Fast Food Worker Strikes!

[Seth]

Not directly. The company owns buildings for the purpose of making money, but the money they spend on the buildings are expenses. A Walmart greeter is an expense. Make them pay $15 an hour for someone to stand their saying "Welcome to Walmart" and they may decide it's not worth it. That's the point.

Correct. And then the guy making $7.79 an hour is making zero an hour. Cutting off your nose to spite your fact.

The Hollywood Writer's Guild did that to themselves a decade or so ago by striking for higher pay. What they got was unemployment as TV networks figured out they could put on "reality" programming that didn't require any writers cheaper than they could hire union writers, which is why everything you see now is a "reality" show.

Sometimes the liberal twits need to STFU and MTOB and let people who really NEED a minimum-wage job find one.

[Seth]

It isn't Wal-Mart's fault that the State is subsidizing people.

Well actually it is, they campaign to keep minimum wage levels low and the government picks up the slack.

With rising population and less work required the days of companies primary purpose in making a profit are seriously numbered

Companies have to at least break even in order to stay in business, absent government subsidies.

That is my point though. If they can't operate under their current operating model without their employees topping up their earnings with state support, then their business doesn't actually have a viable business model.

That the state chooses to top up people's earnings is another matter.

Wrong. Their business model is fine, it's the business model of the employees that's faulty. Usually it's related to deficit spending which is something they learn from the federal government.

[Coito ergo sum]

It isn't Wal-Mart's fault that the State is subsidizing people.

Well actually it is, they campaign to keep minimum wage levels low and the government picks up the slack.

With rising population and less work required the days of companies primary purpose in making a profit are seriously numbered

Companies have to at least break even in order to stay in business, absent government subsidies.

That is my point though. If they can't operate under their current operating model without their employees topping up their earnings with state support, then their business doesn't actually have a viable business model.

That the state chooses to top up people's earnings is another matter.

I bring you back to the point that the reason people who are earning some income can still get state support is because under the welfare system that we had previously, a person could not make any money at all and get welfare. This created a system whereby people had the incentive not to take available work because they'd lose all their state benefits. Having the ability to put foot on the first rung of the employment ladder while not being totally cut off from benefits is helpful because keeping people working is important. Sitting at home for 6 months or a year does huge damage to one's employability. Better to make a little bit of money and be topped up temporarily, and eventually break free of the government benefits trap, than to raise the first rung of the ladder so high that people have to choose between free government benefits and a job, all or nothing.

[MrJonno]

Sitting at home for 6 months or a year does huge damage to one's employability. Better to make a little bit of money and be topped up temporarily, and eventually break free of the government benefits trap, than to raise the first rung of the ladder so high that people have to choose between free government benefits and a job, all or nothing.

What makes you think they won't spend the rest of their lives getting state benefits and working ?

[Coito ergo sum]

Sitting at home for 6 months or a year does huge damage to one's employability. Better to make a little bit of money and be topped up temporarily, and eventually break free of the government benefits trap, than to raise the first rung of the ladder so high that people have to choose between free government benefits and a job, all or nothing.

What makes you think they won't spend the rest of their lives getting state benefits and working ?

Because people who work and gain experience most often get raises and learn the ins and outs of a given business, making themselves more valuable, and getting new jobs that pay more.

Some people, obviously, will spend their lives working and getting state benies, but that percentage of the population - in the US -- is very small to where it is better to top up those folks, because of the great majority who wind up making far more than minimum wage.

Again, it is better to have a low first rung of the ladder, such that you can get on the ladder and begin stepping up -- rather than raise the first rung so high that people who aren't tall enough can't get on the ladder in the first place, and remain on the ground.

[piscator]

The Earned Income Credit isn't welfare. But it's your tax dollars going to support people who work full time at McDonalds and Walmart's recruitment efforts in the Philippines.
And McDonald's and Taco Bell and Walmart will still have plenty of entry level job openings when the minimum wage hits $15/hr, because Walmart and Taco Bell and McDonald's need those workers to operate their businesses.

[Coito ergo sum]

The Earned Income Credit isn't welfare. But it's your tax dollars going to support people who work full time at McDonalds and Walmart's recruitment efforts in the Philippines.

Well, if you want to raise taxes on low and middle income employees, then by all means, support repeal of the EIC.

And McDonald's and Taco Bell and Walmart will still have plenty of entry level job openings when the minimum wage hits $15/hr, because Walmart and Taco Bell and McDonald's need those workers to operate their businesses.

So what? When you raise the minimum wage to $15, then you get a whole new pool of workers becoming interested in those jobs who otherwise wouldn't be interested in those jobs. Anyone working in a more demanding field, making $35k is going to wonder why their not wanking all day in the aisles at Walmart, because they can make nearly the same money. And, all the out of work college graduates would very quickly see McDonalds burger flipping as a viable alternative. That, again, raises the lower rung of the ladder, so the idiot who sat around playing Playstation from age 16 to 19 is not going to be able to beat out the competition for the Micky D and Walmart jobs....

