San Fransico Raises Min-wage to $15. Results in THIS:

[thereisnospoon]

Ahh. The "CEO" card....Genius, board members are paid in stock options..

So they can avoid income tax.

Oy vey...You are just chock full of liberal class envy talking points.....

What tax do they pay on stock options? Is it lower than income tax?

Lets just say what the typical stock option compensated person pays in cap gains taxes in a year is more than you will pay in your lifetime.
None of which is relevant to this discussion.

Yes capital gains are taxed less than income. Thank you.

As well they should be. Again, this presentation by you is irrelevant.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Living in a right to work state didn't stop self checkout lines at the grocery store, the minimum wage has nothing to do with this restaurant in San Francisco.

Right to work has nothing to do with automated technology.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I love how the same people who want everyone to get paid nothing also want no welfare and small government. Sorry but high wages are how you lower welfare and decrease the size of governent. All this increasing inequality is increasing government dependence and the size of government. Not to mention slowing the economy.

Their concern is with the business or corporation rather than the employee.

Artificially high wages - those not determined by productivity but rather gov't mandated - simply distort the economy creating inflationary pressure on prices which leave the poorest among us in exactly the same situation they are now.
The concern is always with balance and stability.

Like the multimillion dollar salaries of CEOs?

The average CEO earns $180,000/yr.
Ever notice that NBA stars earn many times more than average players and rookies? That they all earn more than the average American worker?
Wonder why that is?
Answer: Supply and demand for TALENT.

Same goes for most motion picture and tv actors. TV and radio talent in large markets make TONS of money. In fact the media business in larger markets and in national networks both over the air and cable are paid gobs of money.....Libs aviod talking about them...And why is this? Because most people in the entertainment/sports/news businesses are liberals.

 

[Flopper]

LOL!

You can lead Leftists to reason, but you can't make 'em THINK!

Restaurants in my area are putting them on every table and there has been no increase in minimum wage. So far I haven't seen any decrease in the number of waiters because customers value service and doing yourself is not service. I was at Red Robin last night and found the tablets really neat and useful. A waiter still took our order and provide the usually services, got us some additional fryes and made some recommendations. There were some kid games and trivia games on the tablet that were interesting and we were able to pay our bill without waiting for the waiter to bring it.

The cost of this technology is dropping rapidly. It will find it's way to most restaurants with or without wage increases. The hand writing is on wall.

Huh... So, you're saying that people can order what they want and you've seen no decrease in the people delivering the food that people ordered without assistance from a person who took their order?

My goodness... it sounds like you live in an area that truly appreciates people who will bring their food from the kitchen to their table!

I must join you in that appreciation. I very rarely dine out, but I enjoy the cuisine from a host of local eateries, which is delivered by people who drive to those restaurants and deliver the food to my home!

It's a valuable service indeed. I routinely pay up to $5 for that service and on particularly long drives I've been known to go $10.

Of course that involves a couple of tons of automobile, fuel which run $2.50 gallon, specialized training, some common sense, and prolonged periods of conscious care for my food.

Naturally... the ordering of such is done on-line, usually through the iPad... sometime on the old Macbook. But 99% of the time it goes flawlessly.

First of all, when there is a tablet on the table at a sit down restaurant, most people order off the traditional menu. It's easy to read, and no one needs to bothered learning a new technology. Secondly, when you have 3 or 4 people at the table, the tablet has to be passed from person to person. Therefore, few people use the tablet to place orders. In reality, here is how the tablet is used in the restaurants.

The hostess seats the customer and passes out menus. A customer grabs the tablet and start playing a game. The waiter comes out and takes drink orders and describes the specials. Everyone orders from the menu. The food is served. The waiter comes to table to check on his customers, to see if they need more water, maybe another drink, and of course tries to sell the deserts.

Now is when the tablet really is used. When you're ready to leave, you just touch "pay bill" on tablet, run your card and it prints out a receipt. No waiting for the check, no waiting to have your card run. It's a great service and certainly does not have any major impact on employment.

Automation's impact on food service employment is greatly exaggerated for political reason. Jobs are lost but also jobs are created.

Yes... Wait persons are terribly convenient. Just not necessary.

Which unless I miss my guess, that tends to drive down their potential value... connnnnsiderably!

As I've often said... IF you come to work one day and a parrot is doing your job. It's not the Parrot's fault that you're out of a job.

50% to 70% of fast food is now sold via the drive thru. Using tablets and apps for order taking have little if any effect on employment but do improve service and fast service is the key to success in the fast food business.

