Danish McDonalds Workers Earn $20 An Hour - Big Mac Costs... (1 Viewer)

[encaitar]

Here's the thing the I got mine crowd always misses. Raising the minimum wage raises consumption. Rising consumption fuels job growth. Job growth fuels pay increases for people up the line. Raising the minimum wage helps grow the middle class. Middle class people spend more. Working poor spend more. This creates more jobs. Which means more consumption. Rinse repeat. This also reduces the number of people needing public assistance. and for all you budget cutting I don't care if you eat people that should get you tingly.

I don't know when we stopped teaching the demand side of economic theory but it's probably time we started again.

I wish it was this simple. The skeptic in me keeps whispering that forcing higher wages on corporations doesn't always work in practice the way it does in theory. What's to stop these greedy companies from further automating processes to counteract their rising wage costs?

 

[tommyGunZ]

In defense of the low wage worker, they are showing up for work. Because of that, I cant say they "just want a handout".

To clarify: When I say they just want a handout I'm talking about wanting min. wage bumped to $15-20 an hour. With no change in skillset they want to at least double their pay. To me, that's a handout.

Under this ignorant definition, anyone who gets a raise without a promotion is getting a handout.

Nope. Businesses give raises to keep good employees. And even in fast food you can get a raise. It's usually more like 25 cents though, compared to the significant raises most of us probably receive. But to double everyone's pay for no reason other than being forced to do so is a handout.

Businesses wouldn't give anyone raises unless they were "forced" to.

I just got a raise without asking 3 months ago. That pretty much blows away your "all business bad" ideology.

I don't think "all business bad". I'm a capitalist, and I've studied both law and economics. I believe in well regulated markets, as well as good government.

That raise you received is intended to keep you happy so that your company can retain your services. It wasn't charity.

 

[MaxThreshold]

In defense of the low wage worker, they are showing up for work. Because of that, I cant say they "just want a handout".

To clarify: When I say they just want a handout I'm talking about wanting min. wage bumped to $15-20 an hour. With no change in skillset they want to at least double their pay. To me, that's a handout.

Under this ignorant definition, anyone who gets a raise without a promotion is getting a handout.

Nope. Businesses give raises to keep good employees. And even in fast food you can get a raise. It's usually more like 25 cents though, compared to the significant raises most of us probably receive. But to double everyone's pay for no reason other than being forced to do so is a handout.

Businesses wouldn't give anyone raises unless they were "forced" to.

I just got a raise without asking 3 months ago. That pretty much blows away your "all business bad" ideology.

I don't think "all business bad". I'm a capitalist, and I've studied both law and economics. I believe in well regulated markets, as well as good government.

That raise you received is intended to keep you happy so that your company can retain your services. It wasn't charity.

Just about every post you've made in this forum since you joined completely contradicts what you just posted now. Maybe you've come over from the dark side to join the side of light and goodness? Or are you just trying to fool everyone? I seriously don't know.

 

[humpback]

Businesses wouldn't give anyone raises unless they were "forced" to.

I just got a raise without asking 3 months ago. That pretty much blows away your "all business bad" ideology.

I don't think "all business bad". I'm a capitalist, and I've studied both law and economics. I believe in well regulated markets, as well as good government.

That raise you received is intended to keep you happy so that your company can retain your services. It wasn't charity.

It wasn't forced either.

 

[NCCommish]

Here's the thing the I got mine crowd always misses. Raising the minimum wage raises consumption. Rising consumption fuels job growth. Job growth fuels pay increases for people up the line. Raising the minimum wage helps grow the middle class. Middle class people spend more. Working poor spend more. This creates more jobs. Which means more consumption. Rinse repeat. This also reduces the number of people needing public assistance. and for all you budget cutting I don't care if you eat people that should get you tingly.

I don't know when we stopped teaching the demand side of economic theory but it's probably time we started again.

I wish it was this simple. The skeptic in me keeps whispering that forcing higher wages on corporations doesn't always work in practice the way it does in theory. What's to stop these greedy companies from further automating processes to counteract their rising wage costs?

That's going to happen regardless. it is happening now with depressed wages. Soon, in a historical sense, a huge percentage of all jobs will be automated. Transportation is not going to need drivers. Manufacturing is going to need a handful of workers to attend self healing machines but not machinists to run them. Even burger flippers are in peril from machines that can make hundreds of burgers an hour and never take a bathroom break.

At some point we will employ a BIG.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Businesses wouldn't give anyone raises unless they were "forced" to.

I just got a raise without asking 3 months ago. That pretty much blows away your "all business bad" ideology.

I don't think "all business bad". I'm a capitalist, and I've studied both law and economics. I believe in well regulated markets, as well as good government.

That raise you received is intended to keep you happy so that your company can retain your services. It wasn't charity.

It wasn't forced either.

Yes it was. The market forced it.

 

[humpback]

Businesses wouldn't give anyone raises unless they were "forced" to.

I just got a raise without asking 3 months ago. That pretty much blows away your "all business bad" ideology.

I don't think "all business bad". I'm a capitalist, and I've studied both law and economics. I believe in well regulated markets, as well as good government.

That raise you received is intended to keep you happy so that your company can retain your services. It wasn't charity.

It wasn't forced either.

Yes it was. The market forced it.

 

[cstu]

I hope people don't think companies give raises out of the goodness of their hearts. Want to talk about naive.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Businesses wouldn't give anyone raises unless they were "forced" to.

I just got a raise without asking 3 months ago. That pretty much blows away your "all business bad" ideology.

I don't think "all business bad". I'm a capitalist, and I've studied both law and economics. I believe in well regulated markets, as well as good government.

That raise you received is intended to keep you happy so that your company can retain your services. It wasn't charity.

It wasn't forced either.

Yes it was. The market forced it.

