Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Roadtrip please reconsider voting for mccain at least watch the debates.>> Just as I watched both conventions from beginning to end, I always planned to watch the debates.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Tell me a job where you don't? Even McDonalds gives salary increases. Sure, some years there are salary freezes. We've had them at the University. But over time salaries go up (unless you were in a union job that paid substantially over market value in the first place). There is also a little something know as a promotion. No one ever got rich holding on to the same entry level job all of their life." Within the last year or so, Circuit City, I believe it was,laid off a slew of people simply because they were earning too much. It's happening more and more.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well, RoadTrip is claiming that a "living wage" is around $12 an hour, and yet it was just indicated that a McManager with twenty years (TWENTY!) of experience makes a touch over $10. Talk about out of touch. RoadTrip is certainly making a lot of assumptions here.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Well, RoadTrip is claiming that a "living wage" is around $12 an hour, and yet it was just indicated that a McManager with twenty years (TWENTY!) of experience makes a touch over $10.>> I'd sure love to see a link to the source. Are they talking about a store manager or a shift manager? I worked for Pizza Hut back in 1970-71, and at that time store managers there made about $25K. Just give me a link... that is all I ask.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I know a guy that used to manage an In N Out. Made 6 figures, and was awarded trips to nice places every year - Hawaii, France, etc.
Originally Posted By Mr X Isn't In N Out pretty famous for being a great place to work? I would imagine that McDonalds is quite a different story. This is old info, but I saw a McDonalds manager salary when I was working as a credit investigator a while back (about 12 years ago or so), and at the time the manager was making exactly $300 per week. Works out to a little over 15 grand, assuming they get sick pay, vacation pay etc (I imagine they do?). Even if a managers salary has tripled since that time, it still doesn't hit 50 grand a year.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<This is old info, but I saw a McDonalds manager salary when I was working as a credit investigator a while back (about 12 years ago or so), and at the time the manager was making exactly $300 per week>> Here is some more current information. Even in Missouri, which I can guarantee Mr. X will verify is the most backwater area in the United States, McDonalds Store Managers start at a salary of $40K - $50K. <<Store Manager Hours: 50 per week Pay: 40k-50k Description: Prior experience in a Quick Service restaurant is Mandatory. Hamburger University graduates will be given preferencial treatment. Reliable work history is mandatory. In addition we offer Medical/Dental Insurance,Targeted Bonus Plan, Paid Vacation, & continual training & development. Benefits: Store Managers are given 3 weeks vacation 1st year of employment. We offer a fun enviroment to work in and are very involved with our employees/Managers on a day to day basis.>> I have no idea what part of Missouri this might be in. But the cost of housing in Branson is about 50% of what it is in the Mpls-St. Paul area. P.S. It probably is in the Branson area. They misspelled ‘preferencial’ and 'enviroment'. ;-) LOL
Originally Posted By ecdc P.S. It probably is in the Branson area. They misspelled ‘preferencial’ and 'enviroment'. ;-) LOL LMAO!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<What bubble are you living in? I work with people everyday who are perfectly nice folks. They work hard. They pay their dues. But they just didn't get rewarded a whole lot in terms of cognitive ability or physical talent from the gene pool. They have a terminal paygrade that remains awfully close to that entry level.>> I realize that. That is exactly why I supported subsidized housing, childcare and healthcare for the working poor. I have no problem helping people maintain a livable existence no matter what they earn. AS LONG AS THEY WORK!!!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Road Trip, just curious... are you 100% set on McCain/Palin, or is there anything either of them could say or do in the debates that would change your mind? Just wondering...
