Walmart on Welfare: We support their employees so they don't have to.

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

True enough House, but that won't work in our nation. For one very simple reason.

We will NEVER just allow people to starve to death, I mean as in our government won't. Welfare is never going away. It may change , and adjust , but no one who ever wants to do away with it entirely is ever going to be elected to any position to be able to do so.



Therefor, we artificially have people who are willing to work for a low wage.

Let's take a theoretical family with two parents and two kids, both parents working full time for $8 an hour.

That's 8 * 4160 hours or $34k a year before taxes. That family would qualify for somewhere in the neighborhood of $10K in welfare if one includes SNAP, and subsidized school lunches, etc etc.

That $10K a year makes it MUCH MUCH easier for companies to pay lousy wages. Take that away and people are going to be "what the fuck? No I need $10K more in pay."

Now, here's the sad part. That extra $10K that would put those people above the welfare threshold, would cost each of their employees an extra $2.40 an hour.

I agree, turn off welfare and employers would be forced to pay more. But we aren't turning off welfare.

Alright then, here's a solution you'll be hard pressed to argue.

Leave welfare alone, and destroy the minimum wage. Make those on welfare work a certain number of hours according to their physical abilities, even if it is a $1/hour job, supplemented by SNAP, AFDC, SSI, etc.

People would quickly come to decide that they might as well make a decent wage if they have to work anyway, and the number of people on the dole would shrink considerably.

Wow you come up with that all on your own?
The problem is that with a high min wage, those people arent employable. The cost to create work for them to do would be greater than just sending them money. And the rolls of Disability would swell considerably. Plus anyone proposing it would be called mean and heartless.
IOW, it's a non starter.

Has been claimed every time the minimum wage is increased.

Hasn't came true yet.

See, what you and your fellow morons don't seem to understand is that a minimum wage increase is inevitable. It's going to happen, no matter how much you scream "no no no"

The only you are accomplishing is assuring that you have no voice in how MUCH of an increase happens.

The minimum wage increase hasn't have significant repercussions, because it's never been raise to a meaningful level. That's why I'd actually like to the dimwits supporting it shoot for the moon. If people really believe minimum wage has no negative repercussions, why not raise it to something truly 'liveable'? We should set the minimum wage at $30/hr and watch what happens. Maybe then they'd get it.

How ignorant, you'd cut off your nose to spite your neighbor's face.

 

[dblack]

True enough House, but that won't work in our nation. For one very simple reason.

We will NEVER just allow people to starve to death, I mean as in our government won't. Welfare is never going away. It may change , and adjust , but no one who ever wants to do away with it entirely is ever going to be elected to any position to be able to do so.



Therefor, we artificially have people who are willing to work for a low wage.

Let's take a theoretical family with two parents and two kids, both parents working full time for $8 an hour.

That's 8 * 4160 hours or $34k a year before taxes. That family would qualify for somewhere in the neighborhood of $10K in welfare if one includes SNAP, and subsidized school lunches, etc etc.

That $10K a year makes it MUCH MUCH easier for companies to pay lousy wages. Take that away and people are going to be "what the fuck? No I need $10K more in pay."

Now, here's the sad part. That extra $10K that would put those people above the welfare threshold, would cost each of their employees an extra $2.40 an hour.

I agree, turn off welfare and employers would be forced to pay more. But we aren't turning off welfare.

Alright then, here's a solution you'll be hard pressed to argue.

Leave welfare alone, and destroy the minimum wage. Make those on welfare work a certain number of hours according to their physical abilities, even if it is a $1/hour job, supplemented by SNAP, AFDC, SSI, etc.

People would quickly come to decide that they might as well make a decent wage if they have to work anyway, and the number of people on the dole would shrink considerably.

Wow you come up with that all on your own?
The problem is that with a high min wage, those people arent employable. The cost to create work for them to do would be greater than just sending them money. And the rolls of Disability would swell considerably. Plus anyone proposing it would be called mean and heartless.
IOW, it's a non starter.

Has been claimed every time the minimum wage is increased.

Hasn't came true yet.

See, what you and your fellow morons don't seem to understand is that a minimum wage increase is inevitable. It's going to happen, no matter how much you scream "no no no"

The only you are accomplishing is assuring that you have no voice in how MUCH of an increase happens.

