$15 minimum wage...I know I'm poking the bear, but...

[Rapscallion]

Have you got better arguments to hand instead? I'd be interested.

Rapscallion

[jedimaster91]

The raise in minimum wage is being done gradually. If you don't know this by now, it's because you don't want to know it since it's been mentioned in this thread more than once.

Good. I was under the impression that markets varied and that some jumped more than others. With the clamor for getting minimum wage to $15 or more, it's easy to miss what's actually being done sometimes.

Any raise in prices will be on the order of pennies, and anyone who can't afford to pay those pennies needs to reconsider their budget, especially if they're buying fast food.

That remains to be seen. Economics is much more complicated than that and there are so many other factors that go into how much things cost. Look at the price of eggs right now with the latest bird flu epidemic cutting the supply. I've also been watching the price of ground meats going up over the last few years. Sure $0.99 to $1.20 over seven years doesn't seem like much, but it is an added expense. Especially when paychecks haven't gone up to match.

And if we're talking specifically fast food, I'm still in mourning for the $0.99 value menu at Wendy's. And a combo there now will run at least $8. Now I have no idea what they pay their workers, so that may or may not be part of the price increase. But I think the larger part is Wendy's trying to rebrand themselves as less fast food and more akin to fast casual like Panera.

Any business that can't survive while paying their workers a livable wage deserves to go under. It's harsh, but then so is reality. Nobody should be making a profit by cheating others.

I can agree with you on profits by cheating others being awful. But I have a hard time saying honest business owners who only have a handful of employees and barely enough profit to stay open deserve to go under. Mr Jedi works for a company like that. The owner's not a bad guy and does everything he can to do right by his employees. But a former business partner is draining the guy dry. I don't believe he deserves to have his business go under for that.

Fun fact: when people think they're being abused, they do worse work. Costco and Sams Club are in the same business, but Costco pays their employees a decent wage and gets the same amount of work with only 90% of the employees. The reason your local MacDonald's and Taco Bell have shit employees is because that's how they treat them. Qdoba, meanwhile, likely pays better, and the service is better as a result. Simple cause and effect.

While that may be part of it, I doubt it's the whole story. For some reason, those locations attract people who just don't care and have no work ethic. I can't begin to tell you how many wrong orders we've gotten there and how often the poor manager is the only one doing any work. The rest of them are standing around doing jack all.

That anyone who isn't making enough to survive or is only making enough to barely survive or is being abused by their employer so the company can make more profits meanwhile would support their continued oppression baffles me. Head-in-the-sand ignorance coupled with loyalty to assholes who would grind you into the dirt. Makes no sense.

I can only speak for myself, but barely surviving beats not surviving at all. I hate where I work, but it's a paycheck and benefits. And considering I'm about to have a baby and will be cutting my hours significantly after maternity leave, I'm trying to put away as much money into savings as possible. Younglings are expensive. And we've got a car hanging on by a prayer at this point, so it will have to be replaced soon. So while I'm still physically able to do the job, I'll deal with how much I hate it. I've not yet reached the tipping point to where possibly not being able to make the mortgage payment is better for my mental health than dragging myself to work every day.

Don't confuse my resignation with loyalty, though. I'd be out in a heartbeat if anything better came along.

Dude, the article was on Brietbart. Brietbart. You can act indignant about it when its an article from the BBC. But Brietbart? Fuck yes you shouldn't be taking it at face value.

Dude, as you may be able to tell from my post count and the large gaps in my post history, I'm not super active here. I'd never even heard of Brietbart until now and I figured for a debate site, you more active folks would have good sources. Apparently I was mistaken.

At least I know enough to not trust Fox News. I don't trust CNN or MSNBC much either--though MSNBC doesn't have quite as much slant most of the time.

