McDonald's advises hungry, sick employees to get welfare benefits


#1

[Permalink]


Rich America versus Poor America: stats about the wealth gap
#2

McDonald's should have advised their employees not to have kids.

Kids are expensive. A quarter of one million dollars each.

Don't have kids if you can't afford it.


#3

Hmm. And here's predicting that Nancy's pay goes to $0/hour for having the temerity to call McDonalds out on this.

ETA: Yep! According to rt.com (do we believe them?) She's already in police custody.

“Do you think this is fair, that I have to be making $8.25 [per hour] when I've worked for McDonald's for 10 years?” Nancy Salgado, who claimed never to have received a raise in that time, said at the gathering as [McDonald’s Corporation President Jeff] Stratton stood at a podium.

"I've been there 40 years," Stratton replied, the extent of his response to Salgado.

Just remember folks at McDonalds corporate, other people in your organisation are not like you. They don't have feeling, hopes or aspirations, as far as we can tell by looking at the bottom line. They are worthless disposable shit, and it's your duty to remind them of this through your actions, by treating them in the most contemptible and humiliating way possible. They don't deserve to exist, and neither do their children. Just use them up and throw them away! There's always more where that came from. It's also acceptable to mock them to their faces and then have them arrested for trespass. Bravo!

Did you know that SNAP and the like subsidise the Fast Food industry by $7 billion a year through supplementing poverty wages? Meanwhile McD's profits alone are around $10 billion a year. So at least it's financially necessary to degrade Nancy & Co.

Now, dear readers, if you will excuse me I must go and murder a prostitute live a life commensurate with the values I see put forward by 'successful' businesses.


#4

For those of you in law enforcement not hip to internet lingo, "I must go and murder a prostitute" means go play GTAV.

Because we wouldn't want you arresting Danegeld for terroristic threats...


#5

Yes, because only people who earn above a certain threshold should have children. Modern day eugenics are of the economic sort, amirite?


#6

Come on now, according to every sci-fi movie I've ever seen the elite class always has a low population/birth rate compared to the every resource strapped "commoners".

I mean look at Elysium, where were they getting food (or water) to support THAT many people in such a space... It'd be like NYC having to be self sufficient.

But back to the actual topic, while I don't condone telling people no you can't have kids...it'd be a wise idea to see if you could afford it first. I understand sometimes things just happen, but more than once and that's showing some less than adult like behavior.


#7

Call me a hopeless idealist but I think that if you work 40 hours a week you should be able to afford to raise a family. I'd rather keep "human reproduction" off the list of things reserved for people above a certain income threshold.


#8

Externalities. It's something many people (such as libertarians, conservatives) either ignore, grossly mismanage or just simply wish away. Corporations sure love it when you folks do that.


#9

Don't have kids if you can't afford it.

On that note, should people kills themselves if they get sick and can't afford their medical bills?

And, lemme guess... you're really into Ron Paul, aren't you?


#10

I think this is a very modest proposal. Am I wrong?


#11

10 years of poverty level wages would have driven me to seek more gainful employment if I were trying to raise a family.

Sure, if you work hard 40 hours a week you should be able to raise your kids on your wages. Just don't expect to be able to settle into the lowest common denominator career and expect that to be true.


#12

I'm very into making sure children are well cared for.

Not having kids if you can't afford it isn't some radical libertarian political statement, or an argument for eugenics, or something like that. Half of the people in poverty in the US are children. Can you guess how that happened?

People who couldn't afford to have kids, had kids.

Its plainly negligent. Its child abuse.


#13

I was about to say... having a self is expensive, yknow. But I suspect @grimloki was being ironic. At least, I hope.

EDIT: And the creep proves me wrong, even as I am posting. Damn you, internet!


#14

It's a good thing accidents never happen and that nothing bad ever happens to people after they make plans.

I think if you lose your job after you have kids you should put them in a sack and toss them in the river.

Wouldn't an alternate scheme for taking care of children involve improving the safety net for impoverished families or increasing the pay of the lower class workers to ensure they don't slip into poverty when inflation rises and their wages don't?


#16

I feel bad for the woman in the article, but I also feel bad (in a way) for McDonalds. While I wouldn't be against them paying their employees more, McDonalds pay was never meant to sustain a family. I think the real problem is that a lot of the jobs we used to have for employees without a college degree has just dried up. We are trying to turn fast-food jobs into the types of blue-collar jobs you used to be able to raise a family on, but they aren't the same thing. Those good paying jobs that could raise a high school graduate up into the middle class are vanishing fast.


#17

People who couldn't afford to have kids, had kids.

How the ♡♡♡♡ do you know?

Maybe they could afford kids in the beginning until they got laid off by some libertarian piece of ♡♡♡♡ CEO who dropped employees from a company to profit-take on the stock bump? Or perhaps they dared to get sick, lose their job, lose their health insurance, etc. and were later forced to work at McDonalds?

Your pompous presumptions of other people is pathetic.

Moderator edits: ♡


#18

OK, not gonna bite and say that it's something as serious as child abuse. That's veering into serious hyperbole.

Instead its adults acting like irresponsible morons. Getting themselves into debt, spending what they don't have and setting no goals other than flipping burgers. That has not and will never pay the bills enough to support a family of 1+ANYTHING. And I'm not saying that people can't be responsible, but all of my relatives who were poor and disadvantaged knew that they had to set some goals, save some money and work their way out of it.

It's the same mentality of a person who signs up for $300/month iPhone contracts or spends 6-figures on a middling college degree and then goes out to protest their horrible pay and evil corporations.


#20

ha, well your pompous, know-it-all, venemous over-generalizations of people and job economics that any high schooler would know is laughable and inept


#21

your pompous, know-it-all, venemous over-generalizations of people

Sometimes it's best to let morons like you dig your own holes with your own words...

This is you:

its adults acting like irresponsible morons. Getting themselves into debt, spending what they don't have and setting no goals other than flipping burgers.


#22
  1. Just because someone is flipping burgers doesn't mean they "set no goals other than flipping burgers." Shit happens. And it happens even more often to poor people.
  2. There is no inherent reason that flipping burgers, or for that matter ANY full-time job, shouldn't pay well enough to provide the basics for a parent and child. (Citation: other first-world countries.)