Fast Food Worker Strikes!

[Seth]

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

I just wish the program would distinguish between those who cannot work and those who will not work.

And if I'm going to have to pay to keep those who will not work alive, then I want to control and dictate their actions and location for eight hours a day.

So, I propose that welfare benefits and food stamps be paid out daily, at the end of one's "shift" of clocking in to a local stadium at 8 am, sitting in a seat doing nothing...rain or shine...or taking advantage of vocational educational programs offered by the state, which would be the only other thing one would be allowed to do...including talking to those seated around you or getting out of your seat for more than two 15 minute breaks and one 30 minute food break. Break a rule and you get thrown out of the stadium for the day and don't get paid.

At the end of your shift, you clock out and are issued your daily chit for welfare and food stamps.

At least that way my money isn't being wasted by allowing people to do whatever the fuck they want.

[piscator]

Then start a chicken plant or something. Your fucken money only buys so much, Seth.

[Seth]

Then start a chicken plant or something. Your fucken money only buys so much, Seth.

Yeah, but it's MY fucken money, so I get to use it to by stuff for ME. Fuk all the rest of 'yall.

[piscator]

Then start a chicken plant or something. Your fucken money only buys so much, Seth.

Yeah, but it's MY fucken money, so I get to use it to by stuff for ME. Fuk all the rest of 'yall.

Just make sure you buy a lot of new guns and ammo and archery and fishing equipment. You pay 10-11% Pittman-Robertson excise tax on that, which benefits me to no small extent.

And drive around a lot in a gas guzzler too. My state gets back 10:1 on what it pays in FHWA tax on fuel, and a big piece of what my firm does is highway design surveys for future construction.


But that's all different from the taxpayer subsidizing and artificially depressing McDonald's and Walmart's wage structure though. Wouldn't you agree?

[Seth]

Then start a chicken plant or something. Your fucken money only buys so much, Seth.

Yeah, but it's MY fucken money, so I get to use it to by stuff for ME. Fuk all the rest of 'yall.

Just make sure you buy a lot of new guns and ammo and archery equipment. You pay 10-11% Pittman-Robertson excise tax on that, which benefits me to no small extent.

Just built me a brand-spanking new range facility on Fort Carson...for once. Pol have been robbing P-R for decades for non-hunting non-shooting works projects like biking trails and campground toilets.

Pretty damned nice range considering...

Sadly it was badly located so max caliber is .308. No magnum rounds that will go more than 4000 meters, because downrange, on the other side of the base, is the new helicopter brigade maintenance facility.

They do have steel out to 1000 yards plus though and lots of covered shooting points for rifles and pistols. Plans are in the works for skeet and shotgun stands, but the combat pistol range is exclusively for LE.

[piscator]

It supports combat fishing here too...




...except in this case, "Combat" refers to giving easy public road access to good fishing. So every tourist and noob Anchorage-ite who can afford a rod goes there the two weeks of the summer when the sockeye salmon are passing through.


Good to finally find a tax you like Seth.

[Seth]

It supports combat fishing here too...

...except in this case, "Combat" refers to giving easy public road access to good fishing. So every tourist and noob Anchorage-ite who can afford a rod goes there the two weeks of the summer when the sockeye salmon are passing through.


Good to finally find a tax you like Seth.

I don't mind taxes that pay for things I use or consume. This is where rEv and the other anti-Libertarians like to toss straw out by the ton. I pay highway taxes because I use the highways. I pay property taxes because they pay for, among other things, police and fire service. I pay the PR taxes because they ostensibly go towards providing me with hunting and fishing and other outdoor recreational opportunities. I can carp about how the money is spent, but that's different from objecting to the tax.

Such taxes are non-redistributionary in that they are levied to pay for the aspects of public infrastructure that I actually use, or may make use of.

The taxes that I object to strenuously are redistributionary taxes that serve only the purpose of transferring my wealth from me to some other private individual to meet that individual's personal, political, economic or social needs or desires.

Of course I still also argue that most taxes of all kinds are not needed, and that life would be better under a Libertarian system of voluntary contribution to public works and projects of whatever nature that provide sufficient value to the public that they are willing to support it without being subjected to involuntary servitude to pay for what SOMEONE ELSE wants.

If a government service or project is worthy and will truly benefit the public, and that's in fact what the public wants, then the public will support that service or project without being coerced at the muzzle of a machine gun. If the public does NOT agree that the project or service is of value to them, then they will decline to contribute and it the project or service goes forward it will have to do so with only that funding that those who do support it are willing to contribute.

