Post: #126

Wouldn't raising the fast food wage to say 15 an hour also cause small business to have to offer this amount as well, for paid interns and lower level jobs?

Post: #127

(08-29-2013 04:06 AM)Gopher Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 03:55 AM)la_mode Wrote:  What none of you understand is that the economy is purely theoretical. There's hundreds of theories and each one can make a compelling argument; however it's irrelevant and nothing but collegiate textbook fodder.

There are trillions of dollars just sitting there as "buffer" that will never be touched. No book will tell you that, but it should be obvious given that no matter what there's always money for war, new prisons, FEMA, welfare, etc.

There isn't money "just sitting there".

The money is "printed". Which the federal government isn't supposed to actually do so they use the Federal Reserve to purchase their bonds. The Federal Reserve prints money to purchase bonds which is essentially trading newly created cash for a promise to repay in the future. The end result is inflation.

Inflation is a tax.

So the money for war, new prisons, FEMA etc. comes out of your pocket trough the inflation tax.

You're saying basically everything is one giant loan that will never be paid back. You could be right.

Yet, they still funded the Iraq war (approx 1 trillion), and produced the $700 billion bailouts without having to raise taxes for a set amount of time...they just did it, because they can. There has to be some sort of buffer that allows this to happen so easily, maybe the gold at Fort Knox, the underground of the Fed, no one knows for sure. The truth is, society will never run out of money regardless of what Right-Wing economists want you to think.

We could turn into a society of only rich/poor since the rich love to hoard money till the cows come home.

I personally don't believe in economic theory, because it's simply theory. Everything looks good on paper when spun a certain way.

Post: #128

FACT: 95% of all restaurants in the US close within the first year.

FACT: 99% of all restaurants in the US close within the first five years.

Lets make those odds even tougher on the small restaurant owner who risks his all for the betterment of his community. So poor Shaniqua can ride around in taxis.

Post: #129

(08-29-2013 11:25 PM)kbell Wrote:  Wouldn't raising the fast food wage to say 15 an hour also cause small business to have to offer this amount as well, for paid interns and lower level jobs?

They want to raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hour, so everyone would have to pay at least that amount for all workers. I don't know how realistic this is considering that congress is terribly divided. It is usually several years between the raises of the minimum wage. The last time the federal minimum wage was raised was in 2009.

Post: #130

Boot. Face. Forever.

Post: #131

(08-30-2013 12:47 AM)Bolthouse Wrote:  FACT: 95% of all restaurants in the US close within the first year.

FACT: 99% of all restaurants in the US close within the first five years.

Lets make those odds even tougher on the small restaurant owner who risks his all for the betterment of his community. So poor Shaniqua can ride around in taxis.

I think that the minimum wage should be risen in different places to different levels to take into account the cost of living. $15/hour is not too high for an expensive city (NYC, DC, San Fran, etc.). I mean, in San Francisco the minimum wage is already $10/hour and 99% of all restaurants have not closed, so your thinking is flawed.

Post: #132

If you actually had to hire these folks you'd find that only 1/10 even deserves to be paid more than minimum.

Post: #133

(08-30-2013 12:34 AM)la_mode Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 04:06 AM)Gopher Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 03:55 AM)la_mode Wrote:  What none of you understand is that the economy is purely theoretical. There's hundreds of theories and each one can make a compelling argument; however it's irrelevant and nothing but collegiate textbook fodder.

There are trillions of dollars just sitting there as "buffer" that will never be touched. No book will tell you that, but it should be obvious given that no matter what there's always money for war, new prisons, FEMA, welfare, etc.

There isn't money "just sitting there".

The money is "printed". Which the federal government isn't supposed to actually do so they use the Federal Reserve to purchase their bonds. The Federal Reserve prints money to purchase bonds which is essentially trading newly created cash for a promise to repay in the future. The end result is inflation.

Inflation is a tax.

So the money for war, new prisons, FEMA etc. comes out of your pocket trough the inflation tax.

You're saying basically everything is one giant loan that will never be paid back. You could be right.

Yet, they still funded the Iraq war (approx 1 trillion), and produced the $700 billion bailouts without having to raise taxes for a set amount of time...they just did it, because they can. There has to be some sort of buffer that allows this to happen so easily, maybe the gold at Fort Knox, the underground of the Fed, no one knows for sure. The truth is, society will never run out of money regardless of what Right-Wing economists want you to think.

