Liberal Forum

He's so genuine. A progressive example of sainthood.

https://youtube.com/shorts/WMlWeb64D2c? ... LghImrZcqR
 

DeezerShoove » 26 Jan 2026, 3:49 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 3:49 pm

He's so genuine. A progressive example of sainthood.

https://youtube.com/shorts/WMlWeb64D2c? ... LghImrZcqR

20 bucks an hour????

That's a six figure income for being a fast food worker! (jesse watters math). 

18,000 job losses across the state? That is not a lot of jobs across a market that size. 

18,000 job losses, across a market that employs 750,000 people, comes to less than 2.5% of fast food jobs. And what is the margin of attribution error? That is to say, what portion of those jobs were axed for unrelated reasons? Probably not many, but almost certainly some...

I'm not defending newsome. I'm just saying the hit piece is not the highest caliber of "in-depth" reportage...

It's a partisan hit piece. I heard a loud broad, but no economists...
 

DeezerShoove » 26 Jan 2026, 3:49 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 3:49 pm

He's so genuine. A progressive example of sainthood.

https://youtube.com/shorts/WMlWeb64D2c? ... LghImrZcqR

Imagine if that video had included argument from economists who agree with the policy and economists who don't. Maybe get some sociologists and criminologists involved in the debate. I would like to see some math regarding the policy. 

For example, if the FF workers in question were averaging 17 bucks an hour and working 30 hour weeks on average, that would come to 17x30x52x750,000 going into the economy from bottom tier workers. Such moneys are agreed by economists on BOTH sides of the issue to be the most economically stimulative money in the economy - and I don't think ANYONE disagrees Cali's economy could use some stimulus. That figure is just south of 20 billion per annum. 19 billion 890 million. 

Now let's kill 18,000 workers, and raise wages by 18%. Because that's the math, going from 17 to 20. So we're looking at 20x30x52x732,000. It comes to 22 billion,838 million. Right at 3 billion dollars difference in economic stimulus. From a purely mathematorial perspective, the policy looks goodish.

Now, we are talking about human beings, profits, investment disincentives, job losses, the potential for business closures and whatever hidden costs are associated with that. There are tons of issues that a trained sociologist would spot that are entirely in my blind spot. My math doesn't even look at increased unemployment costs, or what kind of uptick in crime and other social ills come from 18,000 job losses. This is why I would like to see some economists and sociologists and maybe even criminologists arguing this ****, and not just some random loud prostitute telling only one side of the story. 
 
 

DeezerShoove » 26 Jan 2026, 3:49 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 3:49 pm

He's so genuine. A progressive example of sainthood.

https://youtube.com/shorts/WMlWeb64D2c? ... LghImrZcqR

  His **** knows no bounds...

Cannonpointer » 26 Jan 2026, 6:18 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 6:18 pm

Imagine if that video had included argument from economists who agree with the policy and economists who don't. Maybe get some sociologists and criminologists involved in the debate. I would like to see some math regarding the policy. 

For example, if the FF workers in question were averaging 17 bucks an hour and working 30 hour weeks on average, that would come to 17x30x52x750,000 going into the economy from bottom tier workers. Such moneys are agreed by economists on BOTH sides of the issue to be the most economically stimulative money in the economy - and I don't think ANYONE disagrees Cali's economy could use some stimulus. That figure is just south of 20 billion per annum. 19 billion 890 million. 

Now let's kill 18,000 workers, and raise wages by 18%. Because that's the math, going from 17 to 20. So we're looking at 20x30x52x732,000. It comes to 22 billion,838 million. Right at 3 billion dollars difference in economic stimulus. From a purely mathematorial perspective, the policy looks goodish.

Now, we are talking about human beings, profits, investment disincentives, job losses, the potential for business closures and whatever hidden costs are associated with that. There are tons of issues that a trained sociologist would spot that are entirely in my blind spot. My math doesn't even look at increased unemployment costs, or what kind of uptick in crime and other social ills come from 18,000 job losses. This is why I would like to see some economists and sociologists and maybe even criminologists arguing this ****, and not just some random loud prostitute telling only one side of the story.