The market didn't force anything. I was already happy and wasn't threatening to leave or quit. I didn't ask for it. He simply gave it to me for doing great work and that he felt I deserved one. That's not the market, that's a businessman helping share the profits of the company with his workers (his philosophy). He didn't have to give me anything since he's already paying me the top tier for what the market demands for someone in my position.

 

[The Big Guy]

In the whole 'I made something of myself so why can't they' dismissal I believe there are a number of factors that I believe are being overlooked:

1) The organizations are generally hierarchial, and there are a lot more indians needed than chiefs hence, not all can become chiefs.

2) For an 'indian' it may be hard to raise a family on one income, thus eliminating the option of further education once you are in a minimum wage job. With a higher minimum wage that restriction may fall away, and that may open up the opportunity for others to join the job market (since not occupying two positions any more).

3) If 100 is the average IQ it goes without saying (but apparently it has to be said) that there are many of below average IQ. I'm not sure at what percentile it starts to lock people into minimum wage jobs but itis likely there is a drop off point. If that's too non PC then think of it as learning disabilities. If you have a learning disability you'll likely gravitate towards the job where you have to learn the least.

4) Similarly, ambition is likely distributed along a bell curve as well. So you are going to have people tending to lower ambitions.

Now the question is then, why should these people be destitute if the socoieconomic cost of assisting them (through a higher minimum wage) is limited (Which I believe MT showed in the Seattle $15/hr thread)?

You are going well over the top with your responses.

1-Of course there are more Indians than chiefs. Not all of the Indians are career people. Remember that we are talking about entry level jobs here. Most are geared for kids and people just looking for supplimenting their income, not for people who are looking to use the job as their sole income or to raise their family. So those that are doing that need to strive to become the chief and advance in their position

2-Not sure what you are going for here. You can easily work hard and become a shift supervisor without a degree of any sort. Not sure why any of your points matter here.

3- Are you saying that we should just pay a low IQ dolt a high wage "just because"? Not sure what other point that you are trying to get across here.

4-Low ambition people deserve the life that they get. If they do not want for more from their own efforts, then I see no reason why we should just give it to them again "just because".

 

[NCCommish]

In the whole 'I made something of myself so why can't they' dismissal I believe there are a number of factors that I believe are being overlooked:

1) The organizations are generally hierarchial, and there are a lot more indians needed than chiefs hence, not all can become chiefs.

2) For an 'indian' it may be hard to raise a family on one income, thus eliminating the option of further education once you are in a minimum wage job. With a higher minimum wage that restriction may fall away, and that may open up the opportunity for others to join the job market (since not occupying two positions any more).

3) If 100 is the average IQ it goes without saying (but apparently it has to be said) that there are many of below average IQ. I'm not sure at what percentile it starts to lock people into minimum wage jobs but itis likely there is a drop off point. If that's too non PC then think of it as learning disabilities. If you have a learning disability you'll likely gravitate towards the job where you have to learn the least.

4) Similarly, ambition is likely distributed along a bell curve as well. So you are going to have people tending to lower ambitions.

Now the question is then, why should these people be destitute if the socoieconomic cost of assisting them (through a higher minimum wage) is limited (Which I believe MT showed in the Seattle $15/hr thread)?

You are going well over the top with your responses.

1-Of course there are more Indians than chiefs. Not all of the Indians are career people. Remember that we are talking about entry level jobs here. Most are geared for kids and people just looking for supplimenting their income, not for people who are looking to use the job as their sole income or to raise their family. So those that are doing that need to strive to become the chief and advance in their position

2-Not sure what you are going for here. You can easily work hard and become a shift supervisor without a degree of any sort. Not sure why any of your points matter here.

3- Are you saying that we should just pay a low IQ dolt a high wage "just because"? Not sure what other point that you are trying to get across here.

4-Low ambition people deserve the life that they get. If they do not want for more from their own efforts, then I see no reason why we should just give it to them again "just because".

Completely wrong and part of the problem with this discussion. These jobs are no longer for or being manned by kids. These are the jobs our McEconomy makes these days. Since we are talking McDonalds/Fast food:

Based on analysis of federal government data, only about 30 percent of fast-food workers are teenagers, say Janelle Jones and John Schmitt of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. In studying the Current Population Survey for 2010-12, they also found that more than 36 percent of fast-food workers over the age of 20 had children.

These are the jobs available. People have to raise families and pay rent on them.

 

[cstu]

Businesses wouldn't give anyone raises unless they were "forced" to.

I just got a raise without asking 3 months ago. That pretty much blows away your "all business bad" ideology.

I don't think "all business bad". I'm a capitalist, and I've studied both law and economics. I believe in well regulated markets, as well as good government.

That raise you received is intended to keep you happy so that your company can retain your services. It wasn't charity.

It wasn't forced either.

Yes it was. The market forced it.

The market didn't force anything. I was already happy and wasn't threatening to leave or quit. I didn't ask for it. He simply gave it to me for doing great work and that he felt I deserved one. That's not the market, that's a businessman helping share the profits of the company with his workers (his philosophy). He didn't have to give me anything since he's already paying me the top tier for what the market demands for someone in my position.

Good lord they have workers brainwashed in this company.

The human resources classes I took during my MBA were all about how to make employees feel good about themselves so they continued to work hard and didn't start looking for other jobs. If he gave you a raise it's because you are valuable to him and he doesn't want to risk you leaving, nothing altruistic about it. I seriously find it funny that conservatives like you call liberals naive.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Can we all agree that $15-$20 for a fast food worker is ridiculous? I can see a $2-$3 raise, but come on.

 

[NCCommish]

Can we all agree that $15-$20 for a fast food worker is ridiculous? I can see a $2-$3 raise, but come on.

A 3 dollar raise would get them to 10.25 an hour. Glad to have you on board with the mainstream proposal.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Can we all agree that $15-$20 for a fast food worker is ridiculous? I can see a $2-$3 raise, but come on.

