[scorpion]

(08-29-2013 12:17 AM)Gopher Wrote:  

I feel people with no skills or education should get to work gaining skills, education, or experience, and stop blaming the fact that they don't earn more money on anyone and everyone but themselves.

If you feel that way then why don't you just give everything you earn to them except for the bare necessities of your life. That is essentially what you are expecting from the franchise owners.

Fast food franchise owners are not typically millionaires.

You have to understand, though, that millions of people these days do not have the skills to compete in the modern economy. Moreover, they simply don't possess the aptitude to develop valuable skills. Remember that for most of human history the vast majority of people did manual labor. The modern economy is beyond the capabilities of many people lower on the IQ scale, regardless of how much work they put in. It's hard for you to imagine this, because you are intelligent. But look at it like this. Imagine if for some reason, suddenly the only job available to you was playing in the NBA. Do you think you could suddenly develop the skill and ability to do so, regardless of how hard you worked? That's what it's like to be a low IQ, low skilled worked in today's economy.

[T and A Man]

(08-29-2013 12:17 AM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

My father says that the rich have forgotten that they need people to be able to buy their crap.

it's called aggregate demand.

it's really dumb to cut Americans workers wages, then ask "where did our customers go?"

it's the main reason why macro-economics differs from an aggregate of micro-economics factors.

For one business to lower costs via wages, they get a competitve advantage, thus is 'good', from a self-interest point of view.

For every business to lower wages, it means the aggregate buying power has shrunk, thus out what has just beeen produced, some will be forced to not purchase. That means the next timeframe, business will elect not to make it knowing it won't be bought, that typcially means a job cut...compounding the problem.

[Therapsid]

All discussions on issues like the minimum wage are problematic because they're normally based on the presumption that the major professions are in fact meritocratic.

But actually licensed professions are effectively government enforced guilds that prevent new entrants in their markets. They're not fundamentally different than the guilds of medieval times which served to prevent technological progress for centuries.

For example, doctors prevent self-educated people from performing basic medical care for fee. Laws demanding that you pass the bar before serving as legal counsel likewise prevent upstarts from disrupting the status quo of the judicial system.

The list goes on. To name a few licensed professions we have:

Accountants
Architects
Nurses
Dentists
Teachers
Engineers
Pharmacists
Physical Therapists

And even in some states professions like interior design and eyebrow weaving.

So when conservatives condemn raising the minimum wage, I say fine. So long as they work to end federal and state licensing laws... which of course they never seem to do.

[T and A Man]

(08-29-2013 12:18 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

Humans are not always rational actors. It is one of the real flaws of economics since the rational choice theory is so fundamental to the economics-centered view of the the world. People use emotion and instinct a lot more than they use logic in making decisions.

Not all schools of economics say humans are rational actors, and a central tenant of neo-keynesian economics explicitly accounts that they aren't.

What hey will agree one that if one party is 'irrational', then a counter-party will observe this and exploit it for personal gain, thus hastening a rational outcome.

Unless of course government decides to compensate the irrational party.. *cough*TERP bailouts*cough*

[Drazen]

Flipping burgers isn't worth $15 an hour. You don't need to go to school for it, you are replaceable by any extremely low-skilled worker or even automation. I could care less about a living wage, fast food should be temporary work for people in a pinch or high school students, not a career that people should rely on having a long future. We pay secretaries and office staff that or less and that actually takes having some training, education, office decorum and being in a professional situation.

I've worked in fast food. It was when I was in high school and it was good for me to have some extra pocket money. That's all it should be unless you're trying to move up the ladder there.

Wack Donalds!

[Bolthouse]

(08-29-2013 12:16 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

In a consumer-driven economy, it's important that the population has enough purchasing power to actually consume.

In our current small-business driven economy, it's even more critical for the small-business owner to have the means to financially sustain his business.

How many Shaniqua sympathizers have ever run a business and had to pay wages? If the fast food hourly wage doubled, it would not hurt McDonalds as a corporation nor the average Big Mac consumer. The guys who'd eat the vast majority of the loss would be the franchise owners, who are middle class families with children who, unlike Shaniqua, carefully pooled their resources to better their future instead of blowing it on cable TV.

[Parlay44]

Yeah somewhere down the line someone decided that lowest people on the totem pole must work 100+ hours a week just for the privilege of living. Not to mention they'll have to work at that rate until they drop dead. There's no such thing as pensions or 401ks for them either.