Restaurants are going broke because anyone who isn't in the top 10% has no money left.

You can get rid of MW entirely (think of those immigrant staffed restaurants that pay under the table or employ family members who won't "tell on them") and nothing would change the outcome. 

I recall many restaurants, farms, credit unions, and mom and pop shops collapsed in 1929. When there was no federal MW (and only in a small number of states)

Turns out the wealthy parasit3s hoarding / rent seeking has consequences...

@Deezer Shoove  

one word comes to mind.....nirvana

Cannonpointer » 26 Jan 2026, 4:50 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 4:50 pm

20 bucks an hour????

That's a six figure income for being a fast food worker! (jesse watters math). 

18,000 job losses across the state? That is not a lot of jobs across a market that size. 

18,000 job losses, across a market that employs 750,000 people, comes to less than 2.5% of fast food jobs. And what is the margin of attribution error? That is to say, what portion of those jobs were axed for unrelated reasons? Probably not many, but almost certainly some...

I'm not defending newsome. I'm just saying the hit piece is not the highest caliber of "in-depth" reportage...

It's a partisan hit piece. I heard a loud broad, but no economists...

I haven't checked on the Big Mac Global Inflation/Exchange Rate lately.
People actually found that to be a fairly decent barometer years ago.
With automation and computer kiosks being a bit random these days, maybe that has become unreliable.

I still have a hard time accepting that a burger flipper type job is a "career". Seems like anything that can be taught to a kid in a day or so, isn't worth much per hour. Minimum wage has been argued to death forever.

There's an old article out there titled "Why Not a $100 per hour Minimum Wage?" Basically it proposes that that ridiculous sum would even out and ultimately solve nothing when prices rise. It's merely temporary.
Hit piece or not, the whore notwithstanding, Newsom is a hairdo pandering with no solution to anything.
 
edit add:
Not the same article I mentioned but as I said: This has been argued to death.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carrieshef ... 0-an-hour/

DeezerShoove » 26 Jan 2026, 9:14 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 9:14 pm

I haven't checked on the Big Mac Global Inflation/Exchange Rate lately.
People actually found that to be a fairly decent barometer years ago.
With automation and computer kiosks being a bit random these days, maybe that has become unreliable.

I still have a hard time accepting that a burger flipper type job is a "career". Seems like anything that can be taught to a kid in a day or so, isn't worth much per hour. Minimum wage has been argued to death forever.

There's an old article out there titled "Why Not a $100 per hour Minimum Wage?" Basically it proposes that that ridiculous sum would even out and ultimately solve nothing when prices rise. It's merely temporary.
Hit piece or not, the whore notwithstanding, Newsom is a hairdo pandering with no solution to anything.
 
edit add:
Not the same article I mentioned but as I said: This has been argued to death.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carrieshef ... 0-an-hour/

Well, I don't wanna be a prick about it, but that just substituted one whore for another. 

Forbes had this to say before the screed continued: "At its core, a minimum wage hike is a temporary, Band-aid fix to a deeper, chronic problem." And me, silly me, I'm thinking, "COOL! Forbes is gonna cut through the **** and tell us the REAL solution to the "chronic problem" of asking a generation of Americans to work like their parents worked but not earn like their parents earned, IN SPITE of increased productivity over their parents' generation. 

Alas, no. Having identified that tabulating the "correct" minimum wage was not the "real" problem, they went on to talk about anything except the "real" problem. They served up some left over slippery slope with a hackneyed side of price hikes will follow. 

But the "real" problem remains, so if Forbes wants us to take its prescription and lay off the fake problem, maybe they should tell us what the real problem is and what is their prescription for the cure - OH, OH! I am saying that bolded part in my Sam Kinison voice. 