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<McDonalds Store Managers start at a salary of $40K - $50K.>> I should have provided a link. Here it is: <a href="http://www.mcmissouri.com/careers/opportunities/670/" target="_blank">http://www.mcmissouri.com/care...ies/670/</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Please show me how those numbers were "played with" if you're going to make that sort of assertion.> Well, for one, they claim that the difference between 2000 and 2007 is negative, and my article says it's positive, so one of them must be wrong. Two, and most important, why aren't the time periods equal. The first two are for 10 years, the third is for 11, and the last for only 7. Why? Also, the time periods overlap. Why? Is it because they wanted to compare the highest point of 2000 to the lowest point in 2007?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Road Trip, just curious... are you 100% set on McCain/Palin, or is there anything either of them could say or do in the debates that would change your mind? Just wondering...>> I am certainly open to additional information. I plan to listen to all debates and continue to evaluate the candidates. Obama has actually gained in my opinion because he FINALLY acknowledged (more or less) that the surge in Iraq has been successful. For awhile there I truly thought he was the flip side of Dubya. Someone who would completely refuse to ever admit he made a mistake. I remain concerned about Obama in the following areas: 1) Healthcare. From what I have read, the healthcare of a huge number of Americans with employer-paid healthcare (including my University healthcare) might be in jeopardy under Obama. Under McCain it would become taxable income, but that would be offset by a tax credit which would cover our increased tax liability. That tax credit would enable people who do not have employer paid healthcare to purchase their own insurance and have most if not all of the cost covered by reduced taxes. 2) Tax policy. I have no problem if the tax rate on dividends and/or capital gains were to go up by a modest amount (3% or so). To almost double it would be absolutely unfair. Many of the people most affected by this would be the elderly. Believe it or not, the majority of our elderly DO NOT rely 100% on Social Security. A change in the tax treatment of dividend and capital gains could have a huge negative impact on them. 3) Defense. I've always been a Democratic Hawk. I always will be. In my opinion America has always fared best in conflicts when we took strong, decisive military action. When we've dinked around to placate popular opinion, both U.S. and worldwide (Vietnam and Middle East 2) we've failed miserably. When we've gone in with massive military force (WWII, Middle East 1) we have been very successful. So there you go. You may agree with my reasoning or not. But those are the issues that will hold my attention in the debates.
Originally Posted By Mr X Vietnam - Democrat CinC W Middle East 2) - Republican CinC W WWII - Democrat CinC W Middle East 1 Republican CinC W So, since it's all pretty much a wash (simplified, to be sure), what makes you think the Republicans are any more effective at the kind of warmaking you are in favor of?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<So, since it's all pretty much a wash (simplified, to be sure), what makes you think the Republicans are any more effective at the kind of warmaking you are in favor of?>> Political party in charge makes no difference whatsoever (as you have noted). It is the tactics used which make the difference, and the tactics advocated by McCain, in my opinion, have been more successful.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<People have criticized me for being selfish about wanting to protect my tax status. Probably because no one (as far as I know) is in the position that I will be in.>> I was one who noted that the new-to-LP information you revealed about your tax status helps explain why you've decided to vote for McCain over Obama. That was an observation on my part, not a criticism. As ecdc has stated more eloquently than I can, I would only criticize any public slagging of Obama that you might make for the sake of justifying your decision (to us or to yourself).
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Political party in charge makes no difference whatsoever (as you have noted). It is the tactics used which make the difference, and the tactics advocated by McCain, in my opinion, have been more successful.<< But you're only looking at a reduction in violence. That's excellent for our troops - none of us likes seeing our young men and women die in that god forsaken country. But the flip side is the political side, which McCain has been woefully ignorant on. Put more cops on the beat, and crime will go down - for a while. But it will only truly go away with equality and education. It's the same in Iraq. You have to have a political solution. Obama acknowledged that the surge has reduced violence, not that it's "worked" in the sense of victory for the U.S. and a unified Iraq.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I was one who noted that the new-to-LP information you revealed about your tax status helps explain why you've decided to vote for McCain over Obama>> Noted and appreciated.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***the tactics advocated by McCain, in my opinion, have been more successful*** Such as?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<***the tactics advocated by McCain, in my opinion, have been more successful*** Such as?>> Rumsfeld boots on the ground x 2 = much better chance for success. It just doesn't pay to fight a war on the cheap.