That's a simple and fair "democratic" method of determining how much and what sort of government the people REALLY want. It's a direct referendum on each and every function of government on a real-time basis.

For example, the decision to invade Syria would be determined by the ability of the President and Congress to persuade the public to contribute SPECIFIC earmarked funds for that activity. No public approval, no funds. No funds, no invasion.

Simple, clean, easy and it closely controls the excesses of government by putting an economic leash on it, just as Colorado has done with its Taxpayer Bill of Rights which mandates that ANY new tax or increase in any tax MUST be approved by the voters.

This puts the government back where it belongs, in the role of advocate and huckster for government spending. Congress and the President would have to become good salesmen because the only way to get something funded would be by appealing to the public with a strong and convincing message of need which the public gets to evaluate and either decide to fund or not.

It reverses the role of the State and the People back to what it was always intended to be; a parent/child relationship where the People are the parent and the government is the child. It's supposed to work that way. The five year old (government) comes to Mom (the People) and asks for a dollar to go buy something at the store. The five year old applies his powers of logic and reason to creating a persuasive and convincing argument as to why Mom should give him a dollar and Mom evaluates the proposal and makes the ultimate decision about disbursing funds for the proposed project.

No reason why government should work any differently, and many reasons why doing it that way would be immensely beneficial to society and the economy.

[piscator]

It supports combat fishing here too...

...except in this case, "Combat" refers to giving easy public road access to good fishing. So every tourist and noob Anchorage-ite who can afford a rod goes there the two weeks of the summer when the sockeye salmon are passing through.


Good to finally find a tax you like Seth.

I don't mind taxes that pay for things I use or consume.

...

Of course I still also argue that most taxes of all kinds are not needed, and that life would be better under a Libertarian system of voluntary contribution to public works and projects of whatever nature that provide sufficient value to the public that they are willing to support it without being subjected to involuntary servitude to pay for what SOMEONE ELSE wants.

Most taxes only apply for the group which benefits the most. e.g. You're not paying road fuel taxes if you're not driving. You're not involuntarily subsidizing McDonald's very much when you collect an EIC on your income tax.

[Seth]

It supports combat fishing here too...

...except in this case, "Combat" refers to giving easy public road access to good fishing. So every tourist and noob Anchorage-ite who can afford a rod goes there the two weeks of the summer when the sockeye salmon are passing through.


Good to finally find a tax you like Seth.

I don't mind taxes that pay for things I use or consume.

...

Of course I still also argue that most taxes of all kinds are not needed, and that life would be better under a Libertarian system of voluntary contribution to public works and projects of whatever nature that provide sufficient value to the public that they are willing to support it without being subjected to involuntary servitude to pay for what SOMEONE ELSE wants.

Most taxes only apply for the group which benefits the most. e.g. You're not paying road fuel taxes if you're not driving. You're not involuntarily subsidizing McDonald's very much when you collect an EIC on your income tax.

Correct. User pays. Don't use the roads? Don't have to pay for them. The EIC is just a sham. Lower tax rates for everyone, don't create classes.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Not at all -- you claimed "a rising tide lifts all boats. A tide doesn't lift boats disproportionately. All the boats rise. A minimum wage will not necessarily raise mid-range salaries, and will certainly not necessarily raise them proportionately. A rising tide does NOT lift all these boats.

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?

For "all" labor? No. Higher wages are due to supply and demand for given jobs. Some jobs have gone down in wage or remained roughly stagnant, depending on the industry. In the 1990s, for example, IT guys were writing their own checks, just about.

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?

Yes, but setting the minimum wage doesn't set the wage for mid-range, higher, salaries and hourly wages.

Legally mandated wages affect labor supply whether you like it or not.

Of course they do. If the legally mandated wage is higher than the wage that would be set by the supply and demand interplay, then the demand will be reduced and there will be a surplus supply of labor. I.e. higher unemployment.

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 $$.

Sure. The skilled workers need to be paid their going rate or they will go elsewhere, as they should. What does that have to do with the minimum wage?

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.

Prevailing wages are not scaled off minimum wages. They're comparative rates based off the private sector.

Union rates are often negotiated entirely distinct from any minimum wage. They're negotiated collectively.

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 think attorneys and such make what theymake because of the minimum wage? You'll need to demonstrate that somehow. It seems to me to be a patently untenable idea.

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.

Provide some evidence for that, if you would. Thanks.

