Fast Food Worker Strikes!

[pErvinalia]

If you honestly think that people tend to want to do harder jobs if they make the same money as easier jobs, and that is a result of your decades of experience in the university field, then so be it.

Who says they are "harder"? You are adding more and more conditions to your earlier statement.

In other words, all else being equal, people will take low hanging fruit rather than climb up and down a ladder to get similar fruit from higher up on a tree. Easy money is better than hard money.

As I said, perhaps you know a lot of shallow people. Virtually everyone I know (given I generally only associate with intelligent people) would prefer to use their mind than let it sit idle in some menial job.

Of course they would. But, if you offer them an easy way to make $X and a more demanding way to make the same $X, then plenty of them will tend to want to pick the low hanging fruit.

Yes, so you keep saying. I don't know anyone like this (other than that one PhD (and now that I think of it, another BSc who chucked it in to run his own business - a pub)), and it makes no sense. People of higher intelligence (who tend to be the people who go onto higher education) become listless if they aren't using their minds. I have a suspicion you don't know many intelligent people.

That's why when you raise the minimum wage too much, it draws overqualified people into the menial jobs,

Does it? Got any evidence to back this up? And does this evidence account for the fact that it is a choice between a skilled and unskilled job of the same pay? Because that's the concept we are discussing.

This has nothing at all to do with being "shallow." It has to do with doing what makes sense. People need money. They, of course, also want enjoyable, intellectually stimulating and fun jobs. However, plenty of people sit tight in jobs they loathe because it makes $X and the job they would really prefer to do doesn't pay as much. That doesn't make them shallow. That makes them human beings.

But you were talking about a situation where it was a choice between jobs of the same pay.

The people that you refer to doing much more mentally interesting work tend to get paid more than minimum wage, by far. If, however, PHDs started earning little more than minimum wage, you'd see a lot of them wondering what they're staying up nights working on. This is common sense, rEv.

No it's not, it's baseless opinion. Nearly every research scientist I know could earn heaps more money driving an airconditioned truck in the mines. If it was all about money, they'd do that. But they don't.

I never said it was "all about" money. There are, of course, other factors and there are plenty of people who would work their preferred job for less, rather than an easier job for money. That doesn't mean, however, that there aren't also plenty of people who would take the easier, more menial, job for the same money because they would rather work less and get paid the same. You need to understand the difference between the word "plenty" and the word "most."

"Plenty" implies "a lot". I just don't see it. And I've spent decades studying and working at universities.

If you raise the minimum wage to $30k, you are, in fact, going to get "plenty" of college graduates applying for those minimum wage jobs, and they will do so because the pay makes them willing to do the menial job. As the wage for the minimum wage job increases and approaches the wage for the college graduate field, then more and more people from those college graduate fields will be lured by the low hanging fruit.

So you keep saying. Not seeing any reasoning for this, other than money is the big incetiviser. Perhaps the difference between our views is the difference between our societies. We are still considerably less ruthlessly capitalistic than the US is. We are also in a very long period of incredible growth and wealth, so money just isn't the big factor here that it perhaps is in the US.

Generally speaking, f you can make $10,000 the easy way or the hard way, which way would you make it?

It's not about "easy" and "hard". As an intelligent person, using your brain isn't "hard". It's about what's most rewarding or pleasurable. I and most people I know find using our minds much more rewarding and pleasurable than driving trucks.

Of course, but driving trucks, particularly big rigs, is not easy and not something college grads can just jump in and do without additional training.

Average wage out of uni in Australia is probably about $40K, if that. Average wage for driving trucks at mines is about $100K. The trucks are auto, fully air conditioned, CD players. It's not a hard job. The hardest part about it is the safety aspect of making sure you don't run over a car or person on the mine.

But, you're missing the point, which I've explained again above. I am going to assume that you're purposefully missing it, in order to make your insulting comments toward me.

I don't need to make up a pretext to make insulting comments towards you. If I want to make them, I will. I'm addressing your argument. Your replies are confused, as I have pointed out.

If you could make it staying home and doing nothing, wouldn't you? All else being equal, that is.

Great hypothetical. That's not a reality and never will be. And I'd prefer to work part-time and earn that money than sit at home and do nothing.

Why? If you could earn the money doing nothing, you could take that deal, and nothing would stop you from working part time on a volunteer basis, giving yourself the maximum flexibility to work when you want and not work when you don't want to. It would be stupid to reject the offer of free money and counteroffer with an offer that is worse for you. Nothing would stop you from "working part time" if you accepted the free money. So why would you say "I'll only take the money if I have to work part time for it." LOL. I don't think one of your decades of courses included "negotiating." Cuz, you're doing it backwards....

I'm really starting to see why you can't understand my point. You can't even remember the conditions you put on your own stupid hypothetical. You said "sit at home doing nothing". Now you are changing that to "doing something". How the fuck am I supposed to have a proper debate with you when you repeatedly do this shit?

The important concept here is doing something active and rewarding with your mind. It wouldn't matter if that was paid work, or volunteer work with hypothetical utopia pay. The point is, that people don't just exist to make money. People exist to set goals and try and achieve them and pursue rewarding experiences. So no, most people wouldn't actually just sit at home and "do nothing".

