And you want $15 an hour?

[PredFan]

As you are the one who is brain dead, the Happy Meal comes with a small drink, not a medium, not a large, and since I fill it up myself, I can put whatever I want to in it.

Actually, you can upsize the drink in the Happy Meal. But I wouldn't expect you to know that.

Oh for Pete's sake. She handed me a kid's meal cup but asked me what KIND of drink I wanted. Which is silly because she doesn't fill it, I do.

 

[PredFan]

The thing that makes me laugh ultimately is that all of the politicians know that this is a stupid idea. Even the Democrat politicians. But they must appeal to their ignorant base so they make it appear that they support increasing the MW to $15/hour when they really have no intention of letting that happen.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows it's naive at best, and economic suicide at worst.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Of course that opinion supports your point, and doesn't necessarily reflect reality.

That is pretty funny, someone using a personal anecdotal experience to support a claim is quick to reject someone with a different personal anecdotal experience as reflecting reality.

 

[SteadyMercury]

We attend school during summers. No three months off for us - which I think is ridiculous, anyway.

Actually in the United States most kids who eventually ended up in a dead end career as an 30 year fast food worker like you probably spent most of their summers in school too.

 

[Mr Natural]

The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 gradually raised the federal minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour and shortly afterwards the economy crashed.

Hey, maybe they're onto something.

 

[Againsheila]

By paying $15/hr, how many employees' salaries are we going to change? Do we double everyone's salary? What about the guy that's worked hard for 4 years to become manager and earn $16 an hour? Does he get a raise as well or do newbies get paid the same?

He can live on $16 an hour. Those on less than half of that cannot.

But they can... What other factors play into this? If a single person just simply works 40 hours a week at minimum wage, they are no longer in poverty. If husband and wife do that they are nearly double the poverty level according to Health and Human Services. But the minimum wage was not meant to be "livable". I earned minimum wage picking up range balls at a golf course when I was 12 years old. It is sad when people expect to earning living wages for work a 12 year old can do...

Yes, it was intended to be livable. That's why it was set at a rate that would support a family of 3 above the poverty level when it was first implemented.

 

[SteadyMercury]

It is livable.

You need some roommates, shop at Goodwill, cook efficiently, take public transportation, etc.

 

[Flopper]

The thing that makes me laugh ultimately is that all of the politicians know that this is a stupid idea. Even the Democrat politicians. But they must appeal to their ignorant base so they make it appear that they support increasing the MW to $15/hour when they really have no intention of letting that happen.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows it's naive at best, and economic suicide at worst.

No, everyone doesn't know it's a stupid idea.

In a perfectly competitive market, anything that raises the wage above a level at which the supply of workers equals the demand for them will create unemployment. But a perfectly competitive labor market requires that neither workers nor firms have bargaining power; that everyone has all the necessary information; that workers are a commodity, rather than different people with different skills and a need to be motivated; and that there are no frictions preventing supply from matching demand. In a survey of 40 leading economists including both prominent liberals and conservatives, only about a third agreed that raising the minimum wage would make it harder for low-skilled workers to find employment.

When economists have analyzed the data, many have found few, if any, negative effects of a minimum wage on employment. This has shifted some of the thinking in the profession — and pointed to flaws in a perfectly competitive model.

Paying workers more often leads them to feel better about their work and reduces stress, both of which increase productivity. And when workers produce more, employers’ labor costs fall. Companies such as Costco have figured this out, and voluntarily pay higher wages. Other firms may not care whether they pay less and get less from their workers, or pay more and get more.

Five myths about the minimum wage - The Washington Post

 

[Againsheila]

It is livable.

You need some roommates, shop at Goodwill, cook efficiently, take public transportation, etc.

It doesn't support a family of 3 above poverty rate. Why shouldn't it have kept up with inflation? Why is it you think the lowest paid (and probably hardest worked) employees aren't worth enough for them to support themselves?

 

[BobPlumb]

In fast food joints there is a magic phrase that helps keep 'em focused. It works like this:

One burger - One; No Cheese.

One mall Fries - Just ONE; NO cheese.

One Small Diet Coke - Small; just one; NO CHEESE.

One Chocolate Chip Cookie - Only ONE - NO Friggin' CHEESE.

