Fast Food Worker Strikes!

[laklak]

Aaagh. So many idiots. Two little old ladies that stop to chat and block the entire aisle.

We're getting an early start to season this year, I've already seen a bunch of Michigan and Ohio plates in the Publix parking lot. Shopping is like being an extra in the Night of the Living Almost Dead. They shuffle about like zombies, peering at their shopping lists and arguing with hubby/wifey over whether the last cream cheese they bought was fat free or 1/3 Less Fat. I was shopping yesterday and was the youngest customer by probably 20 years. Fucking DIE already.

[MrJonno]

Not all jobs are worth a "living wage" (whatever that is). I would rather have someone pushing a broom and earning some money as they collect some State benefits than just sit home waiting for a $50k job offer to roll in.

Whether they are 'worth' a living wage or not is actually not the point, they have to beon a living wage unless you want starving /dead people (I'm assuming even most conservatives don't want that). So ensuring they get a living 'wage' is going to be a joint responsibility between the employer and the state (the employee has already done their bit by working full time).

If Walmart or similar can't pay their employees enough to survive on and make a profit without state subsidies there is a simply solution, they get nationalised and don't have to make a profit any more (they are basically kept running by the tax payer anyway)

[Coito ergo sum]

Whether they are 'worth' a living wage or not is actually not the point, they have to beon a living wage unless you want starving /dead people (I'm assuming even most conservatives don't want that). So ensuring they get a living 'wage' is going to be a joint responsibility between the employer and the state (the employee has already done their bit by working full time).

That isn't true, though, since not all people are breadwinners of households. Some people are content with working part time jobs or low paying jobs as supplemental income. Making all jobs compensated by whatever amount you want to deem a "living wage" denies the basic fact that some people have dual incomes, some people are secondary income earners, etc., so working a non-living wage job doesn't mean that people will starve.

Moreover, escalating wages for certain jobs that employers don't think are worth paying 2 or 3 times more will just cause a lot of jobs to disappear and the ration of workers to available jobs will go up.

If Walmart or similar can't pay their employees enough to survive on and make a profit without state subsidies there is a simply solution, they get nationalised and don't have to make a profit any more (they are basically kept running by the tax payer anyway)

It isn't Wal-Mart's fault that the State is subsidizing people.

And, again, if the subsidies are not available to "the working poor" then they have an incentive to avoid gainful employment and subsist on subsidies. Allowing people to continue to collect SOME subsidies while they work low skilled, lowpaying jobs gives them a chance to continue employment while they work their way up to higher paying jobs and eventually ween themselves off subsidies.

The real way to benefit them is not by mandating an increased minimum wage, but by taking policy measures that increases available employment opportunities. I.e. make adjustments that increase the number of jobs available as compared to the number of employees. Do that, and employers become hungrier for those increasingly scarce employers and then wages go up.

[MrJonno]

It isn't Wal-Mart's fault that the State is subsidizing people.

Well actually it is, they campaign to keep minimum wage levels low and the government picks up the slack.

With rising population and less work required the days of companies primary purpose in making a profit are seriously numbered

[Coito ergo sum]

It isn't Wal-Mart's fault that the State is subsidizing people.

Well actually it is, they campaign to keep minimum wage levels low and the government picks up the slack.

With rising population and less work required the days of companies primary purpose in making a profit are seriously numbered

Companies have to at least break even in order to stay in business, absent government subsidies.

[Seth]

Aaagh. So many idiots. Two little old ladies that stop to chat and block the entire aisle.

We're getting an early start to season this year, I've already seen a bunch of Michigan and Ohio plates in the Publix parking lot. Shopping is like being an extra in the Night of the Living Almost Dead. They shuffle about like zombies, peering at their shopping lists and arguing with hubby/wifey over whether the last cream cheese they bought was fat free or 1/3 Less Fat. I was shopping yesterday and was the youngest customer by probably 20 years. Fucking DIE already.

Don't worry, they will, as soon as Obamacare kicks in...

[Seth]

Not all jobs are worth a "living wage" (whatever that is). I would rather have someone pushing a broom and earning some money as they collect some State benefits than just sit home waiting for a $50k job offer to roll in.

Whether they are 'worth' a living wage or not is actually not the point,

It's exactly and completely the point.

they have to beon a living wage unless you want starving /dead people (I'm assuming even most conservatives don't want that). So ensuring they get a living 'wage' is going to be a joint responsibility between the employer and the state (the employee has already done their bit by working full time).