I'm still waiting to the answers to my questions in post #282, but apparently KarmaPolice is still on his cell phone. I can't really see why we should raise min. wage until I have answers to those questions. I'll open up the floor to anyone on the pro raise min. wage side since KarmaPolice is too busy.

 

[bostonfred]

Can we all agree that $15-$20 for a fast food worker is ridiculous? I can see a $2-$3 raise, but come on.

out of curiosity, why? Is it because you feel there's a disparity between fast food jobs and comparable 15 dollar per hour jobs? Or the shrinking gap between 15 dollars an hour and your current pay? Or are you more focused on the restaurant and their ability to make ends meet? Im asking honestly if one of those is a bigger factor in your thought process than the others. No agenda.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Can we all agree that $15-$20 for a fast food worker is ridiculous? I can see a $2-$3 raise, but come on.

out of curiosity, why? Is it because you feel there's a disparity between fast food jobs and comparable 15 dollar per hour jobs? Or the shrinking gap between 15 dollars an hour and your current pay? Or are you more focused on the restaurant and their ability to make ends meet?Im asking honestly if one of those is a bigger factor in your thought process than the others. No agenda.

1. Yes
2. lol
3. Not particularly

 

[mcintyre1]

I'm unwilling to listen to facts, facts are stupid, blah blah blah

FTFY

 

[parasaurolophus]

In the whole 'I made something of myself so why can't they' dismissal I believe there are a number of factors that I believe are being overlooked:

1) The organizations are generally hierarchial, and there are a lot more indians needed than chiefs hence, not all can become chiefs.

2) For an 'indian' it may be hard to raise a family on one income, thus eliminating the option of further education once you are in a minimum wage job. With a higher minimum wage that restriction may fall away, and that may open up the opportunity for others to join the job market (since not occupying two positions any more).

3) If 100 is the average IQ it goes without saying (but apparently it has to be said) that there are many of below average IQ. I'm not sure at what percentile it starts to lock people into minimum wage jobs but itis likely there is a drop off point. If that's too non PC then think of it as learning disabilities. If you have a learning disability you'll likely gravitate towards the job where you have to learn the least.

4) Similarly, ambition is likely distributed along a bell curve as well. So you are going to have people tending to lower ambitions.

Now the question is then, why should these people be destitute if the socoieconomic cost of assisting them (through a higher minimum wage) is limited (Which I believe MT showed in the Seattle $15/hr thread)?

You are going well over the top with your responses.

1-Of course there are more Indians than chiefs. Not all of the Indians are career people. Remember that we are talking about entry level jobs here. Most are geared for kids and people just looking for supplimenting their income, not for people who are looking to use the job as their sole income or to raise their family. So those that are doing that need to strive to become the chief and advance in their position

2-Not sure what you are going for here. You can easily work hard and become a shift supervisor without a degree of any sort. Not sure why any of your points matter here.

3- Are you saying that we should just pay a low IQ dolt a high wage "just because"? Not sure what other point that you are trying to get across here.

4-Low ambition people deserve the life that they get. If they do not want for more from their own efforts, then I see no reason why we should just give it to them again "just because".

Completely wrong and part of the problem with this discussion. These jobs are no longer for or being manned by kids. These are the jobs our McEconomy makes these days. Since we are talking McDonalds/Fast food:

Based on analysis of federal government data, only about 30 percent of fast-food workers are teenagers, say Janelle Jones and John Schmitt of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. In studying the Current Population Survey for 2010-12, they also found that more than 36 percent of fast-food workers over the age of 20 had children.

These are the jobs available. People have to raise families and pay rent on them.

I bet lots of the teenagers have kids too. Don't leave them out.

So if you have 1 kid you get 15 bucks an hour. 2 kids you get 17.50 an hour, 3 or more you get $20.00. All that money goes right back into the economy. What could go wrong?

 

[bostonfred]

I'm not really all that excited to talk politics with the usual suspects here, but let me take a crack.

First, the reason to raise minimum wage is not to spur demand, because if that's the government's goal, it's not the governments right to force employers to bear the cost. It's also not to benevolently raise wages for poor people or take jobs from high school kids. Let's stop talking in those terms.

The real reason the minimum wage needs to be increased is that the u.s. government has chosen an inflationary fiscal policy that disproportionately benefits wage payers and hurts wage earners. Wage payers are able to change their prices faster than wage earners, and in a down economy were able to reduce payroll costs in USD while the value of those dollars also decreased, while they could charge more USD for the goods and services they provide.

Keeping the same minimum wage floor while pushing inflation means that the government is enacting policy which hurts low wage earners, encourages people to "take handouts" instead of working, and will ultimately cause unionization and wide scale disruption to the economy in the long run.

Increasing the minimum wage also increases other wages, because someone washing windows for 20 bucks an hour might do it because it's twice the money they could get at an earlier job, but if the minimum wage goes up, they might move on unless their washes go up.

That's not a goal of government - we shouldn't ask government to force wage increases on employers - but if we pursue an inflationary fiscal policy, we need to ensure that those policy changes don't disproportionately harm one segment and help another, which is exactly what's happened.

Policy should be implemented consistently, which is one of the flaws in our two party system, sadly.

 

[bostonfred]

Can we all agree that $15-$20 for a fast food worker is ridiculous? I can see a $2-$3 raise, but come on.

out of curiosity, why? Is it because you feel there's a disparity between fast food jobs and comparable 15 dollar per hour jobs? Or the shrinking gap between 15 dollars an hour and your current pay? Or are you more focused on the restaurant and their ability to make ends meet?Im asking honestly if one of those is a bigger factor in your thought process than the others. No agenda.