We could turn into a society of only rich/poor since the rich love to hoard money till the cows come home.

I personally don't believe in economic theory, because it's simply theory. Everything looks good on paper when spun a certain way.

No, you are wrong. The money does have to be paid back.

If you don't believe me, simply inform yourself on what is going on in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy right now. Right as we debate this, these countries are being forced to pay back their out of control spending.

Simply go to youtube and type in "austerity in Greece". See what happens when the federal reserve no longer buys our bonds.

When we waste money out of control (as Bush and Obama have both done) what we are doing is giving away our rights and freedoms and handing them over to wealthy elite central bankers (such as people like Buffet and Soros and Gates and on and on).

Post: #134

(08-30-2013 01:01 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(08-30-2013 12:47 AM)Bolthouse Wrote:  FACT: 95% of all restaurants in the US close within the first year.

FACT: 99% of all restaurants in the US close within the first five years.

Lets make those odds even tougher on the small restaurant owner who risks his all for the betterment of his community. So poor Shaniqua can ride around in taxis.

I think that the minimum wage should be risen in different places to different levels to take into account the cost of living. $15/hour is not too high for an expensive city (NYC, DC, San Fran, etc.). I mean, in San Francisco the minimum wage is already $10/hour and 99% of all restaurants have not closed, so your thinking is flawed.

A $15 to $10 a raise is a 50% increase overnight. That would destroy small businesses.

A giant central govt. allows women to run wild as they do in the USA. Demanding the federal govt to grow by telling companies how much they must pay workers is the same as supporting the anti-male federal govt we come here to complain about.

Post: #135

(08-30-2013 12:34 AM)la_mode Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 04:06 AM)Gopher Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 03:55 AM)la_mode Wrote:  What none of you understand is that the economy is purely theoretical. There's hundreds of theories and each one can make a compelling argument; however it's irrelevant and nothing but collegiate textbook fodder.

There are trillions of dollars just sitting there as "buffer" that will never be touched. No book will tell you that, but it should be obvious given that no matter what there's always money for war, new prisons, FEMA, welfare, etc.

There isn't money "just sitting there".

The money is "printed". Which the federal government isn't supposed to actually do so they use the Federal Reserve to purchase their bonds. The Federal Reserve prints money to purchase bonds which is essentially trading newly created cash for a promise to repay in the future. The end result is inflation.

Inflation is a tax.

So the money for war, new prisons, FEMA etc. comes out of your pocket trough the inflation tax.

You're saying basically everything is one giant loan that will never be paid back. You could be right.

Yet, they still funded the Iraq war (approx 1 trillion), and produced the $700 billion bailouts without having to raise taxes for a set amount of time...they just did it, because they can. There has to be some sort of buffer that allows this to happen so easily, maybe the gold at Fort Knox, the underground of the Fed, no one knows for sure. The truth is, society will never run out of money regardless of what Right-Wing economists want you to think.

We could turn into a society of only rich/poor since the rich love to hoard money till the cows come home.

I personally don't believe in economic theory, because it's simply theory. Everything looks good on paper when spun a certain way.

"without having to raise taxes"
They did not raise taxes like the personal income tax or the corporate tax no. However, they got the money by diluting your wealth via what I described above as the inflation tax.

"some sort of buffer" "the underground of the Fed"
Again, read what I wrote above. This is exactly what is happening. The fed is creating money to give to the Federal Government in exchange for bonds.

"society will never run out of money"
This is true, but it is important to realize the difference between the dollar and money. All dollars qualify as money but not all money is dollars. And society won't run out of either. The dollar might someday not be accepted as money, and in that case we would turn to alternative forms of money. For example, precious metals, bit coin, etc.

Post: #136

(08-28-2013 11:29 PM)scorpion Wrote:  1) Allow companies to pay extremely low wages, and subsidize the poor with government handouts (the status quo).

2) Force companies to pay higher wages, passing on the costs to their shareholders and customers (what the strikers want).

The above is what the clux of the matter is. Fast food spots are not paying the full market cost of their labor. Their labor cost are heavily being subsided by tax payers by providing their workers section 8, medicaid,Head star, food stamps and a litany of other government services. The only reason why the poor are even bothering to work is because they are fiending for that Earned Income Tax credit at the end of the year. When you add all of the above together, I am sure the tax payers are already paying more than $15 an hour to each of those workers.