And I suspect that most people would too. This is typical conservative bollocks. Conservatives generally believe that money is the great incentiviser. Psychology, and real life, shows that above a minimum amount, it isn't. People have personal goals and enjoy personally rewarding experiences. Sitting on your arse all day isn't very rewarding for an intellectually gifted person. (and I speak from experience over the last year).

Of course not, but if someone offers you $50k a year for doing nothing, or, you can take a job that pays you $50k a year, why would you take the latter?

Because "doing nothing" is like prison. Who wants to "do nothing" with their life?

The former allows you to take the money and then spend your time doing anything you want

Is it "do nothing" or "do anything" now?

The point is that a lot of college graduates aren't exactly big thinkers, or particularly qualified. Some of them stay home and sponge off others, even. Not most, but some. And, there are quite a few who manage to graduate college without a significant marketable skill.

I'll grant that in the context of Arts graduates, you might be right. I've been involved with the sciences and engineering at my time at university, and I can promise you that those types don't want to work menial jobs.

Oh, I agree, they don't want to work menial jobs. And science and engineering folks tend to start out higher on the salary chain than other college graduates. The principle holds, though, if, say, a McDonald's fry slinger earned $50k and the starting salary for an Industrial Engineer was, say $55k, the Industrial Engineer would wonder why he's busting his ass in a difficult and demanding job when he can earn almost as much working 8 hours a day on an easy job. Plenty of folks would prefer to be home for dinner with their family than putting in late hours on the latest engineering project.

So now you are changing the hours worked? Why? I'd love to get a look inside your head. I can't understand what's going on in there. Myself and virtually every intelligent person I know doesn't find using their mind as "hard". They find it stimulating and enjoyable.

I never made that equivalence of using a mind and "hard."

So what the fuck are you talking about "hard" for then? The comparison YOU set up was between menial jobs and jobs in a graduate's field, for the same pay. What the fuck is "hard" supposed to be referring to then??

Most jobs that pay more are harder, irrespective of what amount of mental power is needed.

Rubbish. Labouring is most definitely not easier than working a desk job. Working in a factory is most definitely not easier than working a desk job. Obviously, when you get to the upper echelons in your field, it will get harder. But for a run of the mill job in most academic fields, it's not particularly hard if you are trained in that field.

And, most jobs that require a lot of mental energy are also harder. That's why being a doctor, lawyer or engineer is generally "harder" than being a fry cook.

I'd love to get a look inside your head. I wouldn't consider them harder for a second. Have you ever worked in a kitchen (*I see below that you allegedly have)? It's one of the most unpleasant experiences ever.

Most college graduates don't command $50k a year in the US. The average starting salary is about $40k, and that is even a deceptive figure with the "average" person actually starting in the range of $25 to $35k. Give the McDonald's burger flipper $30k and watch who starts applying for those jobs, particularly with half of all college graduates now lacking full time employment anyway, and most of them not working in any field related to their major areas of study.

I've never actually worked in McDonalds or the like, but I have worked in restaurant kitchens, and I wonder if you have? They aren't actually very pleasant places to work. Perhaps it's a bit nicer in Maccas, I don't know.

Oh, yes, I have worked in kitchens. Early in my work life I worked as a bus-boy, and I worked as a fry cook for a while in college. They were not unpleasant places to work. It's just a kitchen. I also worked in a couple of liquor stores, as well as a deli and a convenience store. I also powerwashed semi-trailers, including horse trailers (if you want to talk about "unpleasant..."), I roofed houses and commercial buildings in 90 degree heat and burning sun, and I did exterior and interior construction, and I worked on assembly lines running welding and CNC machines, etc.

And according to you above, you think an office job is harder than all that. Way to sink your own argument.

[Coito ergo sum]

If you honestly think that people tend to want to do harder jobs if they make the same money as easier jobs, and that is a result of your decades of experience in the university field, then so be it.

Who says they are "harder"? You are adding more and more conditions to your earlier statement.

I'm not adding more conditions. You're just being purposefully obtuse.

In other words, all else being equal, people will take low hanging fruit rather than climb up and down a ladder to get similar fruit from higher up on a tree. Easy money is better than hard money.

As I said, perhaps you know a lot of shallow people. Virtually everyone I know (given I generally only associate with intelligent people) would prefer to use their mind than let it sit idle in some menial job.

Of course they would. But, if you offer them an easy way to make $X and a more demanding way to make the same $X, then plenty of them will tend to want to pick the low hanging fruit.

Yes, so you keep saying. I don't know anyone like this (other than that one PhD (and now that I think of it, another BSc who chucked it in to run his own business - a pub)), and it makes no sense. People of higher intelligence (who tend to be the people who go onto higher education) become listless if they aren't using their minds. I have a suspicion you don't know many intelligent people.

You keep talking about PHDs, which wasn't anything to do with what I said. I was referring to college graduates, and I was clearly referring to recent college graduates - the ones that would normally be earning about $25k to $35k coming out of college. When these folks see McDonald's type jobs paying the same as jobs that have more responsibility and greater difficulty level, plenty of them will be drawn to the equivalently paying lower level job because low hanging fruit is low hanging fruit. You keep disputing this basic concept, but it plainly applies.

