Fast Food Worker Strikes!

[Coito ergo sum]

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...

Nonunion grocery chains pay a going rate for labor which is well over minimum also. Just because there is a minimum wage doesn't mean employers will only pay a minimum wage. I posted earlier the percentage of workers who make the minimum. It's very few. Like 3 or 5% of the workforce. And, of those that make minimum, half of them are college and high school age kids.

[piscator]

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...

Nonunion grocery chains pay a going rate for labor which is well over minimum also. Just because there is a minimum wage doesn't mean employers will only pay a minimum wage. I posted earlier the percentage of workers who make the minimum. It's very few. Like 3 or 5% of the workforce. And, of those that make minimum, half of them are college and high school age kids.

Companies who pay a premium for labor have the effect of disrupting the local labor market. Other similar businesses find themselves training people to work for the higher paying business, so they raise their pay scales to retain valuable workers.
A lot of union contracts also scale to multiples of minimum wage, eg if a union worker makes 3.9x minimum wage + benefits, she'll still make 3.9x minimum wage + benefits when minimum wage doubles. And soon, the prevailing wage goes up for many other trades and professions. And since there's now more disposable income across a broad spectrum of the economy, the market can support a higher price for goods and services
This is how the grid starts to translate to the new scale, and how rising tides begin to raise all boats, if you'll pardon the mixed metaphors.
It's inflationary, but it raises the GDP and tax base and helps pay for Iraq since all that oil somehow isn't doing it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Even with a rising tide, all boats remain at the same level relative to each other.

Why not raise the minimum wage to $50 an hour? Why stop at $10 or $15?

[laklak]

Never mind minimum hour, for you Joe I make bang bang all night 100 US dorrar OK joe? Love you LONG time.

[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?

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

So Walmart's running a benevolent charity, paying people out of kindness?
Don't insult our intelligence. Everyone who works for Walmart is there to make the company $$.

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.

So you propose propping weak businesses up with depressed wages and Federal subsidies like EIC? Fuckem. Let them fail. Their stronger competitors will grow and need to hire more people.

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.

No one's holding a gun to their head to make those people stay in retail. And most retail pays more than minimum wage for their own benefit as it stands now. And they'll continue to.
Minimum wage will rise for their fierce competitors too. And their suppliers.

Consumer prices will rise, but consumers will have more $$ to spend. McDonald's hamburgers now cost more than $0.15, but no one works for $0.50/hr either. The grid has translated a few times since then. It will again.

[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.

So Walmart's running a benevolent charity, paying people out of kindness?
Don't insult our intelligence. Everyone who works for Walmart is there to make the company $$.

Not directly. The company owns buildings for the purpose of making money, but the money they spend on the buildings are expenses. A Walmart greeter is an expense. Make them pay $15 an hour for someone to stand their saying "Welcome to Walmart" and they may decide it's not worth it. That's the point.

I never said or implied Walmart was a charity. I said employees are expenses and they are, and the more expensive you make them, like everything else when the price goes up, puts downward pressure on demand.

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.

So you propose propping weak businesses up with depressed wages and Federal subsidies like EIC? Fuckem. Let them fail. Their stronger competitors will grow and need to hire more people.

The earned income credit helps low and middle income earners. You want to raise the minimum wage and then take it away by removing the earned income tax credit? Wow, mighty nice of you.

Not raising the minimum wage is not the same as "propping up" businesses. If it were, then there would be no end to it. Raise the minimum to $10, then not raising it to $15 is propping up businesses. Heck, why not raise it to $50?

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.

No one's holding a gun to their head to make those people stay in retail. And most retail pays more than minimum wage for their own benefit as it stands now. And they'll continue to.
Minimum wage will rise for their fierce competitors too. And their suppliers.

So then it won't make any difference, will it?

Consumer prices will rise, but consumers will have more $$ to spend. McDonald's hamburgers now cost more than $0.15, but no one works for $0.50/hr either. The grid has translated a few times since then. It will again.

So? What's the difference? If people make more money but things are correspondingly more expenses, who gives a fuck?

The issue really is about what makes better overall policy and what will help people more. In my view, raising the minimum wage sounds great, but in the end it doesn't help. It tends to take away the lower rungs of the ladder, creating a higher barrier to entry to entry level jobs. It ends up doing more harm than good.

The Minimum Wage Is Cruelest To Those Who Can't Find A Job http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesdorn/2 ... ind-a-job/ and http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-art ... -harm-good

First, minimum wage jobs are meant to be a starting point. These positions offer a way for those who have not yet acquired the specific skills needed a chance to learn them and it’s a great opportunity for students and teenagers to have a job. These jobs offer a way to gain experience and move forward in a company. Now the chance to get a foot in the door, learn skills and make money will be taken away because the cost to hire and pay payroll taxes will be too much for many small businesses. These expenses could amount to a 17% increase in the cost to do business. Think of all the neighborhood family owned businesses that hire employees - dry cleaners, print shops, restaurants, pizzerias, etc. These businesses offer a great opportunity for young people to gain entry into the workforce. Now it may be cost-prohibitive and those who could have had a job will not.

Secondly, increases in the cost to do business are then passed on to the consumer. This means that any increase in salary seen by employees will now be taken away as they will have to pay more for goods and services. The increase is not enough to change their standard of living and people end up in the same place as they started.

Third, many employers will now hire less people, may be forced to lay people off or outsource overseas, creating more unemployment. How can government officials claim to be helping workers when they’ve set up a system that makes it harder for them to be hired? Teenagers and students (ages 16-24) are looking at a 23.2% unemployment rate.