[s_stabeler]

I can agree with you on profits by cheating others being awful. But I have a hard time saying honest business owners who only have a handful of employees and barely enough profit to stay open deserve to go under. Mr Jedi works for a company like that. The owner's not a bad guy and does everything he can to do right by his employees. But a former business partner is draining the guy dry. I don't believe he deserves to have his business go under for that.

it depends on the circumstances. ( what exactly is the former business partner doing, is there anything the owner can do to stop the former business partner from draining the business dry) but I would point out that it is hardly the fault of the employees- it is the fault either of the former business partner, or yes, of the owner. ( basically, how did the situation arise, and can the owner do anything to stop it?)

[TheHuckster]

it depends on the circumstances. ( what exactly is the former business partner doing, is there anything the owner can do to stop the former business partner from draining the business dry) but I would point out that it is hardly the fault of the employees- it is the fault either of the former business partner, or yes, of the owner. ( basically, how did the situation arise, and can the owner do anything to stop it?)

This is why you have to be very selective in your business partners. It's about as perilous as entering a marriage with a prenup. If you find that your business partner is incompetent or unwilling to be worthwhile to the point you have to kick the person out of the arrangement, it's not as easy as simply firing the individual. You have to effectively buy back the equity they have in the company (which for a partnership is usually going to be 50% unless the employees have stock, in which case it might be more like 40% or something), and especially if you're a startup, you're going to have a hard time providing that money from the start, and there will usually be a payment plan arrangement to pay the balance owed.

Unless you can prove to a judge that the partner was breaching some kind of agreement or was working criminally, you are obligated to pay whatever equity that partner has in the corporation if they leave.

Chances are this is what the business partner is doing to suck the business dry, and yes, the business partner is entitled to do this and there's nothing the owner can do, besides scuttle the whole corporation and declare bankruptcy.

[HYHYBT]

And if we're talking specifically fast food, I'm still in mourning for the $0.99 value menu at Wendy's. And a combo there now will run at least $8. Now I have no idea what they pay their workers, so that may or may not be part of the price increase. But I think the larger part is Wendy's trying to rebrand themselves as less fast food and more akin to fast casual like Panera.

They can do both... but you can't hold a price point forever, and there's only so far they could shrink the products. (For example, it used to be the "Biggie" fries, about the size of a McDonald's large today.) Wendy's had the 99¢ menu at least as far back as 1990. It's not that they don't want to keep an affordable line alongside the bigger/fancier stuff, but that there's not much you can sell for that price and remain profitable.

[jedimaster91]

If you find that your business partner is incompetent or unwilling to be worthwhile to the point you have to kick the person out of the arrangement, it's not as easy as simply firing the individual. You have to effectively buy back the equity they have in the company (which for a partnership is usually going to be 50% unless the employees have stock, in which case it might be more like 40% or something), and especially if you're a startup, you're going to have a hard time providing that money from the start, and there will usually be a payment plan arrangement to pay the balance owed.

<snip>

Chances are this is what the business partner is doing to suck the business dry, and yes, the business partner is entitled to do this and there's nothing the owner can do, besides scuttle the whole corporation and declare bankruptcy.

That's essentially what's going on and the former business partner is not willing to negotiate on what the payment arrangements are. Which is his legal right, but it makes him....somewhat unpleasant to deal with. I don't know under what circumstances he left, though. All of that happened long before Mr Jedi started working there. As the accountant, he was just the poor sod who inherited the mess.

[Judecat]

I really don't think that raising the minimum wage gradually like they are doing is going to hurt the retail mom and pop stores all that much. First of all, we are usually talking less than 10 employees, and second of all the huge mark up on things. The difference between what my boss pays for a carton of cigarettes and what we charge for a carton of cigarettes is obscene. Even with the state taxes added it's something like a 400% mark up. We pay like $1.00 each for fresh made sandwiches and charge $4.50 each. The only thing we are not making obscene profits on is the gas.

Now for the employee side of things -- in 1971 I was making minimum wage -- and I could afford an entire two bedroom apartment, utilities transportation to and from work, enough groceries to feed me and my cat, medical expenses, including eyeglasses, and could still afford nice cloths and I went to the movies a couple times a week. I am currently making minimum wage, and I can afford to rent a room in someones house, untilities included, transportation to and from work, things like shampoo and denture adhesive, and about half the food I need. I get food stamps for the rest, I get my glasses and medical from the VA, and I have no money in my pocket at the end of the week. My cloths are all hand me downs, and I haven't been to the movies since the last Harry Potter movie.