• Yes
• lol
• Not particularly

If minimum wage goes to fifteen bucks an hour, the people who make sixteen bucks an hour will demand (and get) more. These things normalize quickly. That's not necessarily a good thing, just saying that the disparity between fifteen buck an hour jobs and minimum wage jobs is not a big concern here. (The impact on employers might be, but you just said that's not a particularly big concern for you. )

 

[KarmaPolice]

Can we all agree that $15-$20 for a fast food worker is ridiculous? I can see a $2-$3 raise, but come on.

I'm still waiting to the answers to my questions in post #282, but apparently KarmaPolice is still on his cell phone. I can't really see why we should raise min. wage until I have answers to those questions. I'll open up the floor to anyone on the pro raise min. wage side since KarmaPolice is too busy.

why somebody would work these jobs and if these jobs' rate should be jacked up are two different discussions.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Can we all agree that $15-$20 for a fast food worker is ridiculous? I can see a $2-$3 raise, but come on.

I'm still waiting to the answers to my questions in post #282, but apparently KarmaPolice is still on his cell phone. I can't really see why we should raise min. wage until I have answers to those questions. I'll open up the floor to anyone on the pro raise min. wage side since KarmaPolice is too busy.

why somebody would work these jobs and if these jobs' rate should be jacked up are two different discussions.

Uh, this isn't what you said yesterday.......

I would be happy to attept to answer that when I am not on my cell phone doing this.

 

[tommyGunZ]

The idea that everyone working fast food jobs "doesn't want to better themselves" and is just "lazy and wanting a handout" is ignorant and insulting, especially at a time in which jobs have been difficult to find due to an economic recession.

 

[The Big Guy]

The idea that everyone working fast food jobs "doesn't want to better themselves" and is just "lazy and wanting a handout" is ignorant and insulting, especially at a time in which jobs have been difficult to find due to an economic recession.

The idea that you think that everyone believes that everyone working a fast food job is lazy, shiftless and unable to advance themselves is ignorant and insulting. In a time of difficulties due to an economic recession, people taking jobs that might have been previously beneath them will bust their asses and excell, making their abilities known and advancing their career path.

 

[tommyGunZ]

The idea that everyone working fast food jobs "doesn't want to better themselves" and is just "lazy and wanting a handout" is ignorant and insulting, especially at a time in which jobs have been difficult to find due to an economic recession.

The idea that you think that everyone believes that everyone working a fast food job is lazy, shiftless and unable to advance themselves is ignorant and insulting. In a time of difficulties due to an economic recession, people taking jobs that might have been previously beneath them will bust their asses and excell, making their abilities known and advancing their career path.

Those words in my post in quotes were directly from Strike's post.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Businesses wouldn't give anyone raises unless they were "forced" to.

I just got a raise without asking 3 months ago. That pretty much blows away your "all business bad" ideology.

I don't think "all business bad". I'm a capitalist, and I've studied both law and economics. I believe in well regulated markets, as well as good government.

That raise you received is intended to keep you happy so that your company can retain your services. It wasn't charity.

It wasn't forced either.

Yes it was. The market forced it.

The market didn't force anything. I was already happy and wasn't threatening to leave or quit. I didn't ask for it. He simply gave it to me for doing great work and that he felt I deserved one. That's not the market, that's a businessman helping share the profits of the company with his workers (his philosophy). He didn't have to give me anything since he's already paying me the top tier for what the market demands for someone in my position.

Good lord they have workers brainwashed in this company.

The human resources classes I took during my MBA were all about how to make employees feel good about themselves so they continued to work hard and didn't start looking for other jobs. If he gave you a raise it's because you are valuable to him and he doesn't want to risk you leaving, nothing altruistic about it. I seriously find it funny that conservatives like you call liberals naive.

Seems like you know a lot about a small company you never heard of or worked for. Maybe you're being a bit naive here? Assuming that "business = bad" just like TGunz did? Maybe I have some insight that you don't?

I'm not saying he's sharing 1/2 the profits with me. All I'm saying is that he's paying me great money already and it wasn't the "market force" that TGunz claims it was (after backtracking on his earlier "forced" comment).

 

[StrikeS2k]

The idea that everyone working fast food jobs "doesn't want to better themselves" and is just "lazy and wanting a handout" is ignorant and insulting, especially at a time in which jobs have been difficult to find due to an economic recession.

The idea that you think that everyone believes that everyone working a fast food job is lazy, shiftless and unable to advance themselves is ignorant and insulting. In a time of difficulties due to an economic recession, people taking jobs that might have been previously beneath them will bust their asses and excell, making their abilities known and advancing their career path.

Those words in my post in quotes were directly from Strike's post.

Actually, they're not. Please don't say you're quoting me when you're not. In fact, I just did a search on the last two pages of this thread and can't find the word lazy until you use it in your post.

 

[Christo]

In the whole 'I made something of myself so why can't they' dismissal I believe there are a number of factors that I believe are being overlooked:

1) The organizations are generally hierarchial, and there are a lot more indians needed than chiefs hence, not all can become chiefs.

2) For an 'indian' it may be hard to raise a family on one income, thus eliminating the option of further education once you are in a minimum wage job. With a higher minimum wage that restriction may fall away, and that may open up the opportunity for others to join the job market (since not occupying two positions any more).

3) If 100 is the average IQ it goes without saying (but apparently it has to be said) that there are many of below average IQ. I'm not sure at what percentile it starts to lock people into minimum wage jobs but itis likely there is a drop off point. If that's too non PC then think of it as learning disabilities. If you have a learning disability you'll likely gravitate towards the job where you have to learn the least.

4) Similarly, ambition is likely distributed along a bell curve as well. So you are going to have people tending to lower ambitions.

Now the question is then, why should these people be destitute if the socoieconomic cost of assisting them (through a higher minimum wage) is limited (Which I believe MT showed in the Seattle $15/hr thread)?

You are going well over the top with your responses.