Quote:Ever hire a mover? I recently had to pay $65/hr for 2 guys with a piece of shit $500 pickup, and they had a 4hr minimum. They were the best deal on craigslist, everyone else wanted $85/hr for 2 guys or more.

You are paying the true cost of that labor and you probably paid cash. Since, that income is unreported those movers are 30% ahead already. If the government would pay those movers gas, insurance, food, rent and car note I am sure they would be able to afford to do your moving for $.7.25 an hour.

Post: #137

(08-30-2013 03:18 AM)playa_with_a_passport Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 11:29 PM)scorpion Wrote:  1) Allow companies to pay extremely low wages, and subsidize the poor with government handouts (the status quo).

2) Force companies to pay higher wages, passing on the costs to their shareholders and customers (what the strikers want).

The above is what the clux of the matter is. Fast food spots are not paying the full market cost of their labor. Their labor cost are heavily being subsided by tax payers by providing their workers section 8, medicaid,Head star, food stamps and a litany of other government services. The only reason why the poor are even bothering to work is because they are fiending for that Earned Income Tax credit at the end of the year. When you add all of the above together, I am sure the tax payers are already paying more than $15 an hour to each of those workers.

Quote:Ever hire a mover? I recently had to pay $65/hr for 2 guys with a piece of shit $500 pickup, and they had a 4hr minimum. They were the best deal on craigslist, everyone else wanted $85/hr for 2 guys or more.

You are paying the true cost of that labor and you probably paid cash. Since, that income is unreported those movers are 30% ahead already. If the government would pay those movers gas, insurance, food, rent and car note I am sure they would be able to afford to do your moving for $.7.25 an hour.

You are right that small business owners are able to pay less due to the subsidies provided to low income individuals...BUT there are two things I see missing from this argument.

One is the failure to recognize that small business owners pay taxes. If it is a rich small business owner then they are a part of the population paying the majority of the taxes.

The other is that small business owners are trying to operate in a market. It is not their fault that there are these government subsidies that you mention, but in order for them to be able to compete and be successful it is pertinent that they use them to their advantage. If they were to take say "the moral high road" and offer noncompetitive wages then the market will not allow their business to survive and their once well paid employees will be unemployed.

I would argue that the best way out of this conundrum is to eliminate the subsidies. Make it so that people will not work for an unlivable wage because there is no public assistance and you will naturally have businesses that compete for employees. The reason they pay people minimum wage is because there are people that are willing to accept it.

That is the entire idea behind the free market. Two people enter into an agreement voluntarily because the agreement makes them both better off. The employer is getting work done that he now doesn't have to do himself, and the employee is getting paid what is obviously an agreeable wage. If it wasn't they wouldn't show up to work.

Post: #138

(08-30-2013 03:59 AM)Gopher Wrote:  

(08-30-2013 03:18 AM)playa_with_a_passport Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 11:29 PM)scorpion Wrote:  1) Allow companies to pay extremely low wages, and subsidize the poor with government handouts (the status quo).

2) Force companies to pay higher wages, passing on the costs to their shareholders and customers (what the strikers want).

The above is what the clux of the matter is. Fast food spots are not paying the full market cost of their labor. Their labor cost are heavily being subsided by tax payers by providing their workers section 8, medicaid,Head star, food stamps and a litany of other government services. The only reason why the poor are even bothering to work is because they are fiending for that Earned Income Tax credit at the end of the year. When you add all of the above together, I am sure the tax payers are already paying more than $15 an hour to each of those workers.

Quote:Ever hire a mover? I recently had to pay $65/hr for 2 guys with a piece of shit $500 pickup, and they had a 4hr minimum. They were the best deal on craigslist, everyone else wanted $85/hr for 2 guys or more.

You are paying the true cost of that labor and you probably paid cash. Since, that income is unreported those movers are 30% ahead already. If the government would pay those movers gas, insurance, food, rent and car note I am sure they would be able to afford to do your moving for $.7.25 an hour.

You are right that small business owners are able to pay less due to the subsidies provided to low income individuals...BUT there are two things I see missing from this argument.

One is the failure to recognize that small business owners pay taxes. If it is a rich small business owner then they are a part of the population paying the majority of the taxes.

The other is that small business owners are trying to operate in a market. It is not their fault that there are these government subsidies that you mention, but in order for them to be able to compete and be successful it is pertinent that they use them to their advantage. If they were to take say "the moral high road" and offer noncompetitive wages then the market will not allow their business to survive and their once well paid employees will be unemployed.