Sit-down restaurants are luxuries and service is a part that luxury. Both Applebee's and Chili's have introduced table-side tablets for order taking, bill paying, and entertainment. These restaurants say there has been no reduction in employment. However, they have reported faster table turnover and a high level of satisfaction by both customers and staff. The purpose in introducing this technology is to improve the level of service and increase efficiency so they can serve more customers and delivery better service. So far it seems to be working.
What Percentage of Sales Are From Drive Through Windows at Fast Food Restaurants?
New tech efforts revolutionizing restaurant labor

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I love how the same people who want everyone to get paid nothing also want no welfare and small government. Sorry but high wages are how you lower welfare and decrease the size of governent. All this increasing inequality is increasing government dependence and the size of government. Not to mention slowing the economy.

At that point employers, mostly small business end up subsidizing government TWICE....Through taxation and again through forced government wages. This will squeeze small business into a corner where tjhey will have to make adjustments which will invariably have an adverse effect on jobs and the labor market.

Taking care of their workers is subsidizing government? Either the government or employers are going to take care of people. I prefer it be employers. I would give company's tax breaks if they pay well and hire here in the states.[/QUOTE
You're mixing issues here.
Lets get this straight some 60% of US workers are employed by small business. Focus on the cost to smaller operators and owners.

So you want small business to pay very little and then have workers on welfare? That increases government dependence.

Why do you Leftwats think there's a link between employment and welfare? If the socialist government increases eligibility for food stamps so that 60 million can get it regardless of employment, how the hell is that the fault of businesses?

Stop lying, Leftists!

 

[Brain357]

I love how the same people who want everyone to get paid nothing also want no welfare and small government. Sorry but high wages are how you lower welfare and decrease the size of governent. All this increasing inequality is increasing government dependence and the size of government. Not to mention slowing the economy.

Their concern is with the business or corporation rather than the employee.

Artificially high wages - those not determined by productivity but rather gov't mandated - simply distort the economy creating inflationary pressure on prices which leave the poorest among us in exactly the same situation they are now.
The concern is always with balance and stability.

Like the multimillion dollar salaries of CEOs?

The average CEO earns $180,000/yr.
Ever notice that NBA stars earn many times more than average players and rookies? That they all earn more than the average American worker?
Wonder why that is?
Answer: Supply and demand for TALENT.

Same goes for most motion picture and tv actors. TV and radio talent in large markets make TONS of money. In fact the media business in larger markets and in national networks both over the air and cable are paid gobs of money.....Libs aviod talking about them...And why is this? Because most people in the entertainment/sports/news businesses are liberals.

Some ceo is deciding to pay them that much.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, let me ask my fellow posters, what should the minimum wage be in San Francisco?

Like everywhere else:
Whatever the market will bear.

 

[Brain357]

I love how the same people who want everyone to get paid nothing also want no welfare and small government. Sorry but high wages are how you lower welfare and decrease the size of governent. All this increasing inequality is increasing government dependence and the size of government. Not to mention slowing the economy.

At that point employers, mostly small business end up subsidizing government TWICE....Through taxation and again through forced government wages. This will squeeze small business into a corner where tjhey will have to make adjustments which will invariably have an adverse effect on jobs and the labor market.

Taking care of their workers is subsidizing government? Either the government or employers are going to take care of people. I prefer it be employers. I would give company's tax breaks if they pay well and hire here in the states.[/QUOTE
You're mixing issues here.
Lets get this straight some 60% of US workers are employed by small business. Focus on the cost to smaller operators and owners.

So you want small business to pay very little and then have workers on welfare? That increases government dependence.

Why do you Leftwats think there's a link between employment and welfare? If the socialist government increases eligibility for food stamps so that 60 million can get it regardless of employment, how the hell is that the fault of businesses?

Stop lying, Leftists!

When employers stop taking care of employees politicians are elected who will have government fill that void, government grows. When employers pay well and have good benefits there is no need for welfare, government shrinks.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[Brain357]

So they can avoid income tax.

Oy vey...You are just chock full of liberal class envy talking points.....

What tax do they pay on stock options? Is it lower than income tax?

Lets just say what the typical stock option compensated person pays in cap gains taxes in a year is more than you will pay in your lifetime.
None of which is relevant to this discussion.

Yes capital gains are taxed less than income. Thank you.

As well they should be. Again, this presentation by you is irrelevant.

It shows they get paid gross amounts and get to cheat the tax man.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Bay Area is an extremely expensive place to live.
$15 an hour is nothing there. When I graduated from high school I was living in Palo Alto and my summer job paid $3 more than the minimum wage in the early 80s.