If it did not apply then more educated people wouldn't be in jobs where they make more money. And, clearly they are, statistically speaking. If money wasn't a concern for them, then they'd take jobs even if the pay offered was less. And, if they'd do that, then employers would offer them less. Criminy, dude...

That's why when you raise the minimum wage too much, it draws overqualified people into the menial jobs,

Does it? Got any evidence to back this up? And does this evidence account for the fact that it is a choice between a skilled and unskilled job of the same pay? Because that's the concept we are discussing.

College Grads May Be Stuck in Low-Skill Jobs
College educated youth in the US compete for low-paying, low-skilled jobs and push unskilled out of the job market – trend could influence politics

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/coll ... skill-jobs

Raise the minimum wage, and that higher salary for low skilled positions will draw more college grads for the same reason that the article specifies that college educated youth are pushing the unskilled out of the job market.

But as college-educated workers have been forced to take lower-level jobs, they have displaced less-skilled workers, leaving those without degrees with few job options. "You eventually push the lowest skilled out of the market," Mr. Beaudry said.
Tamela Augusta has seen that trend firsthand. She spent close to 15 years as an administrative assistant, mostly in the construction industry. But since losing her job last year, the 42-year-old Chicago resident has found herself losing out on jobs to better-educated competitors.
"In the past they were pretty much looking for people that had a high school diploma," said Ms. Augusta, who spent two years at Northern Illinois University. Now, she said, many of those looking for jobs have college degrees.

I trust you will not deny that if you raise the amount of pay a job commands that the demand for that job will go up. Is that something you take issue with?

Raising the minimum wage will either draw new workers into the workforce, reduce the number of unskilled workers, or both.

http://www.mackinac.org/7324?print=yes See also, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesdorn/2 ... mon-sense/ and http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/lab ... -wage-laws

The main impact of minimum-wage laws is to hurt the unskilled and poor, who are priced out of entry-level jobs. Employers will not hire workers whose lack of skill does not produce enough to justify paying $10 per hour, plus fringe benefits such as Social Security, unemployment insurance, vacation or sick leave and health care.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z2dTbjaqtb

This has nothing at all to do with being "shallow." It has to do with doing what makes sense. People need money. They, of course, also want enjoyable, intellectually stimulating and fun jobs. However, plenty of people sit tight in jobs they loathe because it makes $X and the job they would really prefer to do doesn't pay as much. That doesn't make them shallow. That makes them human beings.

But you were talking about a situation where it was a choice between jobs of the same pay.

Approximately the same pay, but the principle still stands.

A person will, all things being equal, take the higher paying job, right? Now, if two jobs pay the same, all else being equal, the person will take the easier one, right?

So, trying to explain my point -- if two jobs have equal pay, and one job is much easier or simpler than the other, then to take the harder/more complex job there would have to be some additional upside to it, right? The person must either like it so much that they're willing to work harder for the same money, or there is some downstream advantage that will see them happier or better off in the end, yes? There will, of course, be plenty of folks who are willing to work the harder or more complex job for the same money, or even less money. However, there will also be plenty of folks who will take take the easier, or less complex route.

The people that you refer to doing much more mentally interesting work tend to get paid more than minimum wage, by far. If, however, PHDs started earning little more than minimum wage, you'd see a lot of them wondering what they're staying up nights working on. This is common sense, rEv.

No it's not, it's baseless opinion. Nearly every research scientist I know could earn heaps more money driving an airconditioned truck in the mines. If it was all about money, they'd do that. But they don't.

I never said it was "all about" money. There are, of course, other factors and there are plenty of people who would work their preferred job for less, rather than an easier job for money. That doesn't mean, however, that there aren't also plenty of people who would take the easier, more menial, job for the same money because they would rather work less and get paid the same. You need to understand the difference between the word "plenty" and the word "most."

"Plenty" implies "a lot". I just don't see it. And I've spent decades studying and working at universities.

Sure, and it is a lot. It's the same reason lots of college graduates take unskilled or low skilled jobs now. They need the money. Double the amount of money that they can get for those low skilled jobs and what happens? What's the basic economics of supply and demand here?

If you raise the minimum wage to $30k, you are, in fact, going to get "plenty" of college graduates applying for those minimum wage jobs, and they will do so because the pay makes them willing to do the menial job. As the wage for the minimum wage job increases and approaches the wage for the college graduate field, then more and more people from those college graduate fields will be lured by the low hanging fruit.

So you keep saying. Not seeing any reasoning for this, other than money is the big incetiviser. Perhaps the difference between our views is the difference between our societies. We are still considerably less ruthlessly capitalistic than the US is. We are also in a very long period of incredible growth and wealth, so money just isn't the big factor here that it perhaps is in the US.

Money is "a" big incentivizer. I am shocked that you claim that it isn't.

Money may not be a big factor for you personally, which may be the difference between our views. People respect it more if they earn it.

Generally speaking, f you can make $10,000 the easy way or the hard way, which way would you make it?

It's not about "easy" and "hard". As an intelligent person, using your brain isn't "hard". It's about what's most rewarding or pleasurable. I and most people I know find using our minds much more rewarding and pleasurable than driving trucks.