I would argue that the best way out of this conundrum is to eliminate the subsidies. Make it so that people will not work for an unlivable wage because there is no public assistance and you will naturally have businesses that compete for employees. The reason they pay people minimum wage is because there are people that are willing to accept it.

That is the entire idea behind the free market. Two people enter into an agreement voluntarily because the agreement makes them both better off. The employer is getting work done that he now doesn't have to do himself, and the employee is getting paid what is obviously an agreeable wage. If it wasn't they wouldn't show up to work.

This is a dream. If anything, in the future we will subsidize even more people since the number of people in the working poor is growing. The right wing dream that we can just cut all forms of public assistance leaves out one really big problem: as the number of working poor increases, they will become a bigger and bigger portion of the electorate until they are so big that they can pass whatever laws they like. This is why there are no 100% free market countries in the world. Even in Hong Kong, the most economically free country in the world, there exists a minimum wage and other worker safe guards:

http://www.economist.com/node/16591088

Post: #139

As I see it, and it's been alluded to more than once on this thread, the crux of the matter is that low skilled labour is no longer required. My very first post on here I referenced this issue:

"Surely it can only go so far before society begins to implode? Think Luddites.

Agriculture also comes to mind. Barely two generations ago a small farm would employ two dozen workmen. A generation ago it was half a dozen tractor drivers. Now it's one tractor driver and the boss. Completely autonomous tractors now exist and it is only legislation which prevents their wholesale use.

How are those being made redundant due to technology going to afford the products produced by the robots that replaced them?"


Not only that, but low skilled labour breeds low skilled labour, far quicker than the middle and upper classes especially when combined with govenment assistance to breed. Thus compounding the problem.

I'm with Scorpion on this one. I identify as right of centre, free market, I run a business and employ two at pretty much minimum wage. However, I can see a bigger picture behind all this.

Part of me is empathetic and thinks we should help them improve their lot. But some folk are just born to sweep the streets. They are incapable of rational thought- where have we heard that before? Hence a much larger part of me thinks 'keep them on cable TV and cheap alcohol, keep them out of the way'.

In the grand scheme of things, that's pretty much what the powers that be are doing. Would be very interesting to see their long term plans for this problem- they must have them. Maybe they have plans of varying degrees of public acceptability, starting with free condoms and no more child benefit, then onto legalized/cheap mind numbing drugs, working through to compulsory sterilization and finishing off like the Nazis?

One thing is for sure- if this combined problem of insufficient menial tasks and high birthrate amongst the low IQ is not addressed, things will get ugly. The British riots of two summers ago come to mind.

Post: #140

The real problem is we don't have the stomach for the solution. Roberto went over some of the points

Technology is only going to exacerbate the problem. What happens when thorium reactors or some other technology becomes available and puts a strain on the oil and natural gas industry.

Instead we give them money and pay for them to breed. Sterilization to get assistance doesn't sound like a terrible thing.

Post: #141

There is plenty of low skilled labor jobs, it is just that no one wants to work. I manage a restaurant and it is incredibly hard to find good help. Everyone always complains about working late, having to work a weekend night. They would rather be drinking. I work in NY and when I was working as a server, I was pulling in around a grand a week in cash on 40 hour work week.

If you go on craigslist look at how many restaurant jobs are available.

Post: #142

(08-30-2013 06:46 AM)Lou pai Wrote:  There is plenty of low skilled labor jobs, it is just that no one wants to work. I manage a restaurant and it is incredibly hard to find good help. Everyone always complains about working late, having to work a weekend night. They would rather be drinking. I work in NY and when I was working as a server, I was pulling in around a grand a week in cash on 40 hour work week.

If you go on craigslist look at how many restaurant jobs are available.

What do these jobs pay? That is the real question.

If you live in New York, then jobs that are tough and/or that have weird hours will not attract many applicants if all that is offered is minimum wage. I always hear people say that "Oh, we have trouble finding workers", and my immediate thought is "How much are you offering to do these jobs?"

I think the presence of a lot of immigration in this country (both legal and illegal) has lulled employers into believing that people should be paid peanuts. That is why I wish we would have a moratorium on immigration, both legal and illegal, so as to make employers pay workers living wages. Without a surplus of workers, employers would have to pay their workers better wages and there would be fewer people in need of public services.

Sure, there wouldn't be as many rich people since labor would get a bigger share of the economic pie, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Many Scandinavian countries operate like this since and they have a more egalitarian society and a higher average standard of living the us.

