[hnnnnng]

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?

[Guvante]

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".

[nhangen]

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?

[eli_gottlieb]

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

[nhangen]

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

[eli_gottlieb]

So what?

[hnnnnng]

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?

[nhangen]

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.

[hnnnnng]

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?

[nhangen]

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