The minimum wage increase hasn't have significant repercussions, because it's never been raise to a meaningful level. That's why I'd actually like to the dimwits supporting it shoot for the moon. If people really believe minimum wage has no negative repercussions, why not raise it to something truly 'liveable'? We should set the minimum wage at $30/hr and watch what happens. Maybe then they'd get it.

How ignorant, you'd cut off your nose to spite your neighbor's face.

How so? It would last about a week and be repealed through some emergency legislation. Call it 'shock therapy'.

 

[dblack]

We need some way to get people to understand that the value of work isn't set by government and it isn't set by corporations. It's set by us. The reason burger flippers don't make enough to live on is because we don't value burger flipping that much. If it cost much more, we'd flip our own burgers, and then burger flippers wouldn't make any money at all. And I guess some idiots think that would be an improvement. I really don't get it. I suppose it's just par for the course with people who think government can work miracles by passing laws.

 

[The Rabbi]

We need some way to get people to understand that the value of work isn't set by government and it isn't set by corporations. It's set by us. The reason burger flippers don't make enough to live on is because we don't value burger flipping that much. If it cost much more, we'd flip our own burgers, and then burger flippers wouldn't make any money at all. And I guess some idiots think that would be an improvement. I really don't get it. I suppose it's just par for the course with people who think government can work miracles by passing laws.

I think we've found the problem!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

We need some way to get people to understand that the value of work isn't set by government and it isn't set by corporations. It's set by us. The reason burger flippers don't make enough to live on is because we don't value burger flipping that much. If it cost much more, we'd flip our own burgers, and then burger flippers wouldn't make any money at all. And I guess some idiots think that would be an improvement. I really don't get it. I suppose it's just par for the course with people who think government can work miracles by passing laws.

Right now, the value of work is certainly set by the government, at least at the lower end. That's why you see so many companies in so many industries paying at or right next to minimum wage.

Look , the burger flippers? They are idiots. you know this and I know this, as a rule they are being overpaid at $7.25 an hour.

They need a cash register with pictures on it, and even then they don't get your order right

They have no idea how to count back change

They often look like morons who just rolled out of bed and should be nowhere near food that I'm' going to eat.

They don't clean their restaurants

I could go on and on

And you know what? These fast food places LOVE that type of employee , because they can pay them jack diddly while hiring a couple good workers and paying them jack diddly as well and still sell lots of fast food. Meanwhile , we're supporting the loser employees with welfare. What is not to love for BOTH parties involved?

The ONLY person not getting what they want is you and I. We're getting screwed on both ends.

You move the minimum wage up to $10 an hour and suddenly fast food has to say "wait a minute, we're not paying losers $10 an hour" and they fire the losers, and hire GOOD workers who are now earning enough that they don't qualify for welfare.

The losers who refuse to make themselves worth $10 an hour? I don't care , they can starve...

 

[dblack]

We need some way to get people to understand that the value of work isn't set by government and it isn't set by corporations. It's set by us. The reason burger flippers don't make enough to live on is because we don't value burger flipping that much. If it cost much more, we'd flip our own burgers, and then burger flippers wouldn't make any money at all. And I guess some idiots think that would be an improvement. I really don't get it. I suppose it's just par for the course with people who think government can work miracles by passing laws.

Right now, the value of work is certainly set by the government, at least at the lower end. That's why you see so many companies in so many industries paying at or right next to minimum wage.

Look , the burger flippers? They are idiots. you know this and I know this, as a rule they are being overpaid at $7.25 an hour.

They need a cash register with pictures on it, and even then they don't get your order right

They have no idea how to count back change

They often look like morons who just rolled out of bed and should be nowhere near food that I'm' going to eat.

They don't clean their restaurants

I could go on and on

And you know what? These fast food places LOVE that type of employee , because they can pay them jack diddly while hiring a couple good workers and paying them jack diddly as well and still sell lots of fast food. Meanwhile , we're supporting the loser employees with welfare. What is not to love for BOTH parties involved?

The ONLY person not getting what they want is you and I. We're getting screwed on both ends.

You move the minimum wage up to $10 an hour and suddenly fast food has to say "wait a minute, we're not paying losers $10 an hour" and they fire the losers, and hire GOOD workers who are now earning enough that they don't qualify for welfare.

The losers who refuse to make themselves worth $10 an hour? I don't care , they can starve...