All this increase in the minimum wage is accomplishing is two things:

- Less minimum wage jobs, which has an inordinate impact on teenagers who are denied the opportunity to develop good work habits.

- To make fast food and other high labor local good and services Much More Expensive, which impacts poor people the most.

Hopenchange!

Poor people should eat all fast food? or should they be fixing food at home? Teenagers can't mow lawns anymore or go around and offer to pull weeds, sweep or whatever?

Where did Bod claim that "Poor people should eat all fast food?" It is a well known fact that far more poor peeps eat FF than wealthy peeps. Push up the price of FF and the poor are hurt most.

He didn't. It was a question I posed as yes I know more poor people eat fast food than rich. The rich donate to their favorite charities, ballrooms and entertainment that the poor cannot afford tickets too. Then the rich claim how they donate more than anyone to charities like they are really doing something great. Utter hogwash. Anyhow families need a decent wage and they need to be able to actually cook their own food.

Everyone needs a decent wage. The answer is simple. If one wishes to be paid more, they must earn it.
And what is stopping the less well of from cooking?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

At that point employers, mostly small business end up subsidizing government TWICE....Through taxation and again through forced government wages. This will squeeze small business into a corner where tjhey will have to make adjustments which will invariably have an adverse effect on jobs and the labor market.

Taking care of their workers is subsidizing government? Either the government or employers are going to take care of people. I prefer it be employers. I would give company's tax breaks if they pay well and hire here in the states.[/QUOTE
You're mixing issues here.
Lets get this straight some 60% of US workers are employed by small business. Focus on the cost to smaller operators and owners.

So you want small business to pay very little and then have workers on welfare? That increases government dependence.

Why do you Leftwats think there's a link between employment and welfare? If the socialist government increases eligibility for food stamps so that 60 million can get it regardless of employment, how the hell is that the fault of businesses?

Stop lying, Leftists!

When employers stop taking care of employees politicians are elected who will have government fill that void, government grows. When employers pay well and have good benefits there is no need for welfare, government shrinks.

Welfare and food stamps were never meant for people who work.

 

[Brain357]

Taking care of their workers is subsidizing government? Either the government or employers are going to take care of people. I prefer it be employers. I would give company's tax breaks if they pay well and hire here in the states.[/QUOTE
You're mixing issues here.
Lets get this straight some 60% of US workers are employed by small business. Focus on the cost to smaller operators and owners.

So you want small business to pay very little and then have workers on welfare? That increases government dependence.

Why do you Leftwats think there's a link between employment and welfare? If the socialist government increases eligibility for food stamps so that 60 million can get it regardless of employment, how the hell is that the fault of businesses?

Stop lying, Leftists!

When employers stop taking care of employees politicians are elected who will have government fill that void, government grows. When employers pay well and have good benefits there is no need for welfare, government shrinks.

Welfare and food stamps were never meant for people who work.

I know, but this is what happens when employers pay too little. We vote in this country. Fair or not people will be taken care of either by employer or government. If you want small government, then employers need to pay up.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Once no one can afford the games they will either have to raise salaries or quit playing.

Who is John Galt?

No clue who is it? I should have worded that differently have not had TV for near twenty years.

LOL!

Hysterical.

You think someone who actually lives in a real world verses someone who watches TV to try to understand what real living is hysterical? We did not have one when the children grew up either. But hey my daughter was top of her class throughout high school and graduated with honors. She could run a company with forty plus employees when she was nineteen could you? Our son could run every type of construction equipment you can shake a stick at by the time he was eighteen and build a house; including do all the concrete and finishing to start that building on, could you do that at eighteen? I doubt it.

Yes...I bet you are proud....So your kids decided at a very young age to become achievers....This illustrates the point being made to you. That those who strive for something better can and often DO earn much higher wages.
I fail to see a problem here.

 

[Flopper]

I love how the same people who want everyone to get paid nothing also want no welfare and small government. Sorry but high wages are how you lower welfare and decrease the size of governent. All this increasing inequality is increasing government dependence and the size of government. Not to mention slowing the economy.

Their concern is with the business or corporation rather than the employee.

Artificially high wages - those not determined by productivity but rather gov't mandated - simply distort the economy creating inflationary pressure on prices which leave the poorest among us in exactly the same situation they are now.
The concern is always with balance and stability.

Like the multimillion dollar salaries of CEOs?

The average CEO earns $180,000/yr.
Ever notice that NBA stars earn many times more than average players and rookies? That they all earn more than the average American worker?
Wonder why that is?
Answer: Supply and demand for TALENT.