Of course, but driving trucks, particularly big rigs, is not easy and not something college grads can just jump in and do without additional training.

Average wage out of uni in Australia is probably about $40K, if that. Average wage for driving trucks at mines is about $100K. The trucks are auto, fully air conditioned, CD players. It's not a hard job. The hardest part about it is the safety aspect of making sure you don't run over a car or person on the mine.

If you can say with a straight face that being an over the road truck driver is not a hard job, then you plainly do not have a clue what you are talking about.

The key words in your reference to truck drivers in Oz is "at mines." That narrows the field there.

But, it just makes my point anyway. The job is priced that way because that's what it takes to draw people in to do the job. It's not charity.

But, you're missing the point, which I've explained again above. I am going to assume that you're purposefully missing it, in order to make your insulting comments toward me.

I don't need to make up a pretext to make insulting comments towards you. If I want to make them, I will. I'm addressing your argument. Your replies are confused, as I have pointed out.

My replies are not confused. You're just obtuse.

If you could make it staying home and doing nothing, wouldn't you? All else being equal, that is.

Great hypothetical. That's not a reality and never will be. And I'd prefer to work part-time and earn that money than sit at home and do nothing.

Why? If you could earn the money doing nothing, you could take that deal, and nothing would stop you from working part time on a volunteer basis, giving yourself the maximum flexibility to work when you want and not work when you don't want to. It would be stupid to reject the offer of free money and counteroffer with an offer that is worse for you. Nothing would stop you from "working part time" if you accepted the free money. So why would you say "I'll only take the money if I have to work part time for it." LOL. I don't think one of your decades of courses included "negotiating." Cuz, you're doing it backwards....

I'm really starting to see why you can't understand my point. You can't even remember the conditions you put on your own stupid hypothetical. You said "sit at home doing nothing". Now you are changing that to "doing something". How the fuck am I supposed to have a proper debate with you when you repeatedly do this shit?

I didn't change it to "doing something." I hadn't intended to restrict your general behavior. It wasn't literally "doing nothing" as in you were required to sit there motionless, literally "doing nothing." It was meant as most people would understand it, which is that you were getting paid for performing no services for the person paying you. Free money. You could, of course, still eat, drink, play, do hobbies, or engage in volunteer work. But, of course, you are so set on making this a personal grudge fight, as usual, that you have to make asinine comments like you just made.

The important concept here is doing something active and rewarding with your mind. It wouldn't matter if that was paid work, or volunteer work with hypothetical utopia pay. The point is, that people don't just exist to make money. People exist to set goals and try and achieve them and pursue rewarding experiences. So no, most people wouldn't actually just sit at home and "do nothing".

I never said they just exist to make money. But, plainly money is in important to people, which is why the price for labor is ordered, generally speaking, with the more difficult and demanding jobs, and those requiring more education and experience, as generally commanding higher salaries. (not always, but by and large).

Most people wouldn't sit at home and "do nothing." But most people would take the money paid to them in exchange for nothing. You do it, don't you? You get money from the government for doing nothing. Why do you accept it? Because it's free. And, then you go about other tasks and endeavors that you like. Being paid to "do nothing" didn't mean that you had to sit there montionless literally not doing a single thing, and I think you knew that. You're just being deliberately obtuse.

And I suspect that most people would too. This is typical conservative bollocks. Conservatives generally believe that money is the great incentiviser. Psychology, and real life, shows that above a minimum amount, it isn't. People have personal goals and enjoy personally rewarding experiences. Sitting on your arse all day isn't very rewarding for an intellectually gifted person. (and I speak from experience over the last year).

Of course not, but if someone offers you $50k a year for doing nothing, or, you can take a job that pays you $50k a year, why would you take the latter?

Because "doing nothing" is like prison. Who wants to "do nothing" with their life?

I don't know, you tell me.

The former allows you to take the money and then spend your time doing anything you want

Is it "do nothing" or "do anything" now?

No, you're right, rEv, what I meant was you were being paid to sit motionless, and not eat, sleep, breathe or piss. You literally had to "do nothing."

Oh, yes, I have worked in kitchens. Early in my work life I worked as a bus-boy, and I worked as a fry cook for a while in college. They were not unpleasant places to work. It's just a kitchen. I also worked in a couple of liquor stores, as well as a deli and a convenience store. I also powerwashed semi-trailers, including horse trailers (if you want to talk about "unpleasant..."), I roofed houses and commercial buildings in 90 degree heat and burning sun, and I did exterior and interior construction, and I worked on assembly lines running welding and CNC machines, etc.

And according to you above, you think an office job is harder than all that. Way to sink your own argument.[/quote]

I never said that. Some office jobs are harder. My office job is harder than roofing or construction ever was. It's not physically as demanding, but I have far more pressure, it takes far more intellectual energy, I have far more responsibility, etc. You are being way to narrow of your definition of hard, and as usual you are getting too caught up in rhetorical game-playing.

Moreover, roofing and construction, and such, are hard and are not unskilled jobs, generally speaking, and are, therefore, usually way over minimum wage, at least in the US. That's why 30 years ago I was making 4 times minimum wage at those jobs, and I was not in a union.