First of all, no, the government doesn't set the value of work, it sets the price. And in doing that, all it really does is outlaw labor that isn't worth that minimum price. And I while I realize that the point of that is actually fairly close to what you're highlighting here - ie to keep the 'losers' in their place - I think it's wrong.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

We need some way to get people to understand that the value of work isn't set by government and it isn't set by corporations. It's set by us. The reason burger flippers don't make enough to live on is because we don't value burger flipping that much. If it cost much more, we'd flip our own burgers, and then burger flippers wouldn't make any money at all. And I guess some idiots think that would be an improvement. I really don't get it. I suppose it's just par for the course with people who think government can work miracles by passing laws.

Right now, the value of work is certainly set by the government, at least at the lower end. That's why you see so many companies in so many industries paying at or right next to minimum wage.

Look , the burger flippers? They are idiots. you know this and I know this, as a rule they are being overpaid at $7.25 an hour.

They need a cash register with pictures on it, and even then they don't get your order right

They have no idea how to count back change

They often look like morons who just rolled out of bed and should be nowhere near food that I'm' going to eat.

They don't clean their restaurants

I could go on and on

And you know what? These fast food places LOVE that type of employee , because they can pay them jack diddly while hiring a couple good workers and paying them jack diddly as well and still sell lots of fast food. Meanwhile , we're supporting the loser employees with welfare. What is not to love for BOTH parties involved?

The ONLY person not getting what they want is you and I. We're getting screwed on both ends.

You move the minimum wage up to $10 an hour and suddenly fast food has to say "wait a minute, we're not paying losers $10 an hour" and they fire the losers, and hire GOOD workers who are now earning enough that they don't qualify for welfare.

The losers who refuse to make themselves worth $10 an hour? I don't care , they can starve...

First of all, no, the government doesn't set the value of work, it sets the price. And in doing that, all it really does is outlaw labor that isn't worth that minimum price. And I while I realize that the point of that is actually fairly close to what you're highlighting here - ie to keep the 'losers' in their place - I think it's wrong.

You're correct. I've said that enough times in the thread that the minimum wage has nothing to do with the value of a job, that I should have been clearer this time.

But I don't think the goal is "to keep the losers in their place" I think it is to encourage them to stop being losers.

I just happened to be hanging around the restaurant when a guy came in looking for a job today. We're hiring. Now this guy was

A) wearing sweatpants and a white tshirt that both looked and smelled like he had slept in

B) had unruly hair

C) Had a nose piercing , and a eyebrow piercing

D) had tattooes all over his face

E) came wandering in at 2 in the afternoon , looking for a job

F) had his kid with him, who by the way looked like he hadn't eaten in 2 days, or bathed

G) Admitted to me that he used illegal drugs

H) Had a felony conviction.

Ordinarily I'm a completely silent partner. And ordinarily our general manager would have ran this guy off never giving him a chance.

But I was bored so I took a few minutes to talk to this kid.

Long story short, he's a loser. But, my one weakness is kids. I mean this guy did EVERYTHING a person should not do when going in somewhere to find a job though. I mean NOTHING about this guy said "hire me" and we start at $10 an hour.

I really just got the impression that this 22 year old kid didn't know ANYTHING about how to get a job. I mean my God by the time I was 22 I had been in a war and had a college degree and was in charge of base security for an Army base with 5,000 soldiers on it.

Okay, anyway I said this would a short story. I hired the kid as a dishwasher. But made it plain to him, that he would show up clean and ready to work ON TIME with no room for mistakes, zero tolerance for fuck ups.

Anyway, my point is should have I told that kid to go fuck himself since there is a very good likelihood that he will never prove himself to be worth $10 an hour?

 

[dblack]

We need some way to get people to understand that the value of work isn't set by government and it isn't set by corporations. It's set by us. The reason burger flippers don't make enough to live on is because we don't value burger flipping that much. If it cost much more, we'd flip our own burgers, and then burger flippers wouldn't make any money at all. And I guess some idiots think that would be an improvement. I really don't get it. I suppose it's just par for the course with people who think government can work miracles by passing laws.

Right now, the value of work is certainly set by the government, at least at the lower end. That's why you see so many companies in so many industries paying at or right next to minimum wage.

Look , the burger flippers? They are idiots. you know this and I know this, as a rule they are being overpaid at $7.25 an hour.

They need a cash register with pictures on it, and even then they don't get your order right

They have no idea how to count back change

They often look like morons who just rolled out of bed and should be nowhere near food that I'm' going to eat.

They don't clean their restaurants

I could go on and on

And you know what? These fast food places LOVE that type of employee , because they can pay them jack diddly while hiring a couple good workers and paying them jack diddly as well and still sell lots of fast food. Meanwhile , we're supporting the loser employees with welfare. What is not to love for BOTH parties involved?