Post: #143

(08-30-2013 03:10 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(08-30-2013 06:46 AM)Lou pai Wrote:  There is plenty of low skilled labor jobs, it is just that no one wants to work. I manage a restaurant and it is incredibly hard to find good help. Everyone always complains about working late, having to work a weekend night. They would rather be drinking. I work in NY and when I was working as a server, I was pulling in around a grand a week in cash on 40 hour work week.

If you go on craigslist look at how many restaurant jobs are available.

What do these jobs pay? That is the real question.

If you live in New York, then jobs that are tough and/or that have weird hours will not attract many applicants if all that is offered is minimum wage. I always hear people say that "Oh, we have trouble finding workers", and my immediate thought is "How much are you offering to do these jobs?"

I think the presence of a lot of immigration in this country (both legal and illegal) has lulled employers into believing that people should be paid peanuts. That is why I wish we would have a moratorium on immigration, both legal and illegal, so as to make employers pay workers living wages. Without a surplus of workers, employers would have to pay their workers better wages and there would be fewer people in need of public services.

Sure, there wouldn't be as many rich people since labor would get a bigger share of the economic pie, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Many Scandinavian countries operate like this since and they have a more egalitarian society and a higher average standard of living the us.

Don't be delusional. Rich people will past the costs on to the consumer. Some restaurants will go out of business because some people won't pay more for their meals.

On top of that lifting the minimum wage to $15 would cause even more outsourcing.

Why pay $15 for a whiny, entitled and lazy worker. I can outsource your job to some other country. That person is happy to have job, works harder and never complains.

You would have to roll back the clock and get rid of globalization.

Post: #144

(08-30-2013 03:48 PM)Damedius Wrote:  

(08-30-2013 03:10 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(08-30-2013 06:46 AM)Lou pai Wrote:  There is plenty of low skilled labor jobs, it is just that no one wants to work. I manage a restaurant and it is incredibly hard to find good help. Everyone always complains about working late, having to work a weekend night. They would rather be drinking. I work in NY and when I was working as a server, I was pulling in around a grand a week in cash on 40 hour work week.

If you go on craigslist look at how many restaurant jobs are available.

What do these jobs pay? That is the real question.

If you live in New York, then jobs that are tough and/or that have weird hours will not attract many applicants if all that is offered is minimum wage. I always hear people say that "Oh, we have trouble finding workers", and my immediate thought is "How much are you offering to do these jobs?"

I think the presence of a lot of immigration in this country (both legal and illegal) has lulled employers into believing that people should be paid peanuts. That is why I wish we would have a moratorium on immigration, both legal and illegal, so as to make employers pay workers living wages. Without a surplus of workers, employers would have to pay their workers better wages and there would be fewer people in need of public services.

Sure, there wouldn't be as many rich people since labor would get a bigger share of the economic pie, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Many Scandinavian countries operate like this since and they have a more egalitarian society and a higher average standard of living the us.

Don't be delusional. Rich people will past the costs on to the consumer. Some restaurants will go out of business because some people won't pay more for their meals.

On top of that lifting the minimum wage to $15 would cause even more outsourcing.

Why pay $15 for a whiny, entitled and lazy worker. I can outsource your job to some other country. That person is happy to have job, works harder and never complains.

You would have to roll back the clock and get rid of globalization.

You can't really outsource a lot of these low-paying service jobs. Now, you many be able to automate them to a certain extent, but I don't see why we can't make some basic reforms to help the people on the lower socioeconomic scale. We already subsidize them. We should look into ways to help them have a better life.

Post: #145

(08-30-2013 03:48 PM)Damedius Wrote:  Why pay $15 for a whiny, entitled and lazy worker. I can outsource your job to some other country. That person is happy to have job, works harder and never complains.

I had to read that twice to realise you were talking about western workers, not women! Lol.

Whilst I do agree with Texas Prophet re immigration etc, the fact is that we are where we are now. As you say, people don't have the stomach for potential solutions...yet

@Lou pai- there may be low skilled jobs available, but nobody wants to work them because there are still far too many people available to fill those jobs. Why take one of them if your mate who hithero was in the same boat as you does not take one and with government assistance continues to enjoy pretty much the same standard of life as you? The availability of jobs is no indication whatsoever of a solution to the problems facing us.