Well, they need to improve their skill set so that they are worth more. That's why we have entry-level minimum-wage jobs in the first place, so that the neophyte worker can gain work skills through OJT while the employer doesn't have to lose money while training a newbie for the workforce. It's the modern equivalent of the apprenticeship, a system that I strongly favor rather than minimum wage laws. In an apprenticeship the apprentice works under the tutelage of the Journeyman or Master Craftsman for nothing more than room and board, and perhaps a small stipend for miscellaneous things as he learns his trade. When he finally qualified as a Journeyman, he is free to "journey" and strike out on his own to make a living. Until then, as an Apprentice, he owes a duty of labor to the Master in return for the "free" education he's receiving. As his skills increase, the Master gives him more and more work, but no more pay, which is his way of being recompensed for the costs of keeping an Apprentice. When the Apprentice has worked long enough and learned enough to pay for the costs of his education, and then some, he does his "Journeyman piece" and (in most cases) is certified by his Master and is then free to strike out on his own if he likes.

The modern equivalent is the minimum-wage (should be no-minimum-wage) entry level burger flipper, who the employer trains to be a good employee at the employer's expense. It's intended that the entry-level burger flipper will move on within a year or two to bigger and better things, thus opening up another training position for another new worker. When they don't the job training opportunities for youth that give them a toe in the door of the workforce dry up and you end up with 40% unemployment among black inner-city male youth...who will be perpetually unemployed, or underemployed adults dependent on the public purse for the rest of their lives.

If Walmart or similar can't pay their employees enough to survive on and make a profit without state subsidies there is a simply solution, they get nationalised and don't have to make a profit any more (they are basically kept running by the tax payer anyway)

Yeah, like that worked for the Soviet Union...or any other Marxist regime. NOT!

Commerce does not exist for the primary purpose of employing people. People are employed because of the needs of commerce and profit, and for no other reason. Kill off the profit in commerce and there will be no jobs for anyone and you get Soviet-era universal poverty and privation or worse.

Fucking Marxists never learn...

[piscator]

Moreover, escalating wages for certain jobs that employers don't think are worth paying 2 or 3 times more will just cause a lot of jobs to disappear and the ration of workers to available jobs will go up.

You keep assuming that, but you don't show how it works. Will employers "cut off their noses to spite their faces", forgo their own income to protest living wages for people they feel don't "deserve" it? Are there vast numbers of employers who are so close to the bone they can't pay more than the minimum the law allows, and their labor will bankrupt them?

Most employees are there for a reason - they make their employers considerably more $$ than they cost. Mine do.
Who are these people that can't pass on increased costs and will have to go out of business when the minimum wage goes up?

[Svartalf]

I think that's grounds for justifiable use of lethal force down here. Or it should be.

Bug it, here the cashdesks have a printer so the person just has to sign the cheque.

[Seth]

Moreover, escalating wages for certain jobs that employers don't think are worth paying 2 or 3 times more will just cause a lot of jobs to disappear and the ration of workers to available jobs will go up.

You keep assuming that, but you don't show how it works.

Are you really that obtuse? It's perfectly obvious. When the worker costs the employer more than he's worth for the labor input he provides it decreases the profitability of the company. Repeat that deficit enough times and there is not only no profit to be had, the company will operate at a loss, which will sooner or later put the company out of business and will result in ALL of the employees being unemployed.

Will employers "cut off their noses to spite their faces", forgo their own income to protest living wages for people they feel don't "deserve" it? Are there vast numbers of employers who are so close to the bone they can't pay more than the minimum the law allows, and their labor will bankrupt them?

Yes, actually, there are. Go investigate, for example, what the profit margins in the grocery trade are. It's but one or two percent. Increase their labor costs by 100 percent and the profit literally disappears. Raise prices to compensate and the customers disappear or cut back their buying and once again the profit turns to loss and EVERYBODY loses their job when the company closes.

Most employees are there for a reason - they make their employers considerably more $$ than they cost.

Depends on what you mean by "considerably."

Mine do.

Yeah? What's their net profit percentage over costs, exactly?

Who are these people that can't pass on increased costs and will have to go out of business when the minimum wage goes up?

About 70 percent of the world of commerce actually, which is comprised of independent businesspersons running small businesses that, if they are good at it and lucky, eke out a living for the owners if that. Increasing the price of goods leads to fewer goods being sold. Fewer goods being sold means less gross revenues. Less gross revenue means less net profit. Raise the production costs and lower the gross revenue enough and there is negative profit and the company goes out of business and NO employee makes ANY wage.

