oh right that thing called inflation maybe, or unemployment numbers through the roof. I can't wait for either $20 big macs or zero big macs as the cost of selling them will be defeated.

The DOL is a cabinet level bureaucracy with a budget of well over $100 billion a year and employ 20,000 people at the most. We could just fire them all and hand out that $100 billion to 1,250 million full time workers a year.

These new overtime rules are for salaried employees only. Hourly employees are already paid for every hour worked and overtime depending on the length of day or week and company policy.

^ This.

It only affects the percentage of the population which has a salary under $47K and works over 50 hours a week. Most salaried employees probably make more than that per year, and those that don't will just see shorter hours, or changes in "pay plans" which potentially put bonuses into the base salary to circumvent this.

I think it probably helps those few who've been asked to make up for the loss of another employee by working from around 40 hours to much greater amounts of time. It would probably nudge a few companies to balance between adding labor units and overworking/overpaying the existing ones; or just paying folks less to get in the door knowing they'll have give them overtime.

Having seen how this works firsthand, here's what happens.

Employer demands X quota from employee
- Employee can't get it done in 40 hours
- Employee puts in voluntary overtime and gets it done in 45
- Employer is satisfied.

Employer demands X quota from employee who is legally barred from working overtime without pay.
- Employer denies overtime pay.
- Employee can't get it done in 40 hours
- Employee doesn't work extra hours to get it done.
- Employee is fired.

Employer demands X quota from employee who is legally barred from working overtime without pay.
- Employer denies overtime pay.
- Employee can't get it done in 40 hours
- Employee illegally works voluntary overtime and gets it done in 45
- Employee is fired for illegally working overtime


I have literally seen people fired for failing to meet quota and being unable to work voluntary overtime while, in the same job, another employee was paid high enough to be legally allowed to work voluntary overtime and could meet the quota by working voluntary overtime. In other words, if the lower paid guy just made more money, he could have prevented himself from being fired. In other words, these laws are dumb.

 

[Pupik]

Other than the highest-level of management, almost nobody in fast-food or entry-level retail is going to get this overtime, because they're not salary, and it only affects those working over 50 hours. It does affect my industry a bit, but most of us are above (or well above) that pay threshold. We have log our time, but 50 hours is about all I work. I actually have to include travel time...seems a bit wrong that my hours include throwing back a gin and tonic on a Friday afternoon at 36,000 feet** in the sky. On the other hand, it means they will allow us to try to be home earlier, one rule for all of us, if we wish.

I wouldn't say it's dumb, but it probably only helps out a few thousand folks at a time. Or during peak seasons/holidays. But I highly doubt that $1.2 billion number, unless it's an aggregate of all potential cherry-picked changes to the economy* because of this, which seems like fluffy numbers*.

* there's probably technical economic terms for this.

** unless I'm next to someone who's a kilo-double-quarter-pounder, that's not work.

 

[Danoff]

Other than the highest-level of management, almost nobody in fast-food or entry-level retail is going to get this overtime, because they're not salary, and it only affects those working over 50 hours. It does affect my industry a bit, but most of us are above (or well above) that pay threshold. We have log our time, but 50 hours is about all I work. I actually have to include travel time...seems a bit wrong that my hours include throwing back a gin and tonic on a Friday afternoon at 36,000 feet in the sky. On the other hand, it means they will allow us to try to be home earlier, one rule for all of us, if we wish.

I wouldn't say it's dumb, but it probably only helps out a few thousand folks at a time. Or during peak seasons/holidays. But I highly doubt that $1.2 billion number, unless it's an aggregate of all potential cherry-picked changes to the economy* because of this, which seems like fluffy numbers*.

* there's probably technical economic terms for this.

In the meantime, I've worked with people who were fired before they could get good at their job because they can't volunteer overtime.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Other than the highest-level of management, almost nobody in fast-food or entry-level retail is going to get this overtime, because they're not salary, and it only affects those working over 50 hours. It does affect my industry a bit, but most of us are above (or well above) that pay threshold. We have log our time, but 50 hours is about all I work. I actually have to include travel time...seems a bit wrong that my hours include throwing back a gin and tonic on a Friday afternoon at 36,000 feet** in the sky. On the other hand, it means they will allow us to try to be home earlier, one rule for all of us, if we wish.

I wouldn't say it's dumb, but it probably only helps out a few thousand folks at a time. Or during peak seasons/holidays. But I highly doubt that $1.2 billion number, unless it's an aggregate of all potential cherry-picked changes to the economy* because of this, which seems like fluffy numbers*.

* there's probably technical economic terms for this.

** unless I'm next to someone who's a kilo-double-quarter-pounder, that's not work.

$1.2 Billion per year would be 1.2 million people making an extra thousand dollars. We don't know what assumptions they made but I'm guessing it's based on no one being fired or having their hours cut. I found this to be extremely hilarious coming from Smilin' Joe Biden though:

The White House estimates the rule change will raise pay by $1.2 billion a year over the next decade. In addition, some companies may instead choose to reduce their employees' hours to avoid paying the extra wages.

"Either way, the worker wins," said Vice President Joe Biden on a conference call with reporters Tuesday afternoon. He formally announced the rules at an event in Ohio Wednesday afternoon.