Good point re globilisation Damedius- we're in the shit because as a wise man once said, money flows around the world in a series of incredibly complex patterns. Unfortunately, it's currently on vacation from the US. Possibly in China.

Post: #146

(08-30-2013 02:48 AM)Gopher Wrote:  

(08-30-2013 12:34 AM)la_mode Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 04:06 AM)Gopher Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 03:55 AM)la_mode Wrote:  What none of you understand is that the economy is purely theoretical. There's hundreds of theories and each one can make a compelling argument; however it's irrelevant and nothing but collegiate textbook fodder.

There are trillions of dollars just sitting there as "buffer" that will never be touched. No book will tell you that, but it should be obvious given that no matter what there's always money for war, new prisons, FEMA, welfare, etc.

There isn't money "just sitting there".

The money is "printed". Which the federal government isn't supposed to actually do so they use the Federal Reserve to purchase their bonds. The Federal Reserve prints money to purchase bonds which is essentially trading newly created cash for a promise to repay in the future. The end result is inflation.

Inflation is a tax.

So the money for war, new prisons, FEMA etc. comes out of your pocket trough the inflation tax.

You're saying basically everything is one giant loan that will never be paid back. You could be right.

Yet, they still funded the Iraq war (approx 1 trillion), and produced the $700 billion bailouts without having to raise taxes for a set amount of time...they just did it, because they can. There has to be some sort of buffer that allows this to happen so easily, maybe the gold at Fort Knox, the underground of the Fed, no one knows for sure. The truth is, society will never run out of money regardless of what Right-Wing economists want you to think.

We could turn into a society of only rich/poor since the rich love to hoard money till the cows come home.

I personally don't believe in economic theory, because it's simply theory. Everything looks good on paper when spun a certain way.

"without having to raise taxes"
They did not raise taxes like the personal income tax or the corporate tax no. However, they got the money by diluting your wealth via what I described above as the inflation tax.

"some sort of buffer" "the underground of the Fed"
Again, read what I wrote above. This is exactly what is happening. The fed is creating money to give to the Federal Government in exchange for bonds.

"society will never run out of money"
This is true, but it is important to realize the difference between the dollar and money. All dollars qualify as money but not all money is dollars. And society won't run out of either. The dollar might someday not be accepted as money, and in that case we would turn to alternative forms of money. For example, precious metals, bit coin, etc.

Completely theoretical. What I've been saying all along.

The economy is theoretical and that's what neither side understands (pro free market vs everything else). The reason people have trouble admitting that is because it involves mathematics. It might be the only theoretical thing in existence which involves numbers.

Whoever has the longer reply with more projections is always right. If it wasn't theoretical then there would be a way to always keep it optimal.

No one knows what industry is going to tank, multibillion dollar Hurricane, if a country will be invaded - either way, there will be money for that regardless of future projections. It's all theory, but even the most intelligent people refuse to realize that.

Regardless of platform (whether it be a presidential debate or this forum), it is entertaining watching economic arguments where both sides are convinced they are right.

Post: #147

(08-30-2013 06:46 AM)Lou pai Wrote:  There is plenty of low skilled labor jobs, it is just that no one wants to work. I manage a restaurant and it is incredibly hard to find good help. Everyone always complains about working late, having to work a weekend night. They would rather be drinking. I work in NY and when I was working as a server, I was pulling in around a grand a week in cash on 40 hour work week.

If you go on craigslist look at how many restaurant jobs are available.

I'll echo this. I've written on this several times across the boards and was a little reluctant to get involved but...

The best workers I've found are Filipinos. Even latinos are getting more demanding in terms of salary and benefits. And here's the thing that noone gets: RESTAURANTS CAN'T AFFORD $15 PER HOUR. I can't speak for McDonald's as I have no clue how their budgeting scheme works.

Let's run some numbers. In any given restaurant, once your cost-of-goods and labor cost goes above 65% of total sales, you're not looking so good. Back-of-house labor budget (cooks, prep cooks, dishwashers) needs to be as close to 10% as possible, maxing out at 15% or so. In a small-medium sized outlet doing between 2-3 million per year. 10% of 3 million is 300,000. If my employees make 11/hr on average, that's 22,880 per year per employee. On $11/hr, that allows me 13 employees in the kitchen. And guess what? That's exactly how many employees I have, between cooks and dishwashers. Just one problem: Noone wants to work for 11/hr anymore. They want 13, 14, 15 per hour.