And what should be obvious to a government that is always looking for more revenue is that fewer employees hired also means less tax revenue for the government.

http://bloomfield.patch.com/groups/sue- ... -than-good

[piscator]

Even with a rising tide, all boats remain at the same level relative to each other.

Why not raise the minimum wage to $50 an hour? Why stop at $10 or $15?

If 1 Oxycontin is good, why not take 100? If 400mg of Tylox does wonders, why not take 20,000mg every day?


Back when I was forced to listen to Rush Limbaugh in the work truck by my halfwit supervisor, minimum wage was $3.35/hr. Now it's over twice that and about to go higher, and I eventually fired the stupid motherfucker who used to be my boss. Still no Weimar hyperinflation though.

[Coito ergo sum]

Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head to stay in business, but the point is to have good economic policy not "fuck the businesspeople".

[piscator]

Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head to stay in business, but the point is to have good economic policy not "fuck the businesspeople".

Yeah well...employees are businesspeople too.

[Coito ergo sum]

Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head to stay in business, but the point is to have good economic policy not "fuck the businesspeople".

Yeah well...employees are businesspeople too.

So, fuck 'em. Nobody is holding a gun to their head, right?

[piscator]

Employees at Walmart are expenses, not income generators.

So Walmart's running a benevolent charity, paying people out of kindness?
Don't insult our intelligence. Everyone who works for Walmart is there to make the company $$.

Not directly. The company owns buildings for the purpose of making money, but the money they spend on the buildings are expenses. A Walmart greeter is an expense. Make them pay $15 an hour for someone to stand their saying "Welcome to Walmart" and they may decide it's not worth it. That's the point.[/quote]

Or, they may decide it still is. That's the point.

I never said or implied Walmart was a charity. I said employees are expenses and they are, and the more expensive you make them, like everything else when the price goes up, puts downward pressure on demand.

What about when they raise prices like everyone else, thus producing more income? Does that put upward pressure on demand for labor?

So you propose propping weak businesses up with depressed wages and Federal subsidies like EIC? Fuckem. Let them fail. Their stronger competitors will grow and need to hire more people.

The earned income credit helps low and middle income earners. You want to raise the minimum wage and then take it away by removing the earned income tax credit? Wow, mighty nice of you.

You want to continue to pay taxes to help support McDonald's profits? How very nice of you!

No one's holding a gun to their head to make those people stay in retail. And most retail pays more than minimum wage for their own benefit as it stands now. And they'll continue to.
Minimum wage will rise for their fierce competitors too. And their suppliers.

So then it won't make any difference, will it?

I'll make twice as much for the same contract, while paying 10% more labor. I'll buy shit and invest with that extra $$ too. I'm not alone in this situation. My employees make me $$, and they'll continue to make me $$.

The issue really is about what makes better overall policy and what will help people more. In my view, raising the minimum wage sounds great, but in the end it doesn't help. It tends to take away the lower rungs of the ladder, creating a higher barrier to entry to entry level jobs. It ends up doing more harm than good.

It wont create a barrier to entry level jobs. McDonald's will still hire just like they've done across the last dozen or so minimum wage hikes. Their employees make them $$.

First, minimum wage jobs are meant to be a starting point.

The starting point for the wage structure, not an individual's career.
People get paid to make others $$. Not as some sort of fucking charity.

Secondly, increases in the cost to do business are then passed on to the consumer. This means that any increase in salary seen by employees will now be taken away as they will have to pay more for goods and services. The increase is not enough to change their standard of living and people end up in the same place as they started.

So? A lot of others make out. When I start raking in more on my contracts, it may make me consider expanding and hiring more newly expensive labor. Yeah, I'll pay more for labor, but it'll be worth my while.

Third, many employers will now hire less people, may be forced to lay people off or outsource overseas, creating more unemployment.

They'll do that anyway if it increases profits enough to justify it. Just like GM moving plants to Canada, where they pay workers the same wages, but don't have to buy health insurance. They didn't move because of the minimum wage, they moved for their own profits.

And what should be obvious to a government that is always looking for more revenue is that fewer employees hired also means less tax revenue for the government.

No Sue Ann. If those fewer employees (a lie to start with) make more $$, the same tax rate can match or exceed the previous. Not very good in math, are you hun?

[Cormac]

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.

That is my point though. If they can't operate under their current operating model without their employees topping up their earnings with state support, then their business doesn't actually have a viable business model.

That the state chooses to top up people's earnings is another matter.

[piscator]

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.

That is my point though. If they can't operate under their current operating model without their employees topping up their earnings with state support, then their business doesn't actually have a viable business model.

That the state chooses to top up people's earnings is another matter.

You see Cormac, back in '75 McDonald's decided that if they ever had to pay $10/hr for counter help, they were gettin' out of the business. The principle movers and shakers were aghast at the idea of having to charge more than $1 for a hamburger, and decided that was the point that life would be too short, and it was time to turn the lights out at McDonald's. No amount of profit could metaphysically justify charging $1.09 for a hamburger. They had to live with themselves, after all.

The moral of the story is that 2 million people only have a job at McDonald's because the minimum wage is under $10. Remember that.

[Azathoth]

So Micky Ds packs up and leaves a whopping great hole in the market that their competitors will rush to fill. No biggie

[piscator]

So Micky Ds packs up and leaves a whopping great hole in the market that their competitors will rush to fill. No biggie

Just a different color smock...


The point of the post was to be so ridiculous and reminiscent of the dull and conceptually frozen ideological arguments made here against wage hikes, that it lampooned them.