I don't claim to have the right answer. But I'm pretty sure that Forbes doesn't, either. And I know this much. Morality and partisan ideology aside, I see an immediate 2-plus billion dollar stimulus for the California economy coming out of this particular policy. Of course, that math is based on all 750,000 FF workers getting the bump in pay, and there is no divining from the media how close to true that assumption is. Given the carve outs, it could be closer to a one billion dollar stimulus - to a 4 trillion dollar economy. Not all that exciting. 

There is always more mud than water in the springs from which we peasants are allowed to drink. 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 26 Jan 2026, 10:12 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 10:12 pm

Well, I don't wanna be a prick about it, but that just substituted one whore for another. 

Forbes had this to say before the screed continued: "At its core, a minimum wage hike is a temporary, Band-aid fix to a deeper, chronic problem." And me, silly me, I'm thinking, "COOL! Forbes is gonna cut through the **** and tell us the REAL solution to the "chronic problem" of asking a generation of Americans to work like their parents worked but not earn like their parents earned, IN SPITE of increased productivity over their parents' generation. 

Alas, no. Having identified that tabulating the "correct" minimum wage was not the "real" problem, they went on to talk about anything except the "real" problem. They served up some left over slippery slope with a hackneyed side of price hikes will follow. 

But the "real" problem remains, so if Forbes wants us to take its prescription and lay off the fake problem, maybe they should tell us what the real problem is and what is their prescription for the cure - OH, OH! I am saying that bolded part in my Sam Kinison voice. 

I don't claim to have the right answer. But I'm pretty sure that Forbes doesn't, either. And I know this much. Morality and partisan ideology aside, I see an immediate 2-plus billion dollar stimulus for the California economy coming out of this particular policy. Of course, that math is based on all 750,000 FF workers getting the bump in pay, and there is no divining from the media how close to true that assumption is. Given the carve outs, it could be closer to a one billion dollar stimulus - to a 4 trillion dollar economy. Not all that exciting. 

There is always more mud than water in the springs from which we peasants are allowed to drink.

Agreed. About the what-is-the-real-problem part.
Or more importantly, a cure, if any such thing exists at all.

Children used to have chores in an agrarian society. That was noble and healthy, educational and character-building.
What do they do now? Nothing, because child labor is oh-so-damaging, we stopped that stuff.
But flipping burger type jobs were a start for kids to face the humdrum adult work-a-day world.

Suddenly that's a career? Adults need the money now, too. None of this is good.

DeezerShoove » 26 Jan 2026, 11:27 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 11:27 pm

Agreed. About the what-is-the-real-problem part.
Or more importantly, a cure, if any such thing exists at all.

Children used to have chores in an agrarian society. That was noble and healthy, educational and character-building.
What do they do now? Nothing, because child labor is oh-so-damaging, we stopped that stuff.
But flipping burger type jobs were a start for kids to face the humdrum adult work-a-day world.

Suddenly that's a career? Adults need the money now, too. None of this is good.

I agree that none of this is good. And I want to add, kids DO still get jobs at mcdonalds. That's a fact. And there were ALWAYS adults working at mcdonalds, as a career. That is also a fact. The pretense otherwise is a deliberate lie with bad intentions.

The very first mcdonalds paid 85 cents an hour as their hiring wage. That was 1953. A burger cost 15 cents. That's almost 6 burgers per hour. Today, the cheapest burger is 2.50. That'd be close to 15 bucks an hour. 

In '68. when the big mac was introduced, it cost 45 cents. Starting wage was a buck sixty. That was 3.55 big macs per hour. Today a big mac costs 5.85. 3.55 big macs would come to 20.77 per hour. STARTING wage. And this math is blood simple. It's comparing mcdonald's work for mcdonald's pay using mcdonald's products.  

Just think about this for a minute. All the lies about how minimum wage has kept pace - they do not need to be debunked. They do not need to be argued at all. They can be ignored as irrelevant, because we have a more perfect scale available.

