In capitalism, pay is a result of supply and demand. The truth is that working at McDonald's requires very little skill, and because of that, offers very little pay. I thought they paid a great wage when I worked there during high school.

And you're right, there is no security, so what is your solution other than whining about it?

Those positions require very little skill, and provide very little pay. Correct. The next part is where most people today get the argument wrong; it isn't that those jobs should pay more for the arbitrary sake of paying more.

Those type of jobs are the step for many people that not just have no more steps to take, but have never had any walkway to stand on. Their entire lives have been spent just trying to make it to the next day.

The argument is that those positions are part of a larger, predatory economy or society seemingly designed to keep a certain subset of the country/world subjugated to another. When you see protests about a higher wage at entry level positions such as fast-food and retail, what you're really seeing is the confused, leaderless argument that life sucks for many people and shows no signs of relenting. It's a first world suck, but suck nonetheless.

Source: research into lower-socioeconomic lifestyles while attaining advanced degrees (and living that life when young; thank God for scholarships).

You're right. Been there done that. During a period in my twenties, I had lost my job, had a negative bank balance, and two kids to feed. I was on foodstamps while I worked at the Olive Garden making very little while spending far too long in college subsidized by grants and student loans. I finally graduated, got another job, and was let go within a year.

I now had tons of debt and a degree that was almost worthless. So I joined the Army and left my kids for 16 weeks to attend bootcamp and AIT. Spent 5 years, including a stint in Afghanistan.

Needless to say, I recovered, taught myself how to program, and now run a software company.

Life sucks. For many, it sucks hard. But there are ways out. Most people just don't want to make the sacrifices necessary to do so.

Btw, I'm speaking of 1st world. 3rd world is obviously a different story.

"I did, therefore everyone can" is my favorite fallacy.

The fact that "make the sacrifices necessary" is a useful attitude for you does not mean the cost-benefit/risk structure is actually adequate for everyone else.

Which proves my point exactly.

Not at all. I'm referring to many people in the First World.

There's also the structural issue: not everyone can be an entrepreneur, because companies need worker bees to run. You can't run such a strongly hierarchical system as capitalism without some level of social-democratic concessions to enforce that, outside the workplace, my boss and I really are equal human beings.

Natural selection then takes hold.

Care to elaborate? I can't glean your meaning.

The solution? How about increasing the wage so that these guys dont have to work more than 20 hours a day? How about taking a loss of a billion dollars to reduce profit from 7 billion to 6 billion but in return provide for a better life for the thousands of less fortunate people? If some shareholder makes a few million dollars less, hes not going to die. But the people that are living on food stamps, might very well.

How does costco manage to do this without going into the red? Im not whining that theres no security, i'm stating that making the claim that there is security is WRONG. How about you read with your eyes open? thanks.

Edit: clarification. Edit2: another proof that you can make a profit while actually caring for employees: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/the-trad... Edit3: The supply and demand crap you spew is total garbage. Nothing is 'just supply and demand'. There is much more including profit creation as a result of fulfilling demand with supply. All I suggest is reduce the profit slightly so you pay your low level workers more. They already make less than a third of what people with education do. How about making it equal to or slightly more than a THIRD?

For reference a $1 billion dollar pay raise spread amongst McDonald's 1.8 million employees would amount to $556 each. Assuming everyone works an average of 20 hours a week, that is $0.50.

Put another way, if McDonald's gave everyone a $3.50 raise in 2013, they would have not made a profit.

Not saying that McDonald's is right or wrong in their practice, but when you spread out money it really doesn't go very far.

BTW a major factor people tend to forget about companies is to look at what market they are in. Companies that care only about costs are going to treat their employees like crap because their employees are simply an expense they have to bear.

Costco doesn't treat their employees as an expense, they treat them as an investment. They believe that by treating their employees well their return will be enough to allow this additional expense. Aka a better environment for their customers, lower theft, etc.

Short term the former is nice, since you only get employees that are awesome after a long time. Given the huge emphasis today on short term gains, guess which companies are doing "better".

Increase wages why? Corporations are not charities, and they have never purported that they are. How is a corporation responsible for someone else's lack of education or skillset?

Because everyone is responsible for everyone else, on some level. This is pretty basic freaking stuff.

I didn't think everyone would agree with you on that.

So what?

How? Because of a vicious cycle that begins with the low wages. You pay someone low wages so: 1) their kids can't pay for college => they can't get a proper education => lack of education/skillset in the kids 2) their kids have to work at these 'corporations' because of lack of education so they can put food on the table 3) their kids resort to stealing or some other illegal activity because they didnt have much of a choice => go to juvenile detention => no college => no skillset that you claim is not your fault

Is that enough or do you want me to go out and get some case studies as well?

That's not true. The government offers grants and loans for those with low incomes. I should know, that's how I paid for school. Skillsets and education must be earned; they are not granted.

You're still failing to provide evidence as to how the corporation is the party at fault.

So, loans are the answer to everything? Are corporations guaranteeing higher wages and certain jobs to everyone with degrees?

What about : http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/ripping-off-young-... from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6224982

Did you even look at that? Just because you were lucky enough to be able to pay off your loans doesnt mean everyone is. What if they dont find a job in their field? And have to work at minimum wage?

What about the veterans that come back from fighting for the country which includes these 'corporations'? Do the corporations guarantee them a higher salary?

http://www.epi.org/blog/raising-minimum-wage-benefits-millio...

What about : http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-28/minimum-wage-in-u-s...

How is that not EXPLOITATION? Just because the rich people are able to keep minimum wage low by having funds and time to spend lobbying, does that mean that it is correct?

I didn't pay my loans, the army did, after I returned from Afghanistan.