You clearly have no experience in the real world if you don't understand the basic concept that the more you offer to pay employees for a given job the more applications you will get (and the applicants will tend to have more qualifications and such as the pay goes up). This is, at bottom, the concept that you are trying to tell me is bollocks. You think that raising the minimum wage to $30k is not going to attract more people like college graduates who are already having trouble finding full time employment? Really? You've spent "decades" in university and you are missing this basic concept that paying people more for a job makes the demand for that job go up?

If that's the ground you want to occupy, then fine. Your call.

[Coito ergo sum]

If you honestly think that people tend to want to do harder jobs if they make the same money as easier jobs, and that is a result of your decades of experience in the university field, then so be it.

Who says they are "harder"? You are adding more and more conditions to your earlier statement.

I'm not adding more conditions. You're just being purposefully obtuse.

In other words, all else being equal, people will take low hanging fruit rather than climb up and down a ladder to get similar fruit from higher up on a tree. Easy money is better than hard money.

As I said, perhaps you know a lot of shallow people. Virtually everyone I know (given I generally only associate with intelligent people) would prefer to use their mind than let it sit idle in some menial job.

Of course they would. But, if you offer them an easy way to make $X and a more demanding way to make the same $X, then plenty of them will tend to want to pick the low hanging fruit.

Yes, so you keep saying. I don't know anyone like this (other than that one PhD (and now that I think of it, another BSc who chucked it in to run his own business - a pub)), and it makes no sense. People of higher intelligence (who tend to be the people who go onto higher education) become listless if they aren't using their minds. I have a suspicion you don't know many intelligent people.

You keep talking about PHDs, which wasn't anything to do with what I said. I was referring to college graduates, and I was clearly referring to recent college graduates - the ones that would normally be earning about $25k to $35k coming out of college. When these folks see McDonald's type jobs paying the same as jobs that have more responsibility and greater difficulty level, plenty of them will be drawn to the equivalently paying lower level job because low hanging fruit is low hanging fruit. You keep disputing this basic concept, but it plainly applies.

If it did not apply then more educated people wouldn't be in jobs where they make more money. And, clearly they are, statistically speaking. If money wasn't a concern for them, then they'd take jobs even if the pay offered was less. And, if they'd do that, then employers would offer them less. Criminy, dude...

That's why when you raise the minimum wage too much, it draws overqualified people into the menial jobs,

Does it? Got any evidence to back this up? And does this evidence account for the fact that it is a choice between a skilled and unskilled job of the same pay? Because that's the concept we are discussing.

College Grads May Be Stuck in Low-Skill Jobs
College educated youth in the US compete for low-paying, low-skilled jobs and push unskilled out of the job market – trend could influence politics

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/coll ... skill-jobs

Raise the minimum wage, and that higher salary for low skilled positions will draw more college grads for the same reason that the article specifies that college educated youth are pushing the unskilled out of the job market.

But as college-educated workers have been forced to take lower-level jobs, they have displaced less-skilled workers, leaving those without degrees with few job options. "You eventually push the lowest skilled out of the market," Mr. Beaudry said.
Tamela Augusta has seen that trend firsthand. She spent close to 15 years as an administrative assistant, mostly in the construction industry. But since losing her job last year, the 42-year-old Chicago resident has found herself losing out on jobs to better-educated competitors.
"In the past they were pretty much looking for people that had a high school diploma," said Ms. Augusta, who spent two years at Northern Illinois University. Now, she said, many of those looking for jobs have college degrees.

I trust you will not deny that if you raise the amount of pay a job commands that the demand for that job will go up. Is that something you take issue with?

Raising the minimum wage will either draw new workers into the workforce, reduce the number of unskilled workers, or both.

http://www.mackinac.org/7324?print=yes See also, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesdorn/2 ... mon-sense/ and http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/lab ... -wage-laws

The main impact of minimum-wage laws is to hurt the unskilled and poor, who are priced out of entry-level jobs. Employers will not hire workers whose lack of skill does not produce enough to justify paying $10 per hour, plus fringe benefits such as Social Security, unemployment insurance, vacation or sick leave and health care.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z2dTbjaqtb

This has nothing at all to do with being "shallow." It has to do with doing what makes sense. People need money. They, of course, also want enjoyable, intellectually stimulating and fun jobs. However, plenty of people sit tight in jobs they loathe because it makes $X and the job they would really prefer to do doesn't pay as much. That doesn't make them shallow. That makes them human beings.

But you were talking about a situation where it was a choice between jobs of the same pay.

Approximately the same pay, but the principle still stands.

A person will, all things being equal, take the higher paying job, right? Now, if two jobs pay the same, all else being equal, the person will take the easier one, right?

So, trying to explain my point -- if two jobs have equal pay, and one job is much easier or simpler than the other, then to take the harder/more complex job there would have to be some additional upside to it, right? The person must either like it so much that they're willing to work harder for the same money, or there is some downstream advantage that will see them happier or better off in the end, yes? There will, of course, be plenty of folks who are willing to work the harder or more complex job for the same money, or even less money. However, there will also be plenty of folks who will take take the easier, or less complex route.