We can just look at how many big macs a mcdonald's employee could buy with one hours' wage THEN, and how much NOW, and we can call **** on the lying **** at Forbes and Fox and Yak Yak Yak and the US Chanber of Commerce and Whores R Us. The mcdonald's menu cuts through ALL the ****. It is the Rosetta Stone of sorting through the mixed mathematics that the lying sacks of **** throw at us. 

How many big macs then. How many big macs now. And THEN tell us how paying a living wage is going to destroy polite society, please. 
 

Cannonpointer » 26 Jan 2026, 11:59 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 11:59 pm

I agree that none of this is good. And I want to add, kids DO still get jobs at mcdonalds. That's a fact. And there were ALWAYS adults working at mcdonalds, as a career. That is also a fact. The pretense otherwise is a deliberate lie with bad intentions.

The very first mcdonalds paid 85 cents an hour as their hiring wage. That was 1953. A burger cost 15 cents. That's almost 6 burgers per hour. Today, the cheapest burger is 2.50. That'd be close to 15 bucks an hour. 

In '68. when the big mac was introduced, it cost 45 cents. Starting wage was a buck sixty. That was 3.55 big macs per hour. Today a big mac costs 5.85. 3.55 big macs would come to 20.77 per hour. STARTING wage. And this math is blood simple. It's comparing mcdonald's work for mcdonald's pay using mcdonald's products.  

Just think about this for a minute. All the lies about how minimum wage has kept pace - they do not need to be debunked. They do not need to be argued at all. They can be ignored as irrelevant, because we have a more perfect scale available.

We can just look at how many big macs a mcdonald's employee could buy with one hours' wage THEN, and how much NOW, and we can call **** on the lying **** at Forbes and Fox and Yak Yak Yak and the US Chanber of Commerce and Whores R Us. The mcdonald's menu cuts through ALL the ****. It is the Rosetta Stone of sorting through the mixed mathematics that the lying sacks of **** throw at us. 

How many big macs then. How many big macs now. And THEN tell us how paying a living wage is going to destroy polite society, please.

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting.   

Sounds like the Big Mac Index is still working for us.
I suppose if I wanted to pick at the equation, there'd be some bicker material in the mix.

Maybe the difference today is that I don't remember many adults expecting to stay on at flipping burgers.
It was never anything but a temporary weekly pay check. Until a real job came along...
Maybe a wannabe manager would stick it out or a jailbird desperate for a second chance. 

DeezerShoove » 26 Jan 2026, 3:49 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 3:49 pm

He's so genuine. A progressive example of sainthood.

youtube /shorts/WMlWeb64D2c?si=eoU46WLghImrZcqR

Whe do I get my raise?  I'll settle for the link filter being removed.

DeezerShoove » 27 Jan 2026, 12:40 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 12:40 am

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting.   

Sounds like the Big Mac Index is still working for us.
I suppose if I wanted to pick at the equation, there'd be some bicker material in the mix.

Maybe the difference today is that I don't remember many adults expecting to stay on at flipping burgers.
It was never anything but a temporary weekly pay check. Until a real job came along...
Maybe a wannabe manager would stick it out or a jailbird desperate for a second chance. 

My brother managed a McDonalds at his first job.  He was quite pleased with the income.

I think CP said he also worked at one when he was young? Probably with Kamala ha ha ha 

Anyway,  we have printed so much money that everything's value is super inflated, even a workers salary.  A Cell Phone builder in India lives on 1000$ US a year. The labor to build a phone is probably less than a the Price of a Big Mac here. 

I also consider the fact that the minimum wages are likely  unsustainable.  But the lack of them is just a faster descent of America to Third World Shyt Hole Status.
 
 

JohnnyYou » 27 Jan 2026, 6:36 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 6:36 am

Whe do I get my raise?  I'll settle for the link filter being removed.

Yes, but the broader market wouldn't......that's called ROI....get Clarabelle the Clairvoyant to explain it to you.
 