Same goes for most motion picture and tv actors. TV and radio talent in large markets make TONS of money. In fact the media business in larger markets and in national networks both over the air and cable are paid gobs of money.....Libs aviod talking about them...And why is this? Because most people in the entertainment/sports/news businesses are liberals.

Academia, entertainment, media, technology sectors tend to be more liberal just as Real estate, banking, mining, farming, and the fossil fuel industries tend to be more conservative. This is particularly true at high income income levels. No surprises here.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So you want small business to pay very little and then have workers on welfare? That increases government dependence.

Why do you Leftwats think there's a link between employment and welfare? If the socialist government increases eligibility for food stamps so that 60 million can get it regardless of employment, how the hell is that the fault of businesses?

Stop lying, Leftists!

When employers stop taking care of employees politicians are elected who will have government fill that void, government grows. When employers pay well and have good benefits there is no need for welfare, government shrinks.

Welfare and food stamps were never meant for people who work.

I know, but this is what happens when employers pay too little. We vote in this country. Fair or not people will be taken care of either by employer or government. If you want small government, then employers need to pay up.

Nonsense! The sufficiency of employer wages is not determined by who gets welfare. Employers pay based on how much money is in the industry and how much people will pay for their product or service.

You deluded Leftists think you can name a salary and the money for it just magically appears. It's because you people are like large children that you have no idea how market forces work. I can flip burgers like any fast food worker, but how many of them can drive a big rig like me? How many are willing to endure many nights away from home?

People who want to be paid more need to work harder and gain skills that pay better. Crying like the little selfish brats you are because Burger King won't pay you more is just idiotic.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So you want small business to pay very little and then have workers on welfare? That increases government dependence.

Why do you Leftwats think there's a link between employment and welfare? If the socialist government increases eligibility for food stamps so that 60 million can get it regardless of employment, how the hell is that the fault of businesses?

Stop lying, Leftists!

When employers stop taking care of employees politicians are elected who will have government fill that void, government grows. When employers pay well and have good benefits there is no need for welfare, government shrinks.

Welfare and food stamps were never meant for people who work.

I know, but this is what happens when employers pay too little. We vote in this country. Fair or not people will be taken care of either by employer or government. If you want small government, then employers need to pay up.

It is not that simple. The marketplace must be left to determine prices and wages.
Look, economic forces react to themselves.
When wages rise, prices rise.
When the marketplace can absorb the increases, we have a healthy economy with low rates of inflation. Cost of living remains relatively stable.
Enter this $15 per hour movement.....This thing affects the smallest and most vulnerable businesses. Those stores with the Golden Arches and such, are not owned by the corporation. They are owned by individuals who have sunk a significant amount of their life savings into the business at a very high risk.

 

[Political Junky]

The average cost of a one bedroom apartment in San Francisco is $3,530. I saw this on TV last night.

 

[Flopper]

I love how the same people who want everyone to get paid nothing also want no welfare and small government. Sorry but high wages are how you lower welfare and decrease the size of governent. All this increasing inequality is increasing government dependence and the size of government. Not to mention slowing the economy.

At that point employers, mostly small business end up subsidizing government TWICE....Through taxation and again through forced government wages. This will squeeze small business into a corner where tjhey will have to make adjustments which will invariably have an adverse effect on jobs and the labor market.

Taking care of their workers is subsidizing government? Either the government or employers are going to take care of people. I prefer it be employers. I would give company's tax breaks if they pay well and hire here in the states.[/QUOTE
You're mixing issues here.
Lets get this straight some 60% of US workers are employed by small business. Focus on the cost to smaller operators and owners.

So you want small business to pay very little and then have workers on welfare? That increases government dependence.

Why do you Leftwats think there's a link between employment and welfare? If the socialist government increases eligibility for food stamps so that 60 million can get it regardless of employment, how the hell is that the fault of businesses?

Stop lying, Leftists!

One of the primary focuses of SNAP is to serve low income workers. Depending on the area, up to 45% to 65% of those who receive SNAP benefits work. SNAP typically boosts low-wage workers’ income by about 10 percent. SNAP actually has little effect on employment. There is less than a 4% drop in employment after receiving benefits.

The Relationship Between SNAP and Work Among Low-Income Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Flopper]

The average cost of a one bedroom apartment in San Francisco is $3,530. I saw this on TV last night.

That's strange since the poverty level in San Francisco is 13%. Poverty rates near record levels in Bay Area despite hot economy