Raising the minimum wage isn't so much about greed than it is about better distribution of wealth. I read somewhere that 1% of the world's population controls 90% of the world's wealth. That's insanity.

[Tex Pro]

(08-29-2013 12:33 AM)Bolthouse Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 12:16 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

In a consumer-driven economy, it's important that the population has enough purchasing power to actually consume.

In our current small-business driven economy, it's even more critical for the small-business owner to have the means to financially sustain his business.

How many Shaniqua sympathizers have ever run a business and had to pay wages? If the fast food hourly wage doubled, it would not hurt McDonalds as a corporation nor the average Big Mac consumer. The guys who'd eat the vast majority of the loss would be the franchise owners, who are middle class families with children who, unlike Shaniqua, carefully pooled their resources to better their future instead of blowing it on cable TV.

My guess is if fast food workers successfully unionize, then three things will happen:

1) The price of fast food will go up

2) There will be more automation at fast food restaurants

3) The number of workers and number of fast food restaurants will decrease

I personally don't really care for fast food, so I say: let these guys do what they want. Less fast food means American women will lose some damn weight.

[T and A Man]

(08-29-2013 12:33 AM)Bolthouse Wrote:  

In our current small-business driven economy, it's even more critical for the small-business owner to have the means to financially sustain his business.

Business is there to serve the community, not the other way around. There is no appeal to what is true and just when 'won't someone think of the small business!'

Quote:

How many Shaniqua sympathizers have ever run a business and had to pay wages? If the fast food hourly wage doubled, it would not hurt McDonalds as a corporation nor the average Big Mac consumer.

And?

If wages are lifted to what resembles a living wage, as so the rest of the taxpaying base doesn't have to underwrite them via welfare, then that is the true cost.

otherwise, it is a subsidy, which fast food owners benefit from.

Quote:

The guys who'd eat the vast majority of the loss would be the franchise owners, who are middle class families with children who, unlike Shaniqua, carefully pooled their resources to better their future instead of blowing it on cable TV.

People also pool resrouces on speculation that a a house or some shares will boom in price.

it's called risk, and it is the reason capital gets a return, to absorb risk.

Capital doesn't flip the burger, it doesn't meet the shitty customer face to face, it doesn't exert or do anything.

it's there to absorb risk, nothing more, nothing less.

To bleat and say 'ima small business mr obama, you should be taking all risk away from me!" defies why return on capital exists.

[Drazen]

(08-29-2013 12:34 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

Yeah somewhere down the line someone decided that lowest people on the totem pole must work 100+ hours a week just for the privilege of living. Not to mention they'll have to work at that rate until they drop dead. There's no such thing as pensions or 401ks for them either.

Raising the minimum wage isn't so much about greed than it is about better distribution of wealth. I read somewhere that 1% of the world's population controls 90% of the world's wealth. That's insanity.

And if the minimum wage was raised to $15 an hour, a guy flipping burgers in America is in the top 90% of earners worldwide. If they do work 100 hour a week, then they are in the top 1%.

Such prosecution!

[Therapsid]

(08-29-2013 12:33 AM)Bolthouse Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 12:16 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

In a consumer-driven economy, it's important that the population has enough purchasing power to actually consume.

In our current small-business driven economy, it's even more critical for the small-business owner to have the means to financially sustain his business.

How many Shaniqua sympathizers have ever run a business and had to pay wages? If the fast food hourly wage doubled, it would not hurt McDonalds as a corporation nor the average Big Mac consumer. The guys who'd eat the vast majority of the loss would be the franchise owners, who are middle class families with children who, unlike Shaniqua, carefully pooled their resources to better their future instead of blowing it on cable TV.

On the other hand, it would encourage the utilization of labor-saving technology. Fast food itself is the product of such technology.

One of the reasons why America prospered in the 19th century is because poor folks had the chance to settle in the frontier rather than just settle for shitty wages. There's no longer the outlet of the frontier, as Frederick Jackson Turner already recognized in the 1890's.

So long as corporations can rely upon an endless reservoir of cheap labor they may not feel an incentive to invest in new productive methods.

In case people haven't noticed, America now seems to be stuck in a 2 to 2.5% trend growth rate during *boom* times. In other words, the U.S. seems to be falling into lower GDP growth rates. The only way we'll get America and E.U. countries growing again is by rapid technological progress and low wage service workers aren't going to cut it.