Its how economics actually works, you see.

It's the free market that determines what the value of any individual's labor is to the employer, and nothing else. It's simple; pay your employees too much and you go out of business. Pay them too little and you can't find employees willing to work for you and be productive.

All the minimum wage law does is to unemploy people who either have no job skills or are ineffective, inefficient workers.

If an employer has to pay $15/hr. for an unskilled labor position he's not going to hire someone with NO skills, he's going to hire the person with the MOST skills and demonstrated ability he can find who will take the job.

[JimC]

I just use the debit card now. Faster and one fuck of a lot cleaner.

Me too. I now become almost enraged when people break out their checkbooks at the supermarket.

I'm like -- really? REALLY? A fucking CHECKBOOK? To buy groceries??? FFS, you have a checking account, but no debit card? In 2013?

It's still the lady who stands there watching each item get scanned, refusing to help bag any of her groceries. Then she waits for the total to be tallied before even bothering to reach into her giant handbag to find the even smaller purse, which contains an even smaller little zipper wallet, which contains a checkbook, which she then proceeds to slooooowly write out.....

I've never seen anyone in Oz pay for something in a supermarket by cheque. I suspect it is not allowed. Purchases are by cash, EFTPOS or credit card, and nowadays there are a certain amount of self-scanning, self-bagging, pay-by-card check-outs as well...

[piscator]

Moreover, escalating wages for certain jobs that employers don't think are worth paying 2 or 3 times more will just cause a lot of jobs to disappear and the ration of workers to available jobs will go up.

You keep assuming that, but you don't show how it works.

Are you really that obtuse? It's perfectly obvious. When the worker costs the employer more than he's worth for the labor input he provides it decreases the profitability of the company. Repeat that deficit enough times and there is not only no profit to be had, the company will operate at a loss, which will sooner or later put the company out of business and will result in ALL of the employees being unemployed.

Then that "just so" business couldn't weather the mildest storm, and it was just a matter of time before it went under due to something else.

Will employers "cut off their noses to spite their faces", forgo their own income to protest living wages for people they feel don't "deserve" it? Are there vast numbers of employers who are so close to the bone they can't pay more than the minimum the law allows, and their labor will bankrupt them?

Yes, actually, there are. Go investigate, for example, what the profit margins in the grocery trade are. It's but one or two percent. Increase their labor costs by 100 percent and the profit literally disappears. Raise prices to compensate and the customers disappear or cut back their buying and once again the profit turns to loss and EVERYBODY loses their job when the company closes.

Go look at how unionized grocery chains like Safeway manage to compete with all comers while paying twice the wage.
Economies of scale, time value of money, smart logistics...it adds up. Higher wages than competitors also attract better employees, the kind that value their jobs and make customers want to patronize the store...

Most employees are there for a reason - they make their employers considerably more $$ than they cost.

Depends on what you mean by "considerably."

Mine do.

Yeah? What's their net profit percentage over costs, exactly?

Over 10:1. Sometimes over 100:1. But these are skilled people working in semi-professional capacities, not some just so cutthroat ratrace you concoct for your own amusement...
I had a crew chief call me about a flooded area near a job that something needed to be done about, but wasn't included in the specs. I made a 10-minute phone call that resulted in a $12,000 change order that took the crew about an hour to accomplish, since they were right there. Total cost to me? Less than $200 in labor.
That's what they are there for - to make money.

Who are these people that can't pass on increased costs and will have to go out of business when the minimum wage goes up?

About 70 percent of the world of commerce actually, which is comprised of independent businesspersons running small businesses that, if they are good at it and lucky, eke out a living for the owners if that. Increasing the price of goods leads to fewer goods being sold. Fewer goods being sold means less gross revenues. Less gross revenue means less net profit. Raise the production costs and lower the gross revenue enough and there is negative profit and the company goes out of business and NO employee makes ANY wage.

Its how economics actually works, you see.

But if the increased cost is universal, like it is with a minimum wage increase, it thaws your frozen concept. You see, a minimum wage hike affects competitors as well as your little fly-by-night enterprises. That's where you're freezing concepts here: holding a specific example in isolation as if a minimum wage hike doesn't affect competitors as well, and pretending a business can't pass on its increased costs to customers.

It's the free market that determines what the value of any individual's labor is to the employer, and nothing else.

That's a fantasy.

All the minimum wage law does is to unemploy people who either have no job skills or are ineffective, inefficient workers.