Guaranteed you've got her/his/its attention.

Thing is, you gotta also watch their hands on the magic order entry machine to make sure they don't also press the "SPIT IN IT" button.

If they paid more, they could get better help. Plus the people they hire wouldn't be so disgruntled and would do a better job. You really do get what you pay for.

So that implies that the current help will be unemployed.

 

[Againsheila]

In fast food joints there is a magic phrase that helps keep 'em focused. It works like this:

One burger - One; No Cheese.

One mall Fries - Just ONE; NO cheese.

One Small Diet Coke - Small; just one; NO CHEESE.

One Chocolate Chip Cookie - Only ONE - NO Friggin' CHEESE.

Guaranteed you've got her/his/its attention.

Thing is, you gotta also watch their hands on the magic order entry machine to make sure they don't also press the "SPIT IN IT" button.

If they paid more, they could get better help. Plus the people they hire wouldn't be so disgruntled and would do a better job. You really do get what you pay for.

So that implies that the current help will be unemployed.

Or, will be motivated to do a better job.

 

[Mac1958]

It is livable.

You need some roommates, shop at Goodwill, cook efficiently, take public transportation, etc.

WHAT?!

You mean sacrifice, do without, cut costs, work hard and earn what you get, like we used to when we were young and poor and working our way up?

What the ****! That's horrible! You're mean!

Americans today deserve their own cell phone, and computer, and cable teevee, and monthly tattoos and a nice credit card budget, whether they earn it or not!

This is America, 2014! Catch up!

.

 

[BobPlumb]

If they paid more, they could get better help. Plus the people they hire wouldn't be so disgruntled and would do a better job. You really do get what you pay for.

So that implies that the current help will be unemployed.

Or, will be motivated to do a better job.

You have the cart in front of the horse.

 

[Againsheila]

It is livable.

You need some roommates, shop at Goodwill, cook efficiently, take public transportation, etc.

WHAT?!

You mean sacrifice, do without, cut costs, work hard and earn what you get, like we used to when we were young and poor and working our way up?

What the ****! That's horrible! You're mean!

Americans today deserve their own cell phone, and computer, and cable teevee, and monthly tattoos and a nice credit card budget, whether they earn it or not!

This is America, 2014! Catch up!

.

They deserve to be able to put a roof over their heads without having to find 5 other people to live with them.

 

[Papageorgio]

If they paid more, they could get better help. Plus the people they hire wouldn't be so disgruntled and would do a better job. You really do get what you pay for.

So that implies that the current help will be unemployed.

Or, will be motivated to do a better job.

Maybe or maybe not, employees and motivation are not quantifiable nor are they predictable. Giving someone a raise based on merit can have positive or negative effects, a raise based on a have to, I would not mean a better worker, it is all based on attitude.

Economics are hard numbers and you either surivive or you don't. So, if you cannot afford to pay a wage, you either cut costs somewhere else or you raise prices to the consumer.

Labor and food costs for a restuatrant should be no more than 60%, if it goes over that, then decisions need to be made. Doubling or even a 30% increase in labor means cutbacks and decisions on how to get the cost back under the 60% level. Sometimes this is achieved in cutting maintenance to the building, trying to negotiate a new lease, raising prices. Cutting electric, gas, sewer, water is pretty much out. The fact is with increased costs, you are going to have to make cuts or you go out of business.

 

[Againsheila]

So that implies that the current help will be unemployed.

Or, will be motivated to do a better job.

Maybe or maybe not, employees and motivation are not quantifiable nor are they predictable. Giving someone a raise based on merit can have positive or negative effects, a raise based on a have to, I would not mean a better worker, it is all based on attitude.

Economics are hard numbers and you either surivive or you don't. So, if you cannot afford to pay a wage, you either cut costs somewhere else or you raise prices to the consumer.

Labor and food costs for a restuatrant should be no more than 60%, if it goes over that, then decisions need to be made. Doubling or even a 30% increase in labor means cutbacks and decisions on how to get the cost back under the 60% level. Sometimes this is achieved in cutting maintenance to the building, trying to negotiate a new lease, raising prices. Cutting electric, gas, sewer, water is pretty much out. The fact is with increased costs, you are going to have to make cuts or you go out of business.