[Bolthouse]

[

(08-29-2013 12:24 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

You have to understand, though, that millions of people these days do not have the skills to compete in the modern economy. Moreover, they simply don't possess the aptitude to develop valuable skills. Remember that for most of human history the vast majority of people did manual labor. The modern economy is beyond the capabilities of many people lower on the IQ scale, regardless of how much work they put in. It's hard for you to imagine this, because you are intelligent. But look at it like this. Imagine if for some reason, suddenly the only job available to you was playing in the NBA. Do you think you could suddenly develop the skill and ability to do so, regardless of how hard you worked? That's what it's like to be a low IQ, low skilled worked in today's economy.

Blaming it on low IQ excuses their laziness and ungratefulness. How is it that illegals from Mexico, who come here with 8 kids and knowing no English, manage to survive on a minimum wage?

Is it due to their high IQ? Or perhaps their lack of entitlement?

[Parlay44]

(08-29-2013 12:39 AM)PartyonBro Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 12:34 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

Yeah somewhere down the line someone decided that lowest people on the totem pole must work 100+ hours a week just for the privilege of living. Not to mention they'll have to work at that rate until they drop dead. There's no such thing as pensions or 401ks for them either.

Raising the minimum wage isn't so much about greed than it is about better distribution of wealth. I read somewhere that 1% of the world's population controls 90% of the world's wealth. That's insanity.

And if the minimum wage was raised to $15 an hour, a guy flipping burgers in America is in the top 90% of earners worldwide. Such prosecution!

It's all relative man. It's not how much you make. It's how much you make compared to the cost of living. Why do you think Mexicans come here and work for $3 an hour? It's because they live 8 to a studio apartment and sleep in shifts. Their cost of living is low but so is their standard of living.

[Gopher]

(08-29-2013 12:34 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

Yeah somewhere down the line someone decided that lowest people on the totem pole must work 100+ hours a week just for the privilege of living. Not to mention they'll have to work at that rate until they drop dead. There's no such thing as pensions or 401ks for them either.

Raising the minimum wage isn't so much about greed than it is about better distribution of wealth. I read somewhere that 1% of the world's population controls 90% of the world's wealth. That's insanity.

I respect your position, and with my empathetic side I want to agree with you.

However, I am controlled more by logic.

What you described isn't a "decision" that was made by "someone". That is simply the laws of nature. There are more losers than winners in natural selection. It's always been that way, and my opinion is that it is futile to fight against the natural way of the world.

[Drazen]

(08-29-2013 12:41 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 12:39 AM)PartyonBro Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 12:34 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

Yeah somewhere down the line someone decided that lowest people on the totem pole must work 100+ hours a week just for the privilege of living. Not to mention they'll have to work at that rate until they drop dead. There's no such thing as pensions or 401ks for them either.

Raising the minimum wage isn't so much about greed than it is about better distribution of wealth. I read somewhere that 1% of the world's population controls 90% of the world's wealth. That's insanity.

And if the minimum wage was raised to $15 an hour, a guy flipping burgers in America is in the top 90% of earners worldwide. Such prosecution!

It's all relative man. It's not how much you make. It's how much you make compared to the cost of living.

Totally. Someone working at McDonalds HAS to be able to have a flat screen TV and a playstation 4.

[Therapsid]

(08-29-2013 12:42 AM)Gopher Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 12:34 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

Yeah somewhere down the line someone decided that lowest people on the totem pole must work 100+ hours a week just for the privilege of living. Not to mention they'll have to work at that rate until they drop dead. There's no such thing as pensions or 401ks for them either.

Raising the minimum wage isn't so much about greed than it is about better distribution of wealth. I read somewhere that 1% of the world's population controls 90% of the world's wealth. That's insanity.

I respect your position, and with my empathetic side I want to agree with you.

However, I am controlled more by logic.

What you described isn't a "decision" that was made by "someone". That is simply the laws of nature. There are more losers than winners in natural selection. It's always been that way, and my opinion is that it is futile to fight against the natural way of the world.

Who cares what natural selection does?

That's like saying that natural laws dictate that Mount Vesuvius erupts tomorrow so if you die, who cares?

If you know a volcano is about to blow, you advise people to run away!

The same concept applies here. Even if what you describe is natural, it doesn't mean we have to accept it. This the classic "is-ought" debate in ethics.

[AnonymousBosch]

(08-28-2013 11:06 PM)Gopher Wrote:  

She pays the rent with public assistance but struggles to afford food, diapers, subway and taxi fares, cable TV and other expenses with her paycheck.