DeezerShoove » 27 Jan 2026, 12:40 am » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 12:40 am

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting.   

Sounds like the Big Mac Index is still working for us.
I suppose if I wanted to pick at the equation, there'd be some bicker material in the mix.

Maybe the difference today is that I don't remember many adults expecting to stay on at flipping burgers.
It was never anything but a temporary weekly pay check. Until a real job came along...
Maybe a wannabe manager would stick it out or a jailbird desperate for a second chance. 

That is a false narrative. McDonalds was always a real job paying real wages. I've shown you the relative scale. The "kid job" narrative makes no sense when that scaleis applied. McDonalds refused to hire women until that practice was outlawed. Consider the implications. Ray Kroc brooked no frivolity. 

There has never been a time in the history of the food service industry that teenagers were in charge of restaurants. Not 30 years ago and not 100 years ago. That is an invented narrative. Kids got jobs mowing lawns, but they didn't run landscape services. Kids got jobs tossing papers. They were not publishers and they did not manage routes. Kids got jobs baby sitting. They didn't own day cares. Kids picked catawba worms for fishermen, They were not vermiculturalists. There was never one Uncle Charlie running a McDonalds and an ever-rotating crop of children doing all the work. There were always career employees in fast food and there still are to this day. The food service industry is no less serious or profitable than any other industry in America.  

You might think, "oh, yeah, but there is only one manager perstore." You would be wrong. A busy store will have at minimum the store manager, one first assistant and two second assistants. There will also be a biscuit maker - and don't laugh. It's a full time position that pays well traditionally. That has become a releative term, since EVERYONE is getting fewer big macs per hour than boomers got. 

Suffice to say the "intended as a 'first' job, to gain workplace experience" narrative is absolute ****. 

And EVEN IF THIS WERE NOT THE CASE, it is still irrelevant to the pay scale. If McDonalds was paying the equivalent of 20 bucks an hour to "transient teenagers learning job skills" in the 60s, why will it suddenly break the bank for them to do so now? Explain why a generation of Americans "should" work for a third or half of what their parents and grandparents worked for, even while greater automation lowers man hours per production unit. Make that make sense, inside OR outside of the narrative I say is ****.

And there's more...


 
 
 

Here is AI on the topic:

AI Overview

Yes, people made careers at McDonald’s in its early years, particularly as the company grew rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s under Ray Kroc. While many viewed it as a first job for teens, the company's "Quality, Service, and Cleanliness" (QSC) model required dedicated personnel, which allowed early employees to advance into management and franchise ownership
. 
Key aspects of early career development at McDonald's included:

Internal Promotion & Leadership: Many early employees advanced from crew members to managers. A notable example is Fred Turner, who was hired as a counter man in 1956 at the Des Plaines, Illinois, restaurant and later became the company's Chairman, defining the operational standards.

Franchise Opportunities: The company created a path for employees to become owner/operators, with many, even in the early days, starting as crew members and working their way up to owning multiple locations.

Structured Training: Ray Kroc emphasized strict standardization, leading to the creation of training programs to ensure consistency, which offered a structured, professional environment.

The 1960s "Career" Shift: Early employee handbooks in the 1960s highlighted that the training and experience gained at McDonald’s could lead to a long-term, satisfying career within the company.

Prestige & Discipline: In the 1950s and 60s, working at McDonald's was seen as a way to learn discipline and work ethic, rather than just a transient job. 

Attached is a photo of the first store's crew. It's pretty much all adults.


 
 

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2026, 12:38 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 12:38 pm

Prestige & Discipline: In the 1950s and 60s, working at McDonald's was seen as a way to learn discipline and work ethic, rather than just a transient job. 

 

Some joined the Armed Services to learn discipline and work ethic. 
 

*Roshambo » 27 Jan 2026, 12:44 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 12:44 pm

Some joined the Armed Services to learn discipline and work ethic.