[piscator]

The Earned Income Credit isn't welfare. But it's your tax dollars going to support people who work full time at McDonalds and Walmart's recruitment efforts in the Philippines.

Well, if you want to raise taxes on low and middle income employees, then by all means, support repeal of the EIC.

I'll just support a higher minimum wage so that my tax dollars aren't subsidizing McDonald's company policy of poverty wages.

And McDonald's and Taco Bell and Walmart will still have plenty of entry level job openings when the minimum wage hits $15/hr, because Walmart and Taco Bell and McDonald's need those workers to operate their businesses.

So what? When you raise the minimum wage to $15, then you get a whole new pool of workers becoming interested in those jobs who otherwise wouldn't be interested in those jobs. Anyone working in a more demanding field, making $35k is going to wonder why their not wanking all day in the aisles at Walmart, because they can make nearly the same money. And, all the out of work college graduates would very quickly see McDonalds burger flipping as a viable alternative. That, again, raises the lower rung of the ladder, so the idiot who sat around playing Playstation from age 16 to 19 is not going to be able to beat out the competition for the Micky D and Walmart jobs....

People who make $35k before the minimum wage hike will find themselves making more after without having to go anywhere. Their employers need them even more than minimum wage employers need minimum wage employees, else the job would have paid less to start with. Employers who pay above minimum wage don't do it for charity CES. They do it because they need to retain good people. The tide raises all boats.

[Coito ergo sum]

The Earned Income Credit isn't welfare. But it's your tax dollars going to support people who work full time at McDonalds and Walmart's recruitment efforts in the Philippines.

Well, if you want to raise taxes on low and middle income employees, then by all means, support repeal of the EIC.

I'll just support a higher minimum wage so that my tax dollars aren't subsidizing McDonald's company policy of poverty wages.

Well, you won't get an argument from me on elimination of the earned income tax credit. I think that is part of the shell game that the tax code plays -- they should tax at an appropriate rate and stop it with all these fucking credits.

But, I have news for you, it ain't republicans, conservatives and libertarians that are in favor of stuff like the EIC.

And McDonald's and Taco Bell and Walmart will still have plenty of entry level job openings when the minimum wage hits $15/hr, because Walmart and Taco Bell and McDonald's need those workers to operate their businesses.

So what? When you raise the minimum wage to $15, then you get a whole new pool of workers becoming interested in those jobs who otherwise wouldn't be interested in those jobs. Anyone working in a more demanding field, making $35k is going to wonder why their not wanking all day in the aisles at Walmart, because they can make nearly the same money. And, all the out of work college graduates would very quickly see McDonalds burger flipping as a viable alternative. That, again, raises the lower rung of the ladder, so the idiot who sat around playing Playstation from age 16 to 19 is not going to be able to beat out the competition for the Micky D and Walmart jobs....

People who make $35k before the minimum wage hike will find themselves making more after without having to go anywhere. Their employers need them even more than minimum wage employers need minimum wage employees, else the job would have paid less to start with. Employers who pay above minimum wage don't do it for charity CES. They do it because they need to retain good people. The tide raises all boats.

That is not necessarily true. Raising the minimum wage does not necessarily increase mid-range salaries accordingly.

Wages are set by supply and demand, unless there is a legally mandated wage.

The rising minimum wage does not necessarily raise all boats as you say. The wage spectrum can be condensed, and lower skilled jobs can be paid more and that may not materially or significantly or proportionally effect somewhat higher wage positions. You PRESUME it will. But, you're wrong. Employers would be behaving like charities if they did that. Instead, they will continue to pay the market rate for most positions.

And, what good is it for a rising tide to raise all boats? If we just move to a situation where $15 an hour is crap wages, and every other income level is scaled up proportionatelly, and inflation rises such that the cost of stuff doubles too, then people will be clamoring that $15 is not a living wage and we have to raise it again. What good is that?

[piscator]

And McDonald's and Taco Bell and Walmart will still have plenty of entry level job openings when the minimum wage hits $15/hr, because Walmart and Taco Bell and McDonald's need those workers to operate their businesses.

So what? When you raise the minimum wage to $15, then you get a whole new pool of workers becoming interested in those jobs who otherwise wouldn't be interested in those jobs. Anyone working in a more demanding field, making $35k is going to wonder why their not wanking all day in the aisles at Walmart, because they can make nearly the same money. And, all the out of work college graduates would very quickly see McDonalds burger flipping as a viable alternative. That, again, raises the lower rung of the ladder, so the idiot who sat around playing Playstation from age 16 to 19 is not going to be able to beat out the competition for the Micky D and Walmart jobs....

People who make $35k before the minimum wage hike will find themselves making more after without having to go anywhere. Their employers need them even more than minimum wage employers need minimum wage employees, else the job would have paid less to start with. Employers who pay above minimum wage don't do it for charity CES. They do it because they need to retain good people. The tide raises all boats.

That is not necessarily true. Raising the minimum wage does not necessarily increase mid-range salaries accordingly.