If an employer has to pay $15/hr. for an unskilled labor position he's not going to hire someone with NO skills, he's going to hire the person with the MOST skills and demonstrated ability he can find who will take the job.

But if the minimum wage goes up, skilled wages also go up, which makes skilled people just as impossible to recruit for minimum wage. Moreover, how can you expect more than the minimum from an employee if that's all you are willing to give?

You don't know a goddamn thing about how the world works. We should take a poll of who here would work for you.

[Seth]

Moreover, escalating wages for certain jobs that employers don't think are worth paying 2 or 3 times more will just cause a lot of jobs to disappear and the ration of workers to available jobs will go up.

You keep assuming that, but you don't show how it works.

Are you really that obtuse? It's perfectly obvious. When the worker costs the employer more than he's worth for the labor input he provides it decreases the profitability of the company. Repeat that deficit enough times and there is not only no profit to be had, the company will operate at a loss, which will sooner or later put the company out of business and will result in ALL of the employees being unemployed.

Then that "just so" business couldn't weather the mildest storm, and it was just a matter of time before it went under due to something else.

Talk about your fallacious reasoning... Using your logic we should just shut down every marginal business that's barely scraping by but is actually employing people and paying them a wage even if the owner works long hours for no pay at all just to make ends meet merely because his employees want more money?

Sheesh.

Will employers "cut off their noses to spite their faces", forgo their own income to protest living wages for people they feel don't "deserve" it? Are there vast numbers of employers who are so close to the bone they can't pay more than the minimum the law allows, and their labor will bankrupt them?

Yes, actually, there are. Go investigate, for example, what the profit margins in the grocery trade are. It's but one or two percent. Increase their labor costs by 100 percent and the profit literally disappears. Raise prices to compensate and the customers disappear or cut back their buying and once again the profit turns to loss and EVERYBODY loses their job when the company closes.

Go look at how unionized grocery chains like Safeway manage to compete with all comers while paying twice the wage.

Go look at their profit margin.

Economies of scale, time value of money, smart logistics...it adds up.

That's all well and good if you can take advantage of those factors, but the vast majority of small businesses cannot. They have a hard enough time keeping the doors open.

Higher wages than competitors also attract better employees, the kind that value their jobs and make customers want to patronize the store...

Which is why single-digit percentages of workers stay on minimum wage for more than a year. If you stay on minimum wage for more than a year as a brand-new worker undergoing training, then you are an incompetent or lazy ass who isn't worth more than minimum wage to begin with, so why should you get more than that? You determine your worth in the workplace, and you alone.

Most employees are there for a reason - they make their employers considerably more $$ than they cost.

Depends on what you mean by "considerably."

Mine do.

Yeah? What's their net profit percentage over costs, exactly?

Over 10:1. Sometimes over 100:1. But these are skilled people working in semi-professional capacities, not some just so cutthroat ratrace you concoct for your own amusement...[/quote]

Somehow I doubt that, but I'll let it go arguendo.

I had a crew chief call me about a flooded area near a job that something needed to be done about, but wasn't included in the specs. I made a 10-minute phone call that resulted in a $12,000 change order that took the crew about an hour to accomplish, since they were right there. Total cost to me? Less than $200 in labor.
That's what they are there for - to make money.

Of course. And they get paid what they are worth, and what they think they are worth. No more, no less. The key phrase you yourself use is "these are skilled people working in semi-professional capacities." By becoming skilled they increased their value to the owner and they get paid more accordingly. But Juan Pablo from Sonora who doesn't speaka da English and operates a shovel and broom isn't in the same class at all and he's probably worth minimum wage to begin with, until he proves that his shovel and broom skills are exceptional and that he's reliable and willing to improve his skill set to cleaning toilets and taking out trash, and eventually to pushing the mail cart and making coffee as he works his way up the corporate food chain by becoming more and more useful and profit-generating until one day he may end up as CEO.

But if all he ever does is smoke dope, drink beer and sweep floors, that's all he's worth and he'll rightfully be relegated to minimum wage for the rest of his life. His employer doesn't owe him a "living wage," his employer owes him exactly what he was offered at the outset: Compensation package A in return for labor value input X.

Who are these people that can't pass on increased costs and will have to go out of business when the minimum wage goes up?

About 70 percent of the world of commerce actually, which is comprised of independent businesspersons running small businesses that, if they are good at it and lucky, eke out a living for the owners if that. Increasing the price of goods leads to fewer goods being sold. Fewer goods being sold means less gross revenues. Less gross revenue means less net profit. Raise the production costs and lower the gross revenue enough and there is negative profit and the company goes out of business and NO employee makes ANY wage.