1-Of course there are more Indians than chiefs. Not all of the Indians are career people. Remember that we are talking about entry level jobs here. Most are geared for kids and people just looking for supplimenting their income, not for people who are looking to use the job as their sole income or to raise their family. So those that are doing that need to strive to become the chief and advance in their position

2-Not sure what you are going for here. You can easily work hard and become a shift supervisor without a degree of any sort. Not sure why any of your points matter here.

3- Are you saying that we should just pay a low IQ dolt a high wage "just because"? Not sure what other point that you are trying to get across here.

4-Low ambition people deserve the life that they get. If they do not want for more from their own efforts, then I see no reason why we should just give it to them again "just because".

Completely wrong and part of the problem with this discussion. These jobs are no longer for or being manned by kids. These are the jobs our McEconomy makes these days. Since we are talking McDonalds/Fast food:

Based on analysis of federal government data, only about 30 percent of fast-food workers are teenagers, say Janelle Jones and John Schmitt of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. In studying the Current Population Survey for 2010-12, they also found that more than 36 percent of fast-food workers over the age of 20 had children.

These are the jobs available. People have to raise families and pay rent on them.

Well, they don't have to.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Can we all agree that $15-$20 for a fast food worker is ridiculous? I can see a $2-$3 raise, but come on.

I'm still waiting to the answers to my questions in post #282, but apparently KarmaPolice is still on his cell phone. I can't really see why we should raise min. wage until I have answers to those questions. I'll open up the floor to anyone on the pro raise min. wage side since KarmaPolice is too busy.

why somebody would work these jobs and if these jobs' rate should be jacked up are two different discussions.

Uh, this isn't what you said yesterday.......

I would be happy to attept to answer that when I am not on my cell phone doing this.

I have posted repeatedly that what I take offense to is the picture that people working these jobs are painted as unmotivated bums that have no ambition in life. To me the needing $15/hr discussion is separate.

 

[KarmaPolice]

If the folks that feel compelled to pay people above what the job is worth, what's stopping you from opening a business and doing just that?

This is always a silly position.

Yeah, do as I say, not as I do. I get it.

yep, it is so easy to start your own business. in your world everybody has the the extra capital, desire, knowledge, and good enough idea to start a successful business?

Thats kind of my point. These owners took the chance with their own money, desire and knowledge and dont need the rest of us telling them what is fair or right. It isnt up to them to save the world.

I get that. my problem with these threads is more about people automatically assuming people with these jobs are unmotivated bums. I am not arguing that fast food workers need make $ x/hr.

For me, the fact that you ignored my specific questions to you on this point in post #261 hurt your cause......

I just assumed you knew how silly that question was. breakdown of % of reasons people are in a fast food job? come on.also, why is everybody there making minimum wage in your scenario?

Whatever, low wages. I mean, that's what we're talking about right? Whether they make $7.25 or 8.50 doesn't really matter. It's a very low, barely livable wage. And if you can't give specific percentages do what you can. I'm asking you to justify your stance beyond just vague, broad statements. What is keeping these people in these jobs? Why are they there in the first place? I'm trying to find a reason to care instead of just wondering why these people haven't done anything to improve their position in life. It seems they don't care that much about their skill set. They just want a handout. If they don't care that much why should I?

Not sure why I am bothering, but:

There are so many different people you will find that work at these places, that blanket statements don't do any good. I worked the fast food thing for about 8 years and met all kind of people that worked there.

A good % were high schoolers/teenagers as would be expected, but I bet it was less than 1/2. Of the adults that worked there not in management, I would say that the biggest reasons for them being there or not working elsewhere were:

- lack of education: This also encompassed a full spectrum of reasons from poor choices/lack of motivation, to not being intelligent enough (which has 0 to do with work ethic or desire to advance, to a splattering of people who had to get a job to help out their family/had kids early, etc..

- language barrier: There was a decent % of them were this was an issue.

- benefits: this was a huge one. a separate discussion, but one thing that putting our health care so dependent on our employers, is it does have the ability to pin people into jobs like this that they don't love. for somebody not making a ton of money or might not have much in savings, it is a scary proposition to go someplace else and risk your loved ones getting sick during the transition period.

- hours: especially people with families, it was easy to get a schedule that messed with their families schedule. More than retail or factory work, it was easy to get hours in during the am and be out to pick up kids from school, or close and do the opposite.

- ability to get hired other places: some because of the physical abilities/education but there is also stigma (as we have seen here) of having a job like this and trying to get a job elsewhere. Sure, they might be able to get a job for a little more/hr someplace else if they wanted to take the risk, but even though it might be a decent play for the next several years, it might not be doable for them right now.

That all said, I worked for a company that paid well for the industry. Just about every adult that worked hard got paid at least around the $10/hr mark. If we are solely focusing on somebody who has been hovering at minimum wage or just above at the same job for years, yes - they might likely be a job jumper or lack any sort of work ethic to get a raise. I can see workers in the industry working at another place, working just as hard, and still being below $9/hr just because that is what their place pays.

When people are talking about raising the minimum wage, it is more an issue of where wages are now vs. what they should be with inflation. Nothing to do with a "handout", more about at least paying people the same relatively for what they have been in the past. As somebody else posted, somebody working their ### off at a low end job is nowhere near the same ballpark as somebody mooching off the government and not working, but that seems to be the level that a lot of people group them in these types of threads.

 

[NCCommish]

In the whole 'I made something of myself so why can't they' dismissal I believe there are a number of factors that I believe are being overlooked:

1) The organizations are generally hierarchial, and there are a lot more indians needed than chiefs hence, not all can become chiefs.

2) For an 'indian' it may be hard to raise a family on one income, thus eliminating the option of further education once you are in a minimum wage job. With a higher minimum wage that restriction may fall away, and that may open up the opportunity for others to join the job market (since not occupying two positions any more).

3) If 100 is the average IQ it goes without saying (but apparently it has to be said) that there are many of below average IQ. I'm not sure at what percentile it starts to lock people into minimum wage jobs but itis likely there is a drop off point. If that's too non PC then think of it as learning disabilities. If you have a learning disability you'll likely gravitate towards the job where you have to learn the least.