Qualifier "Accordingly"=Strawman=semantic retreat.

Do you know any wage earner who's dollar-amount wages have stayed static since the 90s? Do you think higher wages across the board are just the result of increased demand for all labor?

Wages are set by supply and demand, unless there is a legally mandated wage.

Like the legally mandated minimum wage that has been the central focus of this thread?
Legally mandated wages affect labor supply whether you like it or not. If you want to retain your skilled welders or staff structural engineers, you have to compete with firms recruiting for Davis Bacon jobs, else your skilled workers are wasting their time to stay with you for 1/2 the $$.
Prevailing wages and many union wages are scaled off minimum wages. This means that minimum wages effect a lot more than minimum wage earners. The flood tide may take some time to reach the various bays and backwaters, but it invariably gets there.

The rising minimum wage does not necessarily raise all boats as you say. The wage spectrum can be condensed, and lower skilled jobs can be paid more and that may not materially or significantly or proportionally effect somewhat higher wage positions.

To think it works that way is to take time out and freeze your thinking at the day after a minimum wage hike. 2 years after a minimum wage hike, attorneys and accountants and registered land surveyors are paying their people more and charging a higher hourly rate for themselves. No one works for $1/day anymore. This is due to the keel of the ship rising with the tide over time.

You PRESUME it will. But, you're wrong. Employers would be behaving like charities if they did that. Instead, they will continue to pay the market rate for most positions.

As I've explained, the minimum wage drives the labor market across time.

And, what good is it for a rising tide to raise all boats? If we just move to a situation where $15 an hour is crap wages, and every other income level is scaled up proportionatelly, and inflation rises such that the cost of stuff doubles too, then people will be clamoring that $15 is not a living wage and we have to raise it again. What good is that?

What good is it when the economy heats up? What good is it when the Dow Jones index rises?

Periodic wage hikes are good for the economy as a whole because they increase the amount of $$ in circulation. There's more entrepreneurial activity, more tax revenues, more opportunities for wealth creation. This may be temporary, but it's mid-term temporary. And it can balance budgets and lever lasting effects that weren't there previously.
It may be an inconvenience for rigid and inflexible thinkers who don't like changes, but it benefits many more.

[Warren Dew]

Sitting at home for 6 months or a year does huge damage to one's employability. Better to make a little bit of money and be topped up temporarily, and eventually break free of the government benefits trap, than to raise the first rung of the ladder so high that people have to choose between free government benefits and a job, all or nothing.

What makes you think they won't spend the rest of their lives getting state benefits and working ?

Still better than spending the rest of their lives getting state benefits and not working.

[MrJonno]

Sitting at home for 6 months or a year does huge damage to one's employability. Better to make a little bit of money and be topped up temporarily, and eventually break free of the government benefits trap, than to raise the first rung of the ladder so high that people have to choose between free government benefits and a job, all or nothing.

What makes you think they won't spend the rest of their lives getting state benefits and working ?

Still better than spending the rest of their lives getting state benefits and not working.

Not if it costs the tax payer more money (most benefits do not go to people who are unemployed).

Really quite simple if your business model can't pay people enough to survive on them expect the businesses assets to be taken over without compensation (without tax payers subsidies they are effectively worthless anyway) by the state.

It's not the private sector responsibility to ensure unemployment is low but it is the state's role. If the state can run a profitless organisation that provides jobs that cost less money that subsidising the private sector then they should go for it.

With the amount of people we have now most of us are simple replaceable commodities which is great for capitalism but not so good for society as a whole

[piscator]

I'm going out in a blaze of gunfire if they try to replace me. So much for The Social Cosmology of MrJonno...

[Warren Dew]

Sitting at home for 6 months or a year does huge damage to one's employability. Better to make a little bit of money and be topped up temporarily, and eventually break free of the government benefits trap, than to raise the first rung of the ladder so high that people have to choose between free government benefits and a job, all or nothing.

What makes you think they won't spend the rest of their lives getting state benefits and working ?

Still better than spending the rest of their lives getting state benefits and not working.

Not if it costs the tax payer more money (most benefits do not go to people who are unemployed).

To the contrary, people who aren't employed at all cost the taxpayer more than people who are merely low income. Food stamp benefits, for example, are highest for those with no income, and are reduced by 30% of income for those who do earn anything.

[Hermit]

Sitting at home for 6 months or a year does huge damage to one's employability. Better to make a little bit of money and be topped up temporarily, and eventually break free of the government benefits trap, than to raise the first rung of the ladder so high that people have to choose between free government benefits and a job, all or nothing.

What makes you think they won't spend the rest of their lives getting state benefits and working ?

Still better than spending the rest of their lives getting state benefits and not working.

Not if it costs the tax payer more money (most benefits do not go to people who are unemployed).

To the contrary, people who aren't employed at all cost the taxpayer more than people who are merely low income.

That would depend on how many employees' wages are subsidised by tax funds versus the number of unemployed people.