All I know is if mw had kept up with inflation, it's be more than $16 an hour. IMO, in order to do what it was intended to do, it should remain at the same spending power.

 

[Papageorgio]

Or, will be motivated to do a better job.

Maybe or maybe not, employees and motivation are not quantifiable nor are they predictable. Giving someone a raise based on merit can have positive or negative effects, a raise based on a have to, I would not mean a better worker, it is all based on attitude.

Economics are hard numbers and you either surivive or you don't. So, if you cannot afford to pay a wage, you either cut costs somewhere else or you raise prices to the consumer.

Labor and food costs for a restuatrant should be no more than 60%, if it goes over that, then decisions need to be made. Doubling or even a 30% increase in labor means cutbacks and decisions on how to get the cost back under the 60% level. Sometimes this is achieved in cutting maintenance to the building, trying to negotiate a new lease, raising prices. Cutting electric, gas, sewer, water is pretty much out. The fact is with increased costs, you are going to have to make cuts or you go out of business.

All I know is if mw had kept up with inflation, it's be more than $16 an hour. IMO, in order to do what it was intended to do, it should remain at the same spending power.

And inflation would decrease the spending power as prices would rise to keep up with costs.

 

[Againsheila]

Maybe or maybe not, employees and motivation are not quantifiable nor are they predictable. Giving someone a raise based on merit can have positive or negative effects, a raise based on a have to, I would not mean a better worker, it is all based on attitude.

Economics are hard numbers and you either surivive or you don't. So, if you cannot afford to pay a wage, you either cut costs somewhere else or you raise prices to the consumer.

Labor and food costs for a restuatrant should be no more than 60%, if it goes over that, then decisions need to be made. Doubling or even a 30% increase in labor means cutbacks and decisions on how to get the cost back under the 60% level. Sometimes this is achieved in cutting maintenance to the building, trying to negotiate a new lease, raising prices. Cutting electric, gas, sewer, water is pretty much out. The fact is with increased costs, you are going to have to make cuts or you go out of business.

All I know is if mw had kept up with inflation, it's be more than $16 an hour. IMO, in order to do what it was intended to do, it should remain at the same spending power.

And inflation would decrease the spending power as prices would rise to keep up with costs.

Yeah, right. Not raising the minimum wage has led to absolutely no inflation over the years, that's why it has so little spending power now.

 

[PredFan]

The thing that makes me laugh ultimately is that all of the politicians know that this is a stupid idea. Even the Democrat politicians. But they must appeal to their ignorant base so they make it appear that they support increasing the MW to $15/hour when they really have no intention of letting that happen.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows it's naive at best, and economic suicide at worst.

No, everyone doesn't know it's a stupid idea.

In a perfectly competitive market, anything that raises the wage above a level at which the supply of workers equals the demand for them will create unemployment. But a perfectly competitive labor market requires that neither workers nor firms have bargaining power; that everyone has all the necessary information; that workers are a commodity, rather than different people with different skills and a need to be motivated; and that there are no frictions preventing supply from matching demand. In a survey of 40 leading economists including both prominent liberals and conservatives, only about a third agreed that raising the minimum wage would make it harder for low-skilled workers to find employment.

When economists have analyzed the data, many have found few, if any, negative effects of a minimum wage on employment. This has shifted some of the thinking in the profession — and pointed to flaws in a perfectly competitive model.

Paying workers more often leads them to feel better about their work and reduces stress, both of which increase productivity. And when workers produce more, employers’ labor costs fall. Companies such as Costco have figured this out, and voluntarily pay higher wages. Other firms may not care whether they pay less and get less from their workers, or pay more and get more.

Five myths about the minimum wage - The Washington Post

You totally missed the point of my post. I'm not saying they won't be employed. They know it's a stupid idea because of the economic chaos it will create and ultimately it will do the mw earners no good at all.

 

[PredFan]

It is livable.

You need some roommates, shop at Goodwill, cook efficiently, take public transportation, etc.

It doesn't support a family of 3 above poverty rate. Why shouldn't it have kept up with inflation? Why is it you think the lowest paid (and probably hardest worked) employees aren't worth enough for them to support themselves?

Minimum wage jobs aren't supposed to be a career, and if you have three kids and are working a mw job it's YOUR fault, not the employers.