What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

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.
There is no historical evidence to suggest that simply raising the minimum wage does what the CBO says. Multiple studies have been done. And again demand creates jobs not supply. You get more demand when people have more money to spend. When there is more demand you need more employees. This isn't exactly Chaos Theory. It's really pretty easy to understand. Demand creates jobs. The more money people have the more demand there will be. We have done supply side for 30 years and where do we find ourselves? Broke, a declining middle class and a growing issue with people not making enough to live. Even large businesses are starting to talk about the need to get more money in the hands of the people who spend it not tie it up in some family tax shelter for 100 years.

 
There is no historical evidence to suggest that simply raising the minimum wage does what the CBO says. Multiple studies have been done. And again demand creates jobs not supply. You get more demand when people have more money to spend. When there is more demand you need more employees. This isn't exactly Chaos Theory. It's really pretty easy to understand. Demand creates jobs. The more money people have the more demand there will be. We have done supply side for 30 years and where do we find ourselves? Broke, a declining middle class and a growing issue with people not making enough to live. Even large businesses are starting to talk about the need to get more money in the hands of the people who spend it not tie it up in some family tax shelter for 100 years.
:goodposting:
 
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.
There is no historical evidence to suggest that simply raising the minimum wage does what the CBO says. Multiple studies have been done. And again demand creates jobs not supply. You get more demand when people have more money to spend. When there is more demand you need more employees. This isn't exactly Chaos Theory. It's really pretty easy to understand. Demand creates jobs. The more money people have the more demand there will be. We have done supply side for 30 years and where do we find ourselves? Broke, a declining middle class and a growing issue with people not making enough to live. Even large businesses are starting to talk about the need to get more money in the hands of the people who spend it not tie it up in some family tax shelter for 100 years.
Studies are just estimates based on a bunch of assumptions and usually end up being way off. Seems you are believing parts of the CBO's study but not others, which makes it seem like you don't think they're credible. That's fine, but then you shouldn't put much stock in the parts you agree with either.

I know your "theory", which is why I asked if it had limits. Every time you go on one of these rants you make it seem so simple, like there is no limit to it or downsides that come with it.

 
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.
There is no historical evidence to suggest that simply raising the minimum wage does what the CBO says. Multiple studies have been done. And again demand creates jobs not supply. You get more demand when people have more money to spend. When there is more demand you need more employees. This isn't exactly Chaos Theory. It's really pretty easy to understand. Demand creates jobs. The more money people have the more demand there will be. We have done supply side for 30 years and where do we find ourselves? Broke, a declining middle class and a growing issue with people not making enough to live. Even large businesses are starting to talk about the need to get more money in the hands of the people who spend it not tie it up in some family tax shelter for 100 years.
Studies are just estimates based on a bunch of assumptions and usually end up being way off. Seems you are believing parts of the CBO's study but not others, which makes it seem like you don't think they're credible. That's fine, but then you shouldn't put much stock in the parts you agree with either.

I know your "theory", which is why I asked if it had limits. Every time you go on one of these rants you make it seem so simple, like there is no limit to it or downsides that come with it.
Well why don't you look at the states who have raised it? What catastrophes have befallen their economies? None that I am aware of. They are growing faster than the average state. Point out the downsides the states with higher minimum wages have encountered from that raise. Can you find any meaningful issues? I mean seriously 30 years of supply side have led here. With all the empirical evidence of how damaging that has been long term. How much real world evidence, not studies, does it take before you say hey maybe this will work?

 
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.
There is no historical evidence to suggest that simply raising the minimum wage does what the CBO says. Multiple studies have been done. And again demand creates jobs not supply. You get more demand when people have more money to spend. When there is more demand you need more employees. This isn't exactly Chaos Theory. It's really pretty easy to understand. Demand creates jobs. The more money people have the more demand there will be. We have done supply side for 30 years and where do we find ourselves? Broke, a declining middle class and a growing issue with people not making enough to live. Even large businesses are starting to talk about the need to get more money in the hands of the people who spend it not tie it up in some family tax shelter for 100 years.
Studies are just estimates based on a bunch of assumptions and usually end up being way off. Seems you are believing parts of the CBO's study but not others, which makes it seem like you don't think they're credible. That's fine, but then you shouldn't put much stock in the parts you agree with either.