The people that you refer to doing much more mentally interesting work tend to get paid more than minimum wage, by far. If, however, PHDs started earning little more than minimum wage, you'd see a lot of them wondering what they're staying up nights working on. This is common sense, rEv.

No it's not, it's baseless opinion. Nearly every research scientist I know could earn heaps more money driving an airconditioned truck in the mines. If it was all about money, they'd do that. But they don't.

I never said it was "all about" money. There are, of course, other factors and there are plenty of people who would work their preferred job for less, rather than an easier job for money. That doesn't mean, however, that there aren't also plenty of people who would take the easier, more menial, job for the same money because they would rather work less and get paid the same. You need to understand the difference between the word "plenty" and the word "most."

"Plenty" implies "a lot". I just don't see it. And I've spent decades studying and working at universities.

Sure, and it is a lot. It's the same reason lots of college graduates take unskilled or low skilled jobs now. They need the money. Double the amount of money that they can get for those low skilled jobs and what happens? What's the basic economics of supply and demand here?

If you raise the minimum wage to $30k, you are, in fact, going to get "plenty" of college graduates applying for those minimum wage jobs, and they will do so because the pay makes them willing to do the menial job. As the wage for the minimum wage job increases and approaches the wage for the college graduate field, then more and more people from those college graduate fields will be lured by the low hanging fruit.

So you keep saying. Not seeing any reasoning for this, other than money is the big incetiviser. Perhaps the difference between our views is the difference between our societies. We are still considerably less ruthlessly capitalistic than the US is. We are also in a very long period of incredible growth and wealth, so money just isn't the big factor here that it perhaps is in the US.

Money is "a" big incentivizer. I am shocked that you claim that it isn't.

Money may not be a big factor for you personally, which may be the difference between our views. People respect it more if they earn it.

Generally speaking, f you can make $10,000 the easy way or the hard way, which way would you make it?

It's not about "easy" and "hard". As an intelligent person, using your brain isn't "hard". It's about what's most rewarding or pleasurable. I and most people I know find using our minds much more rewarding and pleasurable than driving trucks.

Of course, but driving trucks, particularly big rigs, is not easy and not something college grads can just jump in and do without additional training.

Average wage out of uni in Australia is probably about $40K, if that. Average wage for driving trucks at mines is about $100K. The trucks are auto, fully air conditioned, CD players. It's not a hard job. The hardest part about it is the safety aspect of making sure you don't run over a car or person on the mine.

If you can say with a straight face that being an over the road truck driver is not a hard job, then you plainly do not have a clue what you are talking about.

The key words in your reference to truck drivers in Oz is "at mines." That narrows the field there.

But, it just makes my point anyway. The job is priced that way because that's what it takes to draw people in to do the job. It's not charity.

But, you're missing the point, which I've explained again above. I am going to assume that you're purposefully missing it, in order to make your insulting comments toward me.

I don't need to make up a pretext to make insulting comments towards you. If I want to make them, I will. I'm addressing your argument. Your replies are confused, as I have pointed out.

My replies are not confused. You're just obtuse.

If you could make it staying home and doing nothing, wouldn't you? All else being equal, that is.

Great hypothetical. That's not a reality and never will be. And I'd prefer to work part-time and earn that money than sit at home and do nothing.

Why? If you could earn the money doing nothing, you could take that deal, and nothing would stop you from working part time on a volunteer basis, giving yourself the maximum flexibility to work when you want and not work when you don't want to. It would be stupid to reject the offer of free money and counteroffer with an offer that is worse for you. Nothing would stop you from "working part time" if you accepted the free money. So why would you say "I'll only take the money if I have to work part time for it." LOL. I don't think one of your decades of courses included "negotiating." Cuz, you're doing it backwards....

I'm really starting to see why you can't understand my point. You can't even remember the conditions you put on your own stupid hypothetical. You said "sit at home doing nothing". Now you are changing that to "doing something". How the fuck am I supposed to have a proper debate with you when you repeatedly do this shit?

I didn't change it to "doing something." I hadn't intended to restrict your general behavior. It wasn't literally "doing nothing" as in you were required to sit there motionless, literally "doing nothing." It was meant as most people would understand it, which is that you were getting paid for performing no services for the person paying you. Free money. You could, of course, still eat, drink, play, do hobbies, or engage in volunteer work. But, of course, you are so set on making this a personal grudge fight, as usual, that you have to make asinine comments like you just made.

The important concept here is doing something active and rewarding with your mind. It wouldn't matter if that was paid work, or volunteer work with hypothetical utopia pay. The point is, that people don't just exist to make money. People exist to set goals and try and achieve them and pursue rewarding experiences. So no, most people wouldn't actually just sit at home and "do nothing".

I never said they just exist to make money. But, plainly money is in important to people, which is why the price for labor is ordered, generally speaking, with the more difficult and demanding jobs, and those requiring more education and experience, as generally commanding higher salaries. (not always, but by and large).

Most people wouldn't sit at home and "do nothing." But most people would take the money paid to them in exchange for nothing. You do it, don't you? You get money from the government for doing nothing. Why do you accept it? Because it's free. And, then you go about other tasks and endeavors that you like. Being paid to "do nothing" didn't mean that you had to sit there montionless literally not doing a single thing, and I think you knew that. You're just being deliberately obtuse.