The ONLY person not getting what they want is you and I. We're getting screwed on both ends.

You move the minimum wage up to $10 an hour and suddenly fast food has to say "wait a minute, we're not paying losers $10 an hour" and they fire the losers, and hire GOOD workers who are now earning enough that they don't qualify for welfare.

The losers who refuse to make themselves worth $10 an hour? I don't care , they can starve...

First of all, no, the government doesn't set the value of work, it sets the price. And in doing that, all it really does is outlaw labor that isn't worth that minimum price. And I while I realize that the point of that is actually fairly close to what you're highlighting here - ie to keep the 'losers' in their place - I think it's wrong.

You're correct. I've said that enough times in the thread that the minimum wage has nothing to do with the value of a job, that I should have been clearer this time.

But I don't think the goal is "to keep the losers in their place" I think it is to encourage them to stop being losers.

I honestly appreciate your candor here, because we need to be clear on what the point is. I think that most of the compassionate people who support policies like minimum wage are being conned. They think it's about taking care of misfits and people who don't measure up. They don't understand how deeply authoritarian and manipulative policies like minimum wage, and most of the welfare state zeitgeist, really are. It's not about helping people. It's about coercing them to conform. It's about controlling the underclasses and making sure they are compliant - because we've taken away their freedom to fend for themselves.

I just happened to be hanging around the restaurant when a guy came in looking for a job today. We're hiring. Now this guy was

A) wearing sweatpants and a white tshirt that both looked and smelled like he had slept in

B) had unruly hair

C) Had a nose piercing , and a eyebrow piercing

D) had tattooes all over his face

E) came wandering in at 2 in the afternoon , looking for a job

F) had his kid with him, who by the way looked like he hadn't eaten in 2 days, or bathed

G) Admitted to me that he used illegal drugs

H) Had a felony conviction.

Ordinarily I'm a completely silent partner. And ordinarily our general manager would have ran this guy off never giving him a chance.

But I was bored so I took a few minutes to talk to this kid.

Long story short, he's a loser. But, my one weakness is kids. I mean this guy did EVERYTHING a person should not do when going in somewhere to find a job though. I mean NOTHING about this guy said "hire me" and we start at $10 an hour.

I really just got the impression that this 22 year old kid didn't know ANYTHING about how to get a job. I mean my God by the time I was 22 I had been in a war and had a college degree and was in charge of base security for an Army base with 5,000 soldiers on it.

Okay, anyway I said this would a short story. I hired the kid as a dishwasher. But made it plain to him, that he would show up clean and ready to work ON TIME with no room for mistakes, zero tolerance for fuck ups.

Anyway, my point is should have I told that kid to go fuck himself since there is a very good likelihood that he will never prove himself to be worth $10 an hour?

You should have done whatever would benefit your company and your customers the most. If you think this kid is a loser who doesn't deserve a job, then you make the call. Either offer him a lower wage, or don't hire him. Just don't ask government to make the decision for you. Or for everyone else.

 

[House]

True enough House, but that won't work in our nation. For one very simple reason.

We will NEVER just allow people to starve to death, I mean as in our government won't. Welfare is never going away. It may change , and adjust , but no one who ever wants to do away with it entirely is ever going to be elected to any position to be able to do so.

Therefor, we artificially have people who are willing to work for a low wage.

Let's take a theoretical family with two parents and two kids, both parents working full time for $8 an hour.

That's 8 * 4160 hours or $34k a year before taxes. That family would qualify for somewhere in the neighborhood of $10K in welfare if one includes SNAP, and subsidized school lunches, etc etc.

That $10K a year makes it MUCH MUCH easier for companies to pay lousy wages. Take that away and people are going to be "what the fuck? No I need $10K more in pay."

Now, here's the sad part. That extra $10K that would put those people above the welfare threshold, would cost each of their employees an extra $2.40 an hour.

I agree, turn off welfare and employers would be forced to pay more. But we aren't turning off welfare.

Alright then, here's a solution you'll be hard pressed to argue.

Leave welfare alone, and destroy the minimum wage. Make those on welfare work a certain number of hours according to their physical abilities, even if it is a $1/hour job, supplemented by SNAP, AFDC, SSI, etc.

People would quickly come to decide that they might as well make a decent wage if they have to work anyway, and the number of people on the dole would shrink considerably.