4) Similarly, ambition is likely distributed along a bell curve as well. So you are going to have people tending to lower ambitions.

Now the question is then, why should these people be destitute if the socoieconomic cost of assisting them (through a higher minimum wage) is limited (Which I believe MT showed in the Seattle $15/hr thread)?

You are going well over the top with your responses.

1-Of course there are more Indians than chiefs. Not all of the Indians are career people. Remember that we are talking about entry level jobs here. Most are geared for kids and people just looking for supplimenting their income, not for people who are looking to use the job as their sole income or to raise their family. So those that are doing that need to strive to become the chief and advance in their position

2-Not sure what you are going for here. You can easily work hard and become a shift supervisor without a degree of any sort. Not sure why any of your points matter here.

3- Are you saying that we should just pay a low IQ dolt a high wage "just because"? Not sure what other point that you are trying to get across here.

4-Low ambition people deserve the life that they get. If they do not want for more from their own efforts, then I see no reason why we should just give it to them again "just because".

Completely wrong and part of the problem with this discussion. These jobs are no longer for or being manned by kids. These are the jobs our McEconomy makes these days. Since we are talking McDonalds/Fast food:

Based on analysis of federal government data, only about 30 percent of fast-food workers are teenagers, say Janelle Jones and John Schmitt of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. In studying the Current Population Survey for 2010-12, they also found that more than 36 percent of fast-food workers over the age of 20 had children.

These are the jobs available. People have to raise families and pay rent on them.

Well, they don't have to.

No they could starve or your taxes can pay for them not to.

 

[KarmaPolice]

In the whole 'I made something of myself so why can't they' dismissal I believe there are a number of factors that I believe are being overlooked:

1) The organizations are generally hierarchial, and there are a lot more indians needed than chiefs hence, not all can become chiefs.

2) For an 'indian' it may be hard to raise a family on one income, thus eliminating the option of further education once you are in a minimum wage job. With a higher minimum wage that restriction may fall away, and that may open up the opportunity for others to join the job market (since not occupying two positions any more).

3) If 100 is the average IQ it goes without saying (but apparently it has to be said) that there are many of below average IQ. I'm not sure at what percentile it starts to lock people into minimum wage jobs but itis likely there is a drop off point. If that's too non PC then think of it as learning disabilities. If you have a learning disability you'll likely gravitate towards the job where you have to learn the least.

4) Similarly, ambition is likely distributed along a bell curve as well. So you are going to have people tending to lower ambitions.

Now the question is then, why should these people be destitute if the socoieconomic cost of assisting them (through a higher minimum wage) is limited (Which I believe MT showed in the Seattle $15/hr thread)?

You are going well over the top with your responses.1-Of course there are more Indians than chiefs. Not all of the Indians are career people. Remember that we are talking about entry level jobs here. Most are geared for kids and people just looking for supplimenting their income, not for people who are looking to use the job as their sole income or to raise their family. So those that are doing that need to strive to become the chief and advance in their position

2-Not sure what you are going for here. You can easily work hard and become a shift supervisor without a degree of any sort. Not sure why any of your points matter here.

3- Are you saying that we should just pay a low IQ dolt a high wage "just because"? Not sure what other point that you are trying to get across here.

4-Low ambition people deserve the life that they get. If they do not want for more from their own efforts, then I see no reason why we should just give it to them again "just because".

Completely wrong and part of the problem with this discussion. These jobs are no longer for or being manned by kids. These are the jobs our McEconomy makes these days. Since we are talking McDonalds/Fast food:

Based on analysis of federal government data, only about 30 percent of fast-food workers are teenagers, say Janelle Jones and John Schmitt of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. In studying the Current Population Survey for 2010-12, they also found that more than 36 percent of fast-food workers over the age of 20 had children.

These are the jobs available. People have to raise families and pay rent on them.

Well, they don't have to.

No they could starve or your taxes can pay for them not to.

I am guessing most here choose option 1.

 

[cstu]

Can we all agree that $15-$20 for a fast food worker is ridiculous? I can see a $2-$3 raise, but come on.

out of curiosity, why? Is it because you feel there's a disparity between fast food jobs and comparable 15 dollar per hour jobs? Or the shrinking gap between 15 dollars an hour and your current pay? Or are you more focused on the restaurant and their ability to make ends meet?Im asking honestly if one of those is a bigger factor in your thought process than the others. No agenda.

• Yes
• lol
• Not particularly

If minimum wage goes to fifteen bucks an hour, the people who make sixteen bucks an hour will demand (and get) more. These things normalize quickly.That's not necessarily a good thing, just saying that the disparity between fifteen buck an hour jobs and minimum wage jobs is not a big concern here. (The impact on employers might be, but you just said that's not a particularly big concern for you. )

Not necessarily - if someone is making $16 at a job they like they aren't going to quit it to take a $1 pay cut to work at McDonald's. I agree there would be upward pressure on wages, mainly on the people who would just below the previous $15 minimum wage. Those people will want over $15 to stay since businesses will be competing for workers at that price.

Two negative things this will do:

- Reduce profitablilty - instead of 12% ROI a company might make only 10% ROI.

- Make some jobs unprofitable for employers and people will lose their jobs

On the positive side it will do two things:

- Give people incentive to work since $15 would create a large disparity between being on welfare and working. Right now it's more profitable to be on welfare than work minimum wage.

- It is also enough to provide for a family without being on public assistance (reducing welfare costs) or working two jobs (more time for family).

 

[SacramentoBob]

The biggest problem for the poor, disadvantaged folks not making enough at McDonalds is... if you raise the wage to $20, the pool of people who will take those jobs will be more competitive. Which means the poor, disadvantaged folks get pushed out of the new higher-paying job. Back to square 1.