To suggest that the minimum wage of $7.50 or whatever it is an hour drives the labor market across town seems to me to be nonsensical. Employers don't set wages that way. "Oh, let me see -- the minimum wage just went up to $9 an hour, so I better pay my attorneys an extra $10k a year. A law firm looks at its competition and how much they pay, and they choose a strategy, either salary leader, competitive pay, or trailing salary. Some purposefully pay a little less, for example,and look for the "hungry" worker who is going to do the job for less money. They will also understand that they will lose some employees to turnover as they seek higher paying positions, but they make a conscious decision based on their business model.

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?

Who said anything about the economy heating up? Not me. And, certainly not you.

What makes you think raising theminimum wage "heats up" the economy? Any evidence?

Periodic wage hikes are good for the economy as a whole because they increase the amount of $$ in circulation.

No they don't. That's not how the money supply increases at all. The same amount of money is in circulation after a minimum wage hike. It's not as if an employer is sitting on piles of money in a hole in the ground that is not circulated. Where do you get this?

There's more entrepreneurial activity,

How so? A higher minimum wage makes entrepreneurs more likely to go into business? What is the bollocks?

more tax revenues,

Less, because it increases unemployment.

more opportunities for wealth creation.

Again, how so?

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.

This has nothing to do with rigid inflexible thinking. This is just that you're making baseless assertions. A higher minimum wage can balance budgets? How do you come to believe that? Why not raise the minimum wage to $50 an hour then? The economy will go gangbusters, entrepreneurs will be everywhere and the budgets will be balanced - the lion will lie down with the lamb....

I'm shocked you even seriously believe what you're saying. No economist does.

[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 ?

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).

Most benefits do go to people who are unemployed, in the US. And, how could it cost more to give people partial benefits than full benefits?

Really quite simple if your business model can't pay people enough to survive

How much is that? Everyone's bullshit detector needs to go off when discussing this issue. "if your business model can't pay people enough to survive" -- such fucking idiocy. Specify the rate that you think people can survive on, and let's discuss it.

Look - when someone runs a business, and they have a task that needs doing -- the task is worth $X to them. It doesn't matter whether it can pay someone to support a family of four, or six, or two or one. That's what the task is worth to that particular employer.

And, for fucks fucking sake -- how many times does it have to be pointed out that not every fucking god damn job has to pay someone to support a family. Some jobs can be supplemental income. Some can be for fucking kids and college students. A job in a fucking liquor store breaking up cardboard boxes doesn't have to pay someone to send two kids to college.

Fuck with this "if your business model can't pay people to survive" - -the only people that would say something so fucking idiotic is someone who doesn't know the first thing about running a business....

I apologize for my frustration.

[MrJonno]

If you employ someone you take at least some responsibility in keeping them alive, that's shared with the government and the employee. You can't as an employer say here's 50p per hour its all I can afford to pay you and if you can't live on that tough shit.

[laklak]

If they double the minimum wage that means they're going to double my social security payments, right? That's what "rising tide" means, right? Mrs. Lak's salary will double too, because that would only be fair, and we all know that private companies are all about being fair, right?

[Coito ergo sum]

If you employ someone you take at least some responsibility in keeping them alive, that's shared with the government and the employee. You can't as an employer say here's 50p per hour its all I can afford to pay you and if you can't live on that tough shit.

No, you don't.

I employ a guy once in a while to mow my yard. I don't take responsibility for keeping him alive.

And, yes, you can say "here $X per hour and that's all I'm wiling to pay, if you don't like it then find another job." I don't know how much it takes you or someone else to live. Some people live on small incomes, some spend a lot of dough. Some have kids, some are married, some are single. It is not an employer's responsibliity to know that, and to estimate how much it takes them to survive on. In the US, it's technically unlawful to ask an employee if they are married or have kids. So, how the hell does an employer know how much money they need to survive?

If a housekeeper wants to clean house, she can have $75 to do decent job cleaning. That's all it is worth it for me to hire someone. If someone doesn't want to do it for that, then I'll get someone else or do it myself. I have never asked a housekeeper what she needs to survive. The one we have now, I am aware that she has a child, but I don't know if she cares for that child, or if she has a lot of money or is very poor. I don't pry into her personal life beyond mere politeness. How in the world am I supposed to take responsibility for keeping them alive?

And where do you get that basic principle from anyway? You say that if I hire someone I have to take responsibility for keeping them alive? Says who?

[Coito ergo sum]

If they double the minimum wage that means they're going to double my social security payments, right? That's what "rising tide" means, right? Mrs. Lak's salary will double too, because that would only be fair, and we all know that private companies are all about being fair, right?

If they double the minimum wage, the economy will boom, and everyone's problems will be solved. Heck, let's raise the minimum to $50 an hour. Why stop at only a little of a good thing....?