And they showered with men, and were immediately exposed to...


Doon doon doon...

The HOMOSEXUAL. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7S0PzZMkJE
 

Cannonpointer » 26 Jan 2026, 11:59 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2026, 11:59 pm

I agree that none of this is good. And I want to add, kids DO still get jobs at mcdonalds. That's a fact. And there were ALWAYS adults working at mcdonalds, as a career. That is also a fact. The pretense otherwise is a deliberate lie with bad intentions.

The very first mcdonalds paid 85 cents an hour as their hiring wage. That was 1953. A burger cost 15 cents. That's almost 6 burgers per hour. Today, the cheapest burger is 2.50. That'd be close to 15 bucks an hour. 

In '68. when the big mac was introduced, it cost 45 cents. Starting wage was a buck sixty. That was 3.55 big macs per hour. Today a big mac costs 5.85. 3.55 big macs would come to 20.77 per hour. STARTING wage. And this math is blood simple. It's comparing mcdonald's work for mcdonald's pay using mcdonald's products.  

Just think about this for a minute. All the lies about how minimum wage has kept pace - they do not need to be debunked. They do not need to be argued at all. They can be ignored as irrelevant, because we have a more perfect scale available.

We can just look at how many big macs a mcdonald's employee could buy with one hours' wage THEN, and how much NOW, and we can call **** on the lying **** at Forbes and Fox and Yak Yak Yak and the US Chanber of Commerce and Whores R Us. The mcdonald's menu cuts through ALL the ****. It is the Rosetta Stone of sorting through the mixed mathematics that the lying sacks of **** throw at us. 

How many big macs then. How many big macs now. And THEN tell us how paying a living wage is going to destroy polite society, please.

Mickey D's burgers used to be bigger in the 1950s, so you need to add another 20%~ so it's closer to $22/hr starting rather than $18.


 

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2026, 12:38 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2026, 12:38 pm

That is a false narrative. McDonalds was always a real job paying real wages. I've shown you the relative scale. The "kid job" narrative makes no sense when that scaleis applied. McDonalds refused to hire women until that practice was outlawed. Consider the implications. Ray Kroc brooked no frivolity. 

There has never been a time in the history of the food service industry that teenagers were in charge of restaurants. Not 30 years ago and not 100 years ago. That is an invented narrative. Kids got jobs mowing lawns, but they didn't run landscape services. Kids got jobs tossing papers. They were not publishers and they did not manage routes. Kids got jobs baby sitting. They didn't own day cares. Kids picked catawba worms for fishermen, They were not vermiculturalists. There was never one Uncle Charlie running a McDonalds and an ever-rotating crop of children doing all the work. There were always career employees in fast food and there still are to this day. The food service industry is no less serious or profitable than any other industry in America.  

You might think, "oh, yeah, but there is only one manager perstore." You would be wrong. A busy store will have at minimum the store manager, one first assistant and two second assistants. There will also be a biscuit maker - and don't laugh. It's a full time position that pays well traditionally. That has become a releative term, since EVERYONE is getting fewer big macs per hour than boomers got. 

Suffice to say the "intended as a 'first' job, to gain workplace experience" narrative is absolute ****. 

And EVEN IF THIS WERE NOT THE CASE, it is still irrelevant to the pay scale. If McDonalds was paying the equivalent of 20 bucks an hour to "transient teenagers learning job skills" in the 60s, why will it suddenly break the bank for them to do so now? Explain why a generation of Americans "should" work for a third or half of what their parents and grandparents worked for, even while greater automation lowers man hours per production unit. Make that make sense, inside OR outside of the narrative I say is ****.

And there's more...

I my experience a dishwasher was slightly lower than fast food in desirable work positions.

"Suffice to say the "intended as a 'first' job, to gain workplace experience" narrative is absolute ****."
         ^^^This statement is absolutely wrong.

I, myself, proved it wrong. As did more than a few of my friends. LOTS of people see it that way.