 

[NCCommish]

The biggest problem for the poor, disadvantaged folks not making enough at McDonalds is... if you raise the wage to $20, the pool of people who will take those jobs will be more competitive. Which means the poor, disadvantaged folks get pushed out of the new higher-paying job. Back to square 1.

Except every job pays at least that. And with increased consumption more workers will be needed. So they will find another job. Oh and very few are calling for a 20.00 minimum. The consensus number seems to be around 10.00.

 

[SacramentoBob]

The biggest problem for the poor, disadvantaged folks not making enough at McDonalds is... if you raise the wage to $20, the pool of people who will take those jobs will be more competitive. Which means the poor, disadvantaged folks get pushed out of the new higher-paying job. Back to square 1.

Except every job pays at least that. And with increased consumption more workers will be needed. So they will find another job. Oh and very few are calling for a 20.00 minimum. The consensus number seems to be around 10.00.

We're not going to a $20/hr minimum wage.

 

[cstu]

The biggest problem for the poor, disadvantaged folks not making enough at McDonalds is... if you raise the wage to $20, the pool of people who will take those jobs will be more competitive. Which means the poor, disadvantaged folks get pushed out of the new higher-paying job. Back to square 1.

This is true but I don't think it's back to square one.

- People who do have jobs will be happier (better family life/raise kids better) and be better workers (out of necessity since people are lining up to take their job).

- People who don't have jobs have more incentive to work hard to get a job. Currently there's little incentive to work for minimum wage is barely subsistence level, if that.

There will be people who won't be able to find work so the trade-off is more unemployed people vs. happier employed people who are better citizens.

 

[cstu]

The biggest problem for the poor, disadvantaged folks not making enough at McDonalds is... if you raise the wage to $20, the pool of people who will take those jobs will be more competitive. Which means the poor, disadvantaged folks get pushed out of the new higher-paying job. Back to square 1.

Except every job pays at least that. And with increased consumption more workers will be needed. So they will find another job. Oh and very few are calling for a 20.00 minimum. The consensus number seems to be around 10.00.

We're not going to a $20/hr minimum wage.

I'm not advocating that number - I think it should be a based on an area's cost of living. $15 in California seems right to me but in places like Iowa $10 is reasonable.

 

[humpback]

The biggest problem for the poor, disadvantaged folks not making enough at McDonalds is... if you raise the wage to $20, the pool of people who will take those jobs will be more competitive. Which means the poor, disadvantaged folks get pushed out of the new higher-paying job. Back to square 1.

Except every job pays at least that. And with increased consumption more workers will be needed. So they will find another job. Oh and very few are calling for a 20.00 minimum. The consensus number seems to be around 10.00.

Are you saying that raising minimum wage would result in a net increase in jobs?

 

[parasaurolophus]

The biggest problem for the poor, disadvantaged folks not making enough at McDonalds is... if you raise the wage to $20, the pool of people who will take those jobs will be more competitive. Which means the poor, disadvantaged folks get pushed out of the new higher-paying job. Back to square 1.

Except every job pays at least that. And with increased consumption more workers will be needed. So they will find another job. Oh and very few are calling for a 20.00 minimum. The consensus number seems to be around 10.00.

We're not going to a $20/hr minimum wage.

Why not? If NCC is right it seems like a no brainer.

 

[tommyGunZ]

The biggest problem for the poor, disadvantaged folks not making enough at McDonalds is... if you raise the wage to $20, the pool of people who will take those jobs will be more competitive. Which means the poor, disadvantaged folks get pushed out of the new higher-paying job. Back to square 1.

Except every job pays at least that. And with increased consumption more workers will be needed. So they will find another job. Oh and very few are calling for a 20.00 minimum. The consensus number seems to be around 10.00.

Are you saying that raising minimum wage would result in a net increase in jobs?

Recent studies suggests that a marginal increase in the minimum wage is not the job killer that conservatives make it out to be, for some of the reasons NCC articulated. I would argue this is particularly true when there is a demand shortage, as we have now.

 

[humpback]

The biggest problem for the poor, disadvantaged folks not making enough at McDonalds is... if you raise the wage to $20, the pool of people who will take those jobs will be more competitive. Which means the poor, disadvantaged folks get pushed out of the new higher-paying job. Back to square 1.

Except every job pays at least that. And with increased consumption more workers will be needed. So they will find another job. Oh and very few are calling for a 20.00 minimum. The consensus number seems to be around 10.00.

Are you saying that raising minimum wage would result in a net increase in jobs?

Recent studies suggests that a marginal increase in the minimum wage is not the job killer that conservatives make it out to be, for some of the reasons NCC articulated. I would argue this is particularly true when there is a demand shortage, as we have now.

I was asking him, but you didn't answer the question anyway.

 

[NCCommish]

The biggest problem for the poor, disadvantaged folks not making enough at McDonalds is... if you raise the wage to $20, the pool of people who will take those jobs will be more competitive. Which means the poor, disadvantaged folks get pushed out of the new higher-paying job. Back to square 1.

Except every job pays at least that. And with increased consumption more workers will be needed. So they will find another job. Oh and very few are calling for a 20.00 minimum. The consensus number seems to be around 10.00.

Are you saying that raising minimum wage would result in a net increase in jobs?

In the short term there would be some losses. Long term though yes it would create jobs and they would pay better than the ones lost. So if you lose a 7.25 an hour job and then get a 10.10 an hour job did you really lose anything?

 

[humpback]

The biggest problem for the poor, disadvantaged folks not making enough at McDonalds is... if you raise the wage to $20, the pool of people who will take those jobs will be more competitive. Which means the poor, disadvantaged folks get pushed out of the new higher-paying job. Back to square 1.

Except every job pays at least that. And with increased consumption more workers will be needed. So they will find another job. Oh and very few are calling for a 20.00 minimum. The consensus number seems to be around 10.00.