Wow you come up with that all on your own?
The problem is that with a high min wage, those people arent employable. The cost to create work for them to do would be greater than just sending them money. And the rolls of Disability would swell considerably. Plus anyone proposing it would be called mean and heartless.
IOW, it's a non starter.

Your reading comprehension sucks almost as badly as your ability to reason.

 

[House]

We need some way to get people to understand that the value of work isn't set by government and it isn't set by corporations. It's set by us.

Here's one who gets it!

 

[The Rabbi]

True enough House, but that won't work in our nation. For one very simple reason.

We will NEVER just allow people to starve to death, I mean as in our government won't. Welfare is never going away. It may change , and adjust , but no one who ever wants to do away with it entirely is ever going to be elected to any position to be able to do so.

Therefor, we artificially have people who are willing to work for a low wage.

Let's take a theoretical family with two parents and two kids, both parents working full time for $8 an hour.

That's 8 * 4160 hours or $34k a year before taxes. That family would qualify for somewhere in the neighborhood of $10K in welfare if one includes SNAP, and subsidized school lunches, etc etc.

That $10K a year makes it MUCH MUCH easier for companies to pay lousy wages. Take that away and people are going to be "what the fuck? No I need $10K more in pay."

Now, here's the sad part. That extra $10K that would put those people above the welfare threshold, would cost each of their employees an extra $2.40 an hour.

I agree, turn off welfare and employers would be forced to pay more. But we aren't turning off welfare.

Alright then, here's a solution you'll be hard pressed to argue.

Leave welfare alone, and destroy the minimum wage. Make those on welfare work a certain number of hours according to their physical abilities, even if it is a $1/hour job, supplemented by SNAP, AFDC, SSI, etc.

People would quickly come to decide that they might as well make a decent wage if they have to work anyway, and the number of people on the dole would shrink considerably.

Wow you come up with that all on your own?
The problem is that with a high min wage, those people arent employable. The cost to create work for them to do would be greater than just sending them money. And the rolls of Disability would swell considerably. Plus anyone proposing it would be called mean and heartless.
IOW, it's a non starter.

Your reading comprehension sucks almost as badly as your ability to reason.

Translation: I've got nothing.
True, you dont.

 

[House]

True enough House, but that won't work in our nation. For one very simple reason.

We will NEVER just allow people to starve to death, I mean as in our government won't. Welfare is never going away. It may change , and adjust , but no one who ever wants to do away with it entirely is ever going to be elected to any position to be able to do so.

Therefor, we artificially have people who are willing to work for a low wage.

Let's take a theoretical family with two parents and two kids, both parents working full time for $8 an hour.

That's 8 * 4160 hours or $34k a year before taxes. That family would qualify for somewhere in the neighborhood of $10K in welfare if one includes SNAP, and subsidized school lunches, etc etc.

That $10K a year makes it MUCH MUCH easier for companies to pay lousy wages. Take that away and people are going to be "what the fuck? No I need $10K more in pay."

Now, here's the sad part. That extra $10K that would put those people above the welfare threshold, would cost each of their employees an extra $2.40 an hour.

I agree, turn off welfare and employers would be forced to pay more. But we aren't turning off welfare.

Alright then, here's a solution you'll be hard pressed to argue.

Leave welfare alone, and destroy the minimum wage. Make those on welfare work a certain number of hours according to their physical abilities, even if it is a $1/hour job, supplemented by SNAP, AFDC, SSI, etc.

People would quickly come to decide that they might as well make a decent wage if they have to work anyway, and the number of people on the dole would shrink considerably.

Wow you come up with that all on your own?
The problem is that with a high min wage, those people arent employable. The cost to create work for them to do would be greater than just sending them money. And the rolls of Disability would swell considerably. Plus anyone proposing it would be called mean and heartless.
IOW, it's a non starter.

Your reading comprehension sucks almost as badly as your ability to reason.

Translation: I've got nothing.
True, you dont.

Brought to you by the dumbass that thinks I'm advocating a high minimum wage.

Enough fucking said.

 

[Andylusion]

We need some way to get people to understand that the value of work isn't set by government and it isn't set by corporations. It's set by us. The reason burger flippers don't make enough to live on is because we don't value burger flipping that much. If it cost much more, we'd flip our own burgers, and then burger flippers wouldn't make any money at all. And I guess some idiots think that would be an improvement. I really don't get it. I suppose it's just par for the course with people who think government can work miracles by passing laws.