And I suspect that most people would too. This is typical conservative bollocks. Conservatives generally believe that money is the great incentiviser. Psychology, and real life, shows that above a minimum amount, it isn't. People have personal goals and enjoy personally rewarding experiences. Sitting on your arse all day isn't very rewarding for an intellectually gifted person. (and I speak from experience over the last year).

Of course not, but if someone offers you $50k a year for doing nothing, or, you can take a job that pays you $50k a year, why would you take the latter?

Because "doing nothing" is like prison. Who wants to "do nothing" with their life?

I don't know, you tell me.

The former allows you to take the money and then spend your time doing anything you want

Is it "do nothing" or "do anything" now?

No, you're right, rEv, what I meant was you were being paid to sit motionless, and not eat, sleep, breathe or piss. You literally had to "do nothing."

Oh, yes, I have worked in kitchens. Early in my work life I worked as a bus-boy, and I worked as a fry cook for a while in college. They were not unpleasant places to work. It's just a kitchen. I also worked in a couple of liquor stores, as well as a deli and a convenience store. I also powerwashed semi-trailers, including horse trailers (if you want to talk about "unpleasant..."), I roofed houses and commercial buildings in 90 degree heat and burning sun, and I did exterior and interior construction, and I worked on assembly lines running welding and CNC machines, etc.

And according to you above, you think an office job is harder than all that. Way to sink your own argument.[/quote]

I never said that. Some office jobs are harder. My office job is harder than roofing or construction ever was. It's not physically as demanding, but I have far more pressure, it takes far more intellectual energy, I have far more responsibility, etc. You are being way to narrow of your definition of hard, and as usual you are getting too caught up in rhetorical game-playing.

Moreover, roofing and construction, and such, are hard and are not unskilled jobs, generally speaking, and are, therefore, usually way over minimum wage, at least in the US. That's why 30 years ago I was making 4 times minimum wage at those jobs, and I was not in a union.

You clearly have no experience in the real world if you don't understand the basic concept that the more you offer to pay employees for a given job the more applications you will get (and the applicants will tend to have more qualifications and such as the pay goes up). This is, at bottom, the concept that you are trying to tell me is bollocks. You think that raising the minimum wage to $30k is not going to attract more people like college graduates who are already having trouble finding full time employment? Really? You've spent "decades" in university and you are missing this basic concept that paying people more for a job makes the demand for that job go up?

If that's the ground you want to occupy, then fine. Your call.

[laklak]

Hey, I WANT to spend 4 years in undergrad, 4 years in med school, 2 years in specialist classes and 2 years as a 24 hour a day intern in an inner city hospital so I can be a doctor and make the same amount of money the garbage man does. Why should I make more than him?

[Sean Hayden]

I don't know but if I'm working for an increasingly profitable company I hope I'm not denied a raise on the grounds that someone else will be butthurt about it. That's unfucking American. So you make less than a trash collector, start a trash collecting business you liberal pussy.

[Robert_S]

Only if there weren't jobs that involved using their minds.

Plenty of college graduates would prefer an easy, menial job to one that required effort and mental energy, particularly if the pay is the same, and particularly if it's difficult for college graduates to get jobs -- which it is. Many would say -- at least I can make $30k easy.

I've only worked at a burger joint for two stints if about 3 months a piece about 20 odd years ago. I preferred hard manual labor at the same wage. It's easy in that it's relatively brainless, but it's horrible because it relatively brainless, often humiliating, smelly, of zero prestige, hot, and fucking greasy. Not like automotive greasy, it's grease in the air that gets into your pores and hair.

You see, work is part of life. If you're getting paid well, but you have a poor quality of life while you're at work, then you have to subtract out the misery at work from the happiness you can have on your off hours with the extra money before you can calculate the net gain in overall life quality. If you have a rewarding job that gets you less money, you can still have a net gain in life quality even if you have less spending power.

So, no, I don't think people with jobs that they enjoy, that they get some satisfaction out of would quit for a higher paying job flipping burgers and dipping fries unless they're utter fools.

[Robert_S]

Hey, I WANT to spend 4 years in undergrad, 4 years in med school, 2 years in specialist classes and 2 years as a 24 hour a day intern in an inner city hospital so I can be a doctor and make the same amount of money the garbage man does. Why should I make more than him?

Would you rather be a 60 year old doctor or a 60 year old trash collector?

[laklak]

I'd rather be a retired anything at 60.

[piscator]

That being said, raising the minimum wage would put stores like McDonald's under economic pressure to automate in order to reduce the cost of burgers. They would find ways to do the same job with fewer employees, if possible.

1. How is this different from the present?

Wages are cheaper now than if they double the minimum wage. Doubling minimum wage would also cause those who are working more complex jobs and management positions pissed off that they are being paid the same as the floor sweeper and person handing out fries. So, not only would the minimum wages go up, but unless wages for all pay grades at McDonalds are adjusted up, there would be a flattening out of the wage scale -- i.e. more and more people would be making the same money regardless of the difficulty, complexity or responsibility associated with the job.

That would stop somewhere short of middle management. Costs would merely be passed on to the customer.