So let's assume I bring everyone up to 15/hr. That leaves a difference of $4 per employee, which comes out to an extra $108,160 per year to give everyone that raise. That's assuming everyone's only working 40 hours a week. If I've got a party and need someone to stay later and help out, that's overtime, and it happens often. But let's stick with the current numbers. You've just gone from a 10% BOH Labor budget, to 13.6. And that's JUST back of house. Then you've got raises for the front of house. A 3.6% increase in your cost of overhead is huge, and the only way to compensate for that is to raise prices.

Well, at our restaurant, we already charge $36 for Sonoma lamb, think guests want to pay an extra $6? Fuck no. We've just priced ourselves out of the market so my cooks can have smartphones (which they already have, btw)

I've said it before. My cooks might not make a fortune, but they learn, so if they apply themselves, they'll be in my position one day and making a pretty fine salary. That's the American way. Inflation might have fucked things up pretty bad. I understand if you adjusted our current minimum wage to the 1960 value of the dollar it would be around $15 per hour, but you can't just snap your fingers and make it happen like that. 30 years of shitheads in office and piss-poor economic policy has brought us here and now we've gotta deal with it.

And as Lou Pai mentioned, noone wants to get their hands dirty anymore. I don't believe in killing yourself for your job a la Japan but there's still gotta be a work ethic, and I don't see it very often. Rare is the employee that shows up on time every day, busts their ass, applies themselves, isn't sneaking off to update their facebook status, isn't dragging their ass, and so on. You can quote statistics all you want about inflation and the impending crash, and you can call me ignorant, but I still believe in the old fashioned notion that hard work and applied intelligence pays off.

Post: #148

The idea that fast food restaurants would go out of business if the minimum wage was raised is pretty funny. It's very much small-picture thinking.

Is raising the minimum wage bad from the perspective of the individual restaurant's costs? Yes. The restaurant's costs will go up. But that's not looking at the entire picture.

Because costs only tell half the story. It doesn't matter if your costs increase if your revenues increase by an equal or greater amount. That's the entire idea behind business - you incur costs in order to secure a greater return. Costs are an inevitable and necessary function of engaging in business. You can't run a business without costs, and trying to skimp on costs will often result in delivering an inferior product, which will lose you customers over time.

A higher minimum wage law means that every business that pays minimum wage workers will have its costs increased by the same amount. This includes all fast food restaurants. From a competitive standpoint, it's a wash then. Both the McDonalds and the Burger King down the street will face the exact same increase in labor costs. Neither is at a disadvantage relative to the other.

But now you get into the another factor - demand. Fast food restaurants obviously make more money if more people eat there. Very simply, they are volume businesses. And who are the people who eat at fast food restaurants the most? The poor and working class. What do you think is going to happen to demand for fast food meals when suddenly everyone working for minimum wage in that community has more disposable income? They're going to eat more fast food. Demand increases. Fast food sales increase. More money is earned by the restaurants.

So far from putting fast food restaurants out of business, raising the minimum wage would end up helping them by increasing demand from their key consumer demographic.

This is the same demand effect that would reverberate throughout the entire economy, for the simple reason that the poor spend a much greater percentage of their income directly into the economy than do the wealthy (this is the reason why the food stamps program, although much vilified for ideological reasons, is actually the most efficient form of economic stimulus possible). A guy earning $20k a year HAS to spend most of that money to survive, while a guy earning $500k+ is going to be tossing a big chunk of his money into stocks or real estate investments that just sit there and do nothing to increase the velocity of money in the overall economy.

Post: #149

I also agree with Scorpion about it being good for the economy.
I see it more like Dave Chappelle portrays it in his reparations skit though.

Post: #150

(08-30-2013 05:12 PM)scorpion Wrote:  But now you get into the another factor - demand. Fast food restaurants obviously make more money if more people eat there. Very simply, they are volume businesses. And who are the people who eat at fast food restaurants the most? The poor and working class. What do you think is going to happen to demand for fast food meals when suddenly everyone working for minimum wage in that community has more disposable income? They're going to eat more fast food. Demand increases. Fast food sales increase. More money is earned by the restaurants.

If demand increased, the market price for the product would increase accordingly, and you'd be back to square one, having only inflated the dollar (in the simplified system we're discussing). Besides, you're assuming an increased minimum wage would necessarily translate to more money being pocketed by the poor. It might translate to more automation as someone already pointed out, which would have the unforeseen effect of increasing the unemployment rate of low-skilled labor.