Right now, the value of work is certainly set by the government, at least at the lower end. That's why you see so many companies in so many industries paying at or right next to minimum wage.

Look , the burger flippers? They are idiots. you know this and I know this, as a rule they are being overpaid at $7.25 an hour.

They need a cash register with pictures on it, and even then they don't get your order right

They have no idea how to count back change

They often look like morons who just rolled out of bed and should be nowhere near food that I'm' going to eat.

They don't clean their restaurants

I could go on and on

And you know what? These fast food places LOVE that type of employee , because they can pay them jack diddly while hiring a couple good workers and paying them jack diddly as well and still sell lots of fast food. Meanwhile , we're supporting the loser employees with welfare. What is not to love for BOTH parties involved?

The ONLY person not getting what they want is you and I. We're getting screwed on both ends.

You move the minimum wage up to $10 an hour and suddenly fast food has to say "wait a minute, we're not paying losers $10 an hour" and they fire the losers, and hire GOOD workers who are now earning enough that they don't qualify for welfare.

The losers who refuse to make themselves worth $10 an hour? I don't care , they can starve...

That's where you and me disagree. I've worked at McDonald's, worked at Wendy's, worked at Subway.

I've been with the managers, been with the store managers, and even when to an OSU football game with the store owner.

None of them have ever suggested anything like what you say. Not one said "We LOVE that type of employee, because we can pay them jack diddly while hiring a couple good workers and paying them jack diddly as well and still sell lots of fast food".

It's simply not true. I mean possibly there's a few stores like that somewhere, but generally... employers HATE that kind of employee. When I was a manager, I hated that kind of employee for sure.

I keep asking this... what low-margin store have you run in your life, that you think you know what other people are thinking? You don't. Get over yourself Capital Judgement. You don't know.

My store, loved to give people raises. The problem was, no one worked hard to get a raise. We had guys that every 30 minutes, would just walk off the line, and light up a cigarette out back.

And see, you think that the reason people are lousy workers is because they are not paid enough. That these lazy worthless, thieves, would magically become model employees, if we paid them more money. That's simply not true.

We had a store down town where the starting wage was $10.00/hr. Now this is back in the 90s, when the minimum wage was $4.25. The owners of these franchises had more problems with bad employees there, than at my Wendy's. Why?

Because my Wendy's was in an upper middle class neighborhood. Wealthy people, tend to pass on the traits and work ethic that made them wealthy, onto their kids. So even though they were paid minimum wage, they still showed up, generally on time, worked the entire time, didn't steal, and also didn't attack the manager. (we had an inner city kid, who rode the bus to work there, flip out on the manager, and I remember thinking 'and you wonder why you stay poor...').

So the owner decided that from then on, he would only higher for his downtown restaurant, from the best employees of his smaller stores. He found out, that just paying people more didn't make them good employees. Good employees were good when they earned minimum wage, and when they earned a ton more.

A bad employee, doesn't become great, when they can earn more. It SEEMS like that, because when you go to a place with higher wages, you tend to find better quality people, but that's not because bad people were magically transformed into good people. It's because higher paying jobs tend to attract higher quality employees, and the employer weeds out the bad employees.

If you need more proof of this, just go look at trade skill training for prison inmates. An ex-convicted trained in pipefitting, and the reincarceration rate, among trained prisoners, is still what... 70%? Starter rate for a apprentice is $30K, and the average is $44K or whatever? So why do they end up back in prison? Why didn't the money magically make them into model employees?

Because it doesn't. That's all there is to it.

It doesn't work.

And BTW....... why did the owner pay people $10/hr starting wage downtown? Why did he do that? He didn't have to. There was no law. He could have started out people minimum wage down town too. Why was he paying the burger flipper $10 to flip a burger down town, and yet paid me a $4/hr out in the suburbs?

Again this isn't some deep physiological insight. It's not some super hidden agenda. You don't need a Ph.D, from MIT or Harvard, nor a team of government scientists working on grants......

Dur..... the Down Town store did 5X the business. It's that simple. Down town, you had people stumbling in at nearly all hours. And at 11 to 1, and from 4 until 6, the places was packed with lines out the door.

Where I worked, I can remember counting FIVE CARS between 1 PM and 4 PM. (not every single day, but routinely it was terribly low). During that time, the store likely lost money on payroll, and lost food (burnt dried fries, and bad burgers tossed out). And then you wonder why wages are low? Seriously?