The higher the labor costs, the more pressure exists to eliminate those costs.

You don't eliminate labor costs. It's a part of the business.
There's already lots of pressure on fast food shift managers to minimize labor costs. They can all push 2 computer keys and monitor their labor costs to the minute at any time. They send people home to keep from going over their goals. They're answerable to their bosses for their labor costs, down to single percentage points.
"You're about to "hit 40", stop what you're doing and punch out." is a common, everyday, every shift phrase in fast food.
Higher wages will do nothing to change this. And were wages $1/hour, it would not change either. Fast food shift and general managers push mops and filter grease every day to keep their labor costs "right" and make their bonuses.

With a higher bottom wage structure, the only thing that would change would be management's numbers, and a small price increase to the customer, who'll be totally aware what it's about.

2. How is McDonald's under economic pressure to sell burgers as cheaply as they can? I would think they are under economic pressure to sell burgers for the maximum the market will bear.

Supply and demand. People are only willing to pay so much for hamburgers. They aren't trying to sell hamburgers as cheaply as they can.They are trying to sell hamburgers as profitably as they can. If they can raise the price and sell the same number of burgers, they would. They are best served by selling burgers at the price point which maximizes profit, not price.

That's my point.

As price goes up, demand goes down, and they sell fewer burgers. They could price the burgers at $1,000,000 each, but they won't sell any. They could sell them for a 1 cent profit margin, and sell a lot more burgers. The point they try to pick, however, is the one that maximizes the product of number of units sold and profit margin.

Of course. But it's not strictly linear. If the kids want to go to McDonald's [and McDonald's invests heavily to make kids want McDonald's], a $0.22 increase in the cost of a Happy Meal is inconsequential to Mom.
Moreover, MikeyD's runs high profit margins on things like soda and fries. There's room there to absorb competition costs. There are also ways to accomplish higher supply chain efficiencies, as fast food companies control them from the tree or potato farmer to the customer. Every jerkwater little town in Idaho and western Montana has a Simplot plant, most turn cow shit into soil builders for the potato industry, which is dominated by the fast food industry. Fast food has leverage you can't imagine, from cattle feed to sugar to trucking to sheet metal.
Considering that labor is about 12% of McDonald's cost to produce a hamburger, a 40% hit in base labor equates to 4-5% decrease in efficiencies, or conversely, all McDonald's has to do is wring 4 or 5% more efficiency from their system to break even. That's nothing for them, and they'd do it anyway for their own benefit.

[Warren Dew]

I've only worked at a burger joint for two stints if about 3 months a piece about 20 odd years ago. I preferred hard manual labor at the same wage. It's easy in that it's relatively brainless, but it's horrible because it relatively brainless, often humiliating, smelly, of zero prestige, hot, and fucking greasy. Not like automotive greasy, it's grease in the air that gets into your pores and hair.

You see, work is part of life. If you're getting paid well, but you have a poor quality of life while you're at work, then you have to subtract out the misery at work from the happiness you can have on your off hours with the extra money before you can calculate the net gain in overall life quality. If you have a rewarding job that gets you less money, you can still have a net gain in life quality even if you have less spending power.

My experience is that the quality of life at work in a job that supposedly uses one's brain tends to be at least as bad as in food service. The "fun" creative parts of the job tend to be a very small fraction of the job.

[laklak]

I used my brain a lot in IT. It takes nimble gray matter to spin bugs into features. This is probably why it doesn't work as well these days, I overworked the poor thing.

[DaveD]

It takes nimble gray matter to spin bugs into features.

I can't see this skill being transferable to the fast food industry.

[Warren Dew]

Of course. But it's not strictly linear. If the kids want to go to McDonald's [and McDonald's invests heavily to make kids want McDonald's], a $0.22 increase in the cost of a Happy Meal is inconsequential to Mom.

Doubling the cost of labor is going to be more like a $1 increase in the cost of a happy meal. Compare the U.S. and Europe in this graph:



Even a $0.22 increase is significant, though. You know the reason those managers care about single digit percents, as you mentioned? It's because those single digits matter. If a 5%-10% increase in the price really didn't matter to Mom, then they would have already increased the price by 5%-10%, to get the extra profit margin.

And if 5% efficiencies were available, they would have already wrung them out.

Considering that labor is about 12% of McDonald's cost to produce a hamburger, a 40% hit in base labor equates to 4-5% decrease in efficiencies, or conversely, all McDonald's has to do is wring 4 or 5% more efficiency from their system to break even. That's nothing for them, and they'd do it anyway for their own benefit.

I think you're conflating the costs to the McDonald's corporation and the costs to the franchise. McDonald's can produce a hamburger without much labor, but the hamburger produced is the frozen patty supplied to the franchise. Labor costs are a much higher proportion of the cooked, served hamburger which is the franchise's product.

[Warren Dew]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 8021_n.png

Turns out McDonald's "relies heavily on young workers in Australia" and "currently pays 16-year-olds roughly US$8-an-hour", because Australia allows wages below minimum wage for younger workers.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ia/278313/

[laklak]

It takes nimble gray matter to spin bugs into features.

I can't see this skill being transferable to the fast food industry.

That's not a cockroach, that's our new McRaisin Burger.