Yay Feminism for letting women believe they're too good to rewash cloth diapers and use safety pins that they could buy for a few dollars vs a couple of thousand dollars for three years of plastic, disposable ones.

[Tex Pro]

(08-29-2013 12:43 AM)PartyonBro Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 12:41 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 12:39 AM)PartyonBro Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 12:34 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

Yeah somewhere down the line someone decided that lowest people on the totem pole must work 100+ hours a week just for the privilege of living. Not to mention they'll have to work at that rate until they drop dead. There's no such thing as pensions or 401ks for them either.

Raising the minimum wage isn't so much about greed than it is about better distribution of wealth. I read somewhere that 1% of the world's population controls 90% of the world's wealth. That's insanity.

And if the minimum wage was raised to $15 an hour, a guy flipping burgers in America is in the top 90% of earners worldwide. Such prosecution!

It's all relative man. It's not how much you make. It's how much you make compared to the cost of living.

Totally. Someone working at McDonalds HAS to be able to have a flat screen TV and a playstation 4.

They already do have these things, bud. We subsidize low-wage workers in this country.

[Drazen]

(08-29-2013 12:45 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

They already do have these things, bud. We subsidize low-wage workers in this country.

Of course we do, we have a cascading income tax system. It ensures that low wage workers are taken care of by those making more.

[Grit]

They don't have a leg to stand on.

1. The restaurants will have no legal problem firing every one of them (considering that they most likely work on an 'at large' agreement)

2. The restaurants (most likely) have no moral qualms about making the government foot the bill of the newly unemployed. Rather taxes than profits.

[Drazen]

I remember a few years ago, there was an immigrant strike where many fast food places were closed for the day. Only thing I noticed was "wow, there's a lot less traffic on the freeway today".

[Tex Pro]

(08-29-2013 12:49 AM)Grit Wrote:  

They don't have a leg to stand on.

1. The restaurants will have no legal problem firing every one of them (considering that they most likely work on an 'at large' agreement)

2. The restaurants (most likely) have no moral qualms about making the government foot the bill of the newly unemployed. Rather taxes than profits.

I think the point of the nationwide strike is to encourage a rise in the minimum wage.

[Bolthouse]

(08-29-2013 12:40 AM)Therapsid Wrote:  

On the other hand, it would encourage the utilization of labor-saving technology. Fast food itself is the product of such technology.
(snip)
So long as corporations can rely upon an endless reservoir of cheap labor they may not feel an incentive to invest in new productive methods.

This has already begun with a few McDonalds having their drive through window outsourced to the Philippines and other fast food restaurants implementing touch-screen ordering systems.

Even at current wages, fast food labor isn't necessarily cheap. Sooner or later one of the big chains will perfect the labor-free assembly line of a hamburger going from the freezer to the customer's tray.

Perhaps the ungrateful McDonalds workers will then actually have to learn a craft--tree cutter, shoe cobbler, pool cleaner are all crafts that pay more than minimum wage and would seem to suit a low IQ guy just fine.

[Tex Pro]

(08-29-2013 12:56 AM)Bolthouse Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 12:40 AM)Therapsid Wrote:  

On the other hand, it would encourage the utilization of labor-saving technology. Fast food itself is the product of such technology.
(snip)
So long as corporations can rely upon an endless reservoir of cheap labor they may not feel an incentive to invest in new productive methods.

This has already begun with a few McDonalds having their drive through window outsourced to the Philippines and other fast food restaurants implementing touch-screen ordering systems.

Even at current wages, fast food labor isn't necessarily cheap. Sooner or later one of the big chains will perfect the labor-free assembly line of a hamburger going from the freezer to the customer's tray.

Perhaps the ungrateful McDonalds workers will then actually have to learn a craft--tree cutter, shoe cobbler, pool cleaner are all crafts that pay more than minimum wage and would seem to suit a low IQ guy just fine.

I personally don't hope for this day.

If automation one day gets rid of a lot of these "McJobs", then you can bet your ass there will be a call for a "guaranteed minimum income" (aka a dole) for the unemployed/unemployable.

[Hades]

Profit margins with cheap fast food is pretty much shit. You raise the minimum fast food wage to something like 15 an hour and they're just going to slash hours and fire off the non-essential employees. It's already to the point where it's impossible to do overtime.
If this manages to get through it's a guarantee that the population of barely-employables will go up significantly while all "full-timers" enjoy a 28 hour work week. Where you once had a thousand jobs suddenly you find about five-hundred "half" jobs and maybe a hundred part-time positions.