Are you saying that raising minimum wage would result in a net increase in jobs?

In the short term there would be some losses. Long term though yes it would create jobs and they would pay better than the ones lost. So if you lose a 7.25 an hour job and then get a 10.10 an hour job did you really lose anything?

What is this based on, and are there limits? If we raise it to $20/hr, would it create even more jobs?

 

[SacramentoBob]

The biggest problem for the poor, disadvantaged folks not making enough at McDonalds is... if you raise the wage to $20, the pool of people who will take those jobs will be more competitive. Which means the poor, disadvantaged folks get pushed out of the new higher-paying job. Back to square 1.

Except every job pays at least that. And with increased consumption more workers will be needed. So they will find another job. Oh and very few are calling for a 20.00 minimum. The consensus number seems to be around 10.00.

Are you saying that raising minimum wage would result in a net increase in jobs?

Recent studies suggests that a marginal increase in the minimum wage is not the job killer that conservatives make it out to be, for some of the reasons NCC articulated. I would argue this is particularly true when there is a demand shortage, as we have now.

Is $8 to $20 marginal?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

In the whole 'I made something of myself so why can't they' dismissal I believe there are a number of factors that I believe are being overlooked:

1) The organizations are generally hierarchial, and there are a lot more indians needed than chiefs hence, not all can become chiefs.

2) For an 'indian' it may be hard to raise a family on one income, thus eliminating the option of further education once you are in a minimum wage job. With a higher minimum wage that restriction may fall away, and that may open up the opportunity for others to join the job market (since not occupying two positions any more).

3) If 100 is the average IQ it goes without saying (but apparently it has to be said) that there are many of below average IQ. I'm not sure at what percentile it starts to lock people into minimum wage jobs but itis likely there is a drop off point. If that's too non PC then think of it as learning disabilities. If you have a learning disability you'll likely gravitate towards the job where you have to learn the least.

4) Similarly, ambition is likely distributed along a bell curve as well. So you are going to have people tending to lower ambitions.

Now the question is then, why should these people be destitute if the socoieconomic cost of assisting them (through a higher minimum wage) is limited (Which I believe MT showed in the Seattle $15/hr thread)?

You are going well over the top with your responses.

1-Of course there are more Indians than chiefs. Not all of the Indians are career people. Remember that we are talking about entry level jobs here. Most are geared for kids and people just looking for supplimenting their income, not for people who are looking to use the job as their sole income or to raise their family. So those that are doing that need to strive to become the chief and advance in their position

2-Not sure what you are going for here. You can easily work hard and become a shift supervisor without a degree of any sort. Not sure why any of your points matter here.

3- Are you saying that we should just pay a low IQ dolt a high wage "just because"? Not sure what other point that you are trying to get across here.

4-Low ambition people deserve the life that they get. If they do not want for more from their own efforts, then I see no reason why we should just give it to them again "just because".

Completely wrong and part of the problem with this discussion. These jobs are no longer for or being manned by kids. These are the jobs our McEconomy makes these days. Since we are talking McDonalds/Fast food:

Based on analysis of federal government data, only about 30 percent of fast-food workers are teenagers, say Janelle Jones and John Schmitt of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. In studying the Current Population Survey for 2010-12, they also found that more than 36 percent of fast-food workers over the age of 20 had children.

These are the jobs available. People have to raise families and pay rent on them.

Well, they don't have to.

No they could starve or your taxes can pay for them not to.

Or they could stop spitting out kids they can't afford.

 

[McDonalds Store Manager]

This thread makes me weep.

 

[NCCommish]

The biggest problem for the poor, disadvantaged folks not making enough at McDonalds is... if you raise the wage to $20, the pool of people who will take those jobs will be more competitive. Which means the poor, disadvantaged folks get pushed out of the new higher-paying job. Back to square 1.

Except every job pays at least that. And with increased consumption more workers will be needed. So they will find another job. Oh and very few are calling for a 20.00 minimum. The consensus number seems to be around 10.00.

Are you saying that raising minimum wage would result in a net increase in jobs?

In the short term there would be some losses. Long term though yes it would create jobs and they would pay better than the ones lost. So if you lose a 7.25 an hour job and then get a 10.10 an hour job did you really lose anything?

What is this based on, and are there limits? If we raise it to $20/hr, would it create even more jobs?

I haven't seen a study outlining the benefits/issues of a 20 an hour min wage. I have seen them with 10.10. There have been plenty of studies looking at the states that have raised their minimum wages in the last couple of years. They are all outpacing the average in job creation. That isn't theory that's what is happening on the ground.

 

[humpback]

The biggest problem for the poor, disadvantaged folks not making enough at McDonalds is... if you raise the wage to $20, the pool of people who will take those jobs will be more competitive. Which means the poor, disadvantaged folks get pushed out of the new higher-paying job. Back to square 1.

Except every job pays at least that. And with increased consumption more workers will be needed. So they will find another job. Oh and very few are calling for a 20.00 minimum. The consensus number seems to be around 10.00.

Are you saying that raising minimum wage would result in a net increase in jobs?

In the short term there would be some losses. Long term though yes it would create jobs and they would pay better than the ones lost. So if you lose a 7.25 an hour job and then get a 10.10 an hour job did you really lose anything?

What is this based on, and are there limits? If we raise it to $20/hr, would it create even more jobs?

I haven't seen a study outlining the benefits/issues of a 20 an hour min wage. I have seen them with 10.10. There have been plenty of studies looking at the states that have raised their minimum wages in the last couple of years. They are all outpacing the average in job creation. That isn't theory that's what is happening on the ground.

You're a smart guy- you certainly understand that there a several factors at play besides the minimum wage that determine job growth, and that correlation does not imply causation.

That being said, it sounds like your answer is "yes", raising the minimum wage to $10ish will create jobs. However, the CBO who you cited earlier disagrees.