Its how economics actually works, you see.

But if the increased cost is universal, like it is with a minimum wage increase, it thaws your frozen concept. You see, a minimum wage hike affects competitors as well as your little fly-by-night enterprises. That's where you're freezing concepts here: holding a specific example in isolation as if a minimum wage hike doesn't affect competitors as well, and pretending a business can't pass on its increased costs to customers.

It only increases costs for industries and commerce that relies heavily on untrained minimum-wage employees because the skill set required is very small. Minimum wage laws by definition don't apply to anyone who is not making minimum wage, which is something like 96% of workers.

It's the free market that determines what the value of any individual's labor is to the employer, and nothing else.

That's a fantasy.

It's reality. Your value as a laborer is directly linked to the value that you add to the business or product by your labor.

All the minimum wage law does is to unemploy people who either have no job skills or are ineffective, inefficient workers.

If an employer has to pay $15/hr. for an unskilled labor position he's not going to hire someone with NO skills, he's going to hire the person with the MOST skills and demonstrated ability he can find who will take the job.

But if the minimum wage goes up, skilled wages also go up

They do? Where's your evidence for that claim?

which makes skilled people just as impossible to recruit for minimum wage.

Yes, it does, but only in an economy that has higher-paying jobs requiring more skills. In a down economy there are more skilled workers than jobs, you see. That's why when the economy is on fire and unemployment drops below five percent the feds get all nervous and try to figure out how to slow down the economy through currency manipulation so that the unemployment rate stays as close to 5 percent as possible. That's also when you get pimple-faced teenagers with bad attitudes spitting in your food because the business owner literally cannot find anyone better to do the work and must settle for grossly inferior work product just to keep the doors open.

Free market forces acting on the job market, plain and simple.

Moreover, how can you expect more than the minimum from an employee if that's all you are willing to give?

You can't. But you can demand the labor you contracted for, and offer incentives for improvement and advancement.

You don't know a goddamn thing about how the world works. We should take a poll of who here would work for you.

I would not employ most of the people here simply because they are dependent-class socialists who think that my offering them a job is an offer to be their daddy and mommy and support them forever. It's not. If you add value to my product or service and generate profits for me you can stay. If you're an idler slouching about on minimum wage you're going to get fired pretty damned quickly. Nobody owes you a fucking thing, and you can starve in a ditch if you don't want to work.

That's one of the perks of being a business owner instead of an employee. If you want greater rewards, work harder or start your own business.

[Coito ergo sum]

Moreover, escalating wages for certain jobs that employers don't think are worth paying 2 or 3 times more will just cause a lot of jobs to disappear and the ration of workers to available jobs will go up.

You keep assuming that, but you don't show how it works. Will employers "cut off their noses to spite their faces", forgo their own income to protest living wages for people they feel don't "deserve" it?

No, they'll protect their income by cutting loose expenses that would eat into that income. Employees at Walmart are expenses, not income generators.

Are there vast numbers of employers who are so close to the bone they can't pay more than the minimum the law allows, and their labor will bankrupt them?

Yes. There are large numbers of employers who are close to the edge, which is why many companies do close their doors.

Most employees are there for a reason - they make their employers considerably more $$ than they cost. Mine do.
Who are these people that can't pass on increased costs and will have to go out of business when the minimum wage goes up?

Anyone in the retail market. Margins are extremely low and competition is fierce.

[Coito ergo sum]

I just use the debit card now. Faster and one fuck of a lot cleaner.

Me too. I now become almost enraged when people break out their checkbooks at the supermarket.

I'm like -- really? REALLY? A fucking CHECKBOOK? To buy groceries??? FFS, you have a checking account, but no debit card? In 2013?

It's still the lady who stands there watching each item get scanned, refusing to help bag any of her groceries. Then she waits for the total to be tallied before even bothering to reach into her giant handbag to find the even smaller purse, which contains an even smaller little zipper wallet, which contains a checkbook, which she then proceeds to slooooowly write out.....

I've never seen anyone in Oz pay for something in a supermarket by cheque. I suspect it is not allowed. Purchases are by cash, EFTPOS or credit card, and nowadays there are a certain amount of self-scanning, self-bagging, pay-by-card check-outs as well...

It is "old school" in the US. It used to be common, before the common acceptance of debit cards and such. But, there are still some old ladies who write checks.