So yeah, I think minimum wage needs to be raised, and then maybe I'll be able to buy my own food instead of making the tax payers pay.

[Food Lady]

From the comments exemplified in the Banter article:

don’t get knocked up in the 10th grade and have to drop out of high school and work at McDonald’s. God damn I hate stupid people”
“Fuck the poors, all they ever do is whine and blame their problems on others”
“Maybe if these idiots paid attention/ went to school they’d understand basic concepts such as supply and demand or inflation. Raising the minimum wage to $15 isn’t going to help anyone. Learn a fucking skill other than rolling blunts and drinking 40s.”
“Fuck these people…the majority of people who work at McDonald’s as a “real job” are fuckin immigrants and already get extra benefits from the government…not to mention McDonald’s offers these fuckin clowns benefits, go work in a fuckin pizza place 70 hours a week with no benefits and see what that’s like”

In all the time I worked fast food, absolutely NONE of those things applied to me. And when did fast food ever offer benefits??

[Racket_Man]

In all the time I worked fast food, absolutely NONE of those things applied to me. And when did fast food ever offer benefits??

IT depends on the company and/or the franchise. My pizza place (A red roof pizza franchise) used to offer decent well priced real health insurance, vacation time for those who worked (averaging over a 12 month period) over 20 hours a week, free on shift meals (reasonable amount of course), and an off-the-clock discount on food. When my store was corporate owned even drivers got raises AND drivers could receive Safe Driving Bonuses based on the number of hours worked without an accident or ticket (eg. you worked 2000 hours accident/ticket free you got a $1000 bonus)

BUT yes now-a-days you are correct --- What benefits????

[KabeRinnaul]

In all the time I worked fast food, absolutely NONE of those things applied to me. And when did fast food ever offer benefits??

In my experience, the people who make comments like those fall into one of two groups:

1) Older people who worked those entry-level jobs in the 70s and 80s when they were actually pretty good places to be, and either don't realize or ignore that the economy has changed.
2) Younger people who have actually never worked any bottom-rung job (or any job at all) and just parrot their older relatives' (see above) opinions on the matter.

I suppose there's a third option of "people who take everything Glenn Beck says as gospel", but I imagine that group overlaps with the first one a lot.

[s_stabeler]

Not to mention that the entire purpose of the Minimum Wage is, in fact, to make sure that people get paid enough to live on. (it's why the US is one of the few countries that allows tips to be offset against minimum wage. In most places, tips are a bonus- where there is even a custom to tip people like servers- not effectively a separate charge for a server. ) if people are unable to earn enough to live on at a job without working ridiculous hours or having some other means of support, that job is underpaid. (if you think about it, it is only separated from sweatshop labour in degree.) (by unable to earn enough to live on, I mean where an unexpected financial issue would cause you to need to (for example) skip meals to keep from running out of money, where the issue is not due to financial mismanagement (large amount of debt, for instance)

in short, the minimum wage should be at a level where you can afford to live without relying on benefits. (when companies are routinely telling their workers to apply for food stamps, that company is not paying said workers enough.)

[TheHuckster]

1) Older people who worked those entry-level jobs in the 70s and 80s when they were actually pretty good places to be, and either don't realize or ignore that the economy has changed.

Even the argument that the economy back then was different doesn't really hold much water. There was a minimum wage in the 70s and 80s, too, and back then it was at levels more consistent with a $9-$10 minimum wage. Between 1970 and 1980, the federal minimum wage gradually went from about $1.25 to just under $3, to account for the rapid inflation during that time. Nowadays there is still some adjustments, but not nearly enough to offset the rising cost of living.

People against raising the minimum wage seem to have this flawed and incorrect belief that it's some newfangled idea that progressive liberals have cooked up in the last 5 years.

[Greenday]

People against raising the minimum wage seem to have this flawed and incorrect belief that it's some newfangled idea that progressive liberals have cooked up in the last 5 years.

I've never seen that attitude from anyone against raising the minimum wage.

Main argument I see is that minimum wage jobs aren't meant to be full-time jobs to support a human being. They are meant to be for high school and college kids or people looking for extra income.

[s_stabeler]

which is again, false. the minimum wage is supposed to be so that, if you have a job, you can live off your wages. (which is why, in the UK, there is a lower minimum wage for those under 18)

the thing is, somewhat predictably, businesses, like most other forms of worker protection, have been undermining the Minimum Wage for decades now. (At Will Employment, for example, was a massive coup for those who want to be able to abuse their workers, since it allows them to terminate employees without giving a reason- oh, and 'I felt like it' is considered a legitimate reason to terminate someone. On the other hand, what does the employee get out of it? they already had the ability to quit at any time.(they can't dock your pay for quitting w/o notice- or rather, they must pay you for the time you worked up until you quit- and that was the case before At-Will employment.)) hence them portraying Minimum Wage as for people earning a bit of extra income. (while, incidentally, making more and more jobs pay only the minimum wage.)

Oh, and another argument against the fact that minimum wage jobs are for kids earning extra income? There are several job ads for minimum wage jobs that list a degree as a requirement for the job. Regardless of if the degree is actually necessary to the job or not, that means businesses are paying the minimum wage- which, according to your statement, greenday, is for kids making a bit of extra income- in situations where it would be physically impossible to afford to live on it- and, through the job requirements, are only employing people so desperate that they are willing to take a job where, in order to pay the bills, they would need to, by my calculation, get in from work, eat, then go straight to bed. (and the equivalent in the mornings) Oh, and this still means you don't get enough sleep. And have to work 6 days a week. And cannot have any dependants. And can't afford to miss a single day of work. (which is why I think that sick days- where you call off because you are sick- should be paid. if someone is abusing sick leave, then if it means they can't do the job- and the company can prove that the average person can- then they can be terminated at that point. Same for paid vacation- at least allow people some paid time off each year in which they can destress. (for example, in the UK, everyone gets at least 5.6 weeks PTO per year, including bank holidays. (capped at 28 days, at least as the legal minimum is concerned- so someone working a -day week doesn't get 33.6 days) You can, of course, implement reasonable restrictions on when employees take time off- like not allowing people to take Black Friday off, and requiring you to request time off in advance- you just can't, for example, force people to give a reason for using their time off. (unless, for example, they want BF off, then you can ask for a reason. You just can't effectively make employees beg to actually get their time off)

[TheHuckster]

I've never seen that attitude from anyone against raising the minimum wage.

I've heard it more implied than anything. The people I've talked to who are against raising the minimum wage reminisce about the "old days" when we weren't talking about this kind of stuff... even though, you know, we kinda were.

At Will Employment, for example, was a massive coup for those who want to be able to abuse their workers, since it allows them to terminate employees without giving a reason- oh, and 'I felt like it' is considered a legitimate reason to terminate someone.

At-will still doesn't allow discrimination, and if a worker can prove discrimination, the employer can get in trouble for it. But, of course, a worker can't always prove discrimination since it's often based on hearsay.

If we start policing every employer's firing decisions beyond discrimination, I think it could make for excessive litigation and red tape. Yes, there would be a lot of easy slam dunk cases like if an employee was habitually late or didn't show up, or was stealing, but what about other cases like the employer's budget not allowing them to afford the labor anymore, or if it's seasonal work? Would they have to give all of their financial statements to government beancounters to determine if they truly couldn't afford the payroll? And what about simple poor performance, which can often be subjective and based on their own policies and quotas, some of which can't really be measured depending on the nature of their job?

Employers already use flaky reasons to fire people they don't like, even in at-will jobs. If they don't like an employee, they just have to wait for them to make some human mistake like shorting the register $5 or being "rude" to an SC, and that's what they'll go by. If an employee who feels they were fired unjustly, it will be difficult to prove those cases in court.