I know your "theory", which is why I asked if it had limits. Every time you go on one of these rants you make it seem so simple, like there is no limit to it or downsides that come with it.
Well why don't you look at the states who have raised it? What catastrophes have befallen their economies? None that I am aware of. They are growing faster than the average state. Point out the downsides the states with higher minimum wages have encountered from that raise. Can you find any meaningful issues? I mean seriously 30 years of supply side have led here. With all the empirical evidence of how damaging that has been long term. How much real world evidence, not studies, does it take before you say hey maybe this will work?
I was hoping to have a serious discussion about it, but as expected, more platitudes and straw men.

 
I was hoping to have a serious discussion about it, but as expected, more platitudes and straw men.
No you don't want a discussion. If you did you'd look at all the examples I have given you and then point out the issues you see. Be glad to discuss them. But you want to ignore historical fact, 30 years of supply side has killed the middle class, and you want to ignore current things happening. You want to talk about a CBO number which has been killed by reality. And what have you brought to this discussion so far? Nothing. Not one bit of empirical evidence to counter anything I have said or pointed you to. Call them platitudes or straw men seems to be your big gotcha. i think you may need to look up both those words. But yeah I am the problem here.

 
I was hoping to have a serious discussion about it, but as expected, more platitudes and straw men.
No you don't want a discussion. If you did you'd look at all the examples I have given you and then point out the issues you see. Be glad to discuss them. But you want to ignore historical fact, 30 years of supply side has killed the middle class, and you want to ignore current things happening. You want to talk about a CBO number which has been killed by reality. And what have you brought to this discussion so far? Nothing. Not one bit of empirical evidence to counter anything I have said or pointed you to. Call them platitudes or straw men seems to be your big gotcha. i think you may need to look up both those words. But yeah I am the problem here.
You haven't given any specific examples, you just keep babbling about "studies" and "facts" such as "30 years of supply side has killed the middle class". Very compelling.

I already said that just because some states raised the minimum wage and had slightly higher job growth rates doesn't mean that the wage hikes were responsible for them, but again, you haven't cited anything specific. I only brought up the CBO because you cited them earlier when their estimate helped your cause, but now you say they've got it wrong because this one doesn't. You won't answer whether there is a limit to your premise that raising the minimum wage creates jobs.

Call it whatever you want, but when you throw out ridiculous comments like "what catastrophes have befallen their economies", when I never hinted at such a thing, it's pretty clear you don't want to have a real discussion. Carry on.

 
humpback said:
NCCommish said:
humpback said:
I was hoping to have a serious discussion about it, but as expected, more platitudes and straw men.
No you don't want a discussion. If you did you'd look at all the examples I have given you and then point out the issues you see. Be glad to discuss them. But you want to ignore historical fact, 30 years of supply side has killed the middle class, and you want to ignore current things happening. You want to talk about a CBO number which has been killed by reality. And what have you brought to this discussion so far? Nothing. Not one bit of empirical evidence to counter anything I have said or pointed you to. Call them platitudes or straw men seems to be your big gotcha. i think you may need to look up both those words. But yeah I am the problem here.
You haven't given any specific examples, you just keep babbling about "studies" and "facts" such as "30 years of supply side has killed the middle class". Very compelling. I already said that just because some states raised the minimum wage and had slightly higher job growth rates doesn't mean that the wage hikes were responsible for them, but again, you haven't cited anything specific. I only brought up the CBO because you cited them earlier when their estimate helped your cause, but now you say they've got it wrong because this one doesn't. You won't answer whether there is a limit to your premise that raising the minimum wage creates jobs.

Call it whatever you want, but when you throw out ridiculous comments like "what catastrophes have befallen their economies", when I never hinted at such a thing, it's pretty clear you don't want to have a real discussion. Carry on.
Examples of higher minimum wages without killing job growth isn't good enough for you? Who is relying on theory again?

Frankly I don't even care if higher minimum wages hurt job growth. For me the ultimate goal isn't to provide a subsistence level job to every American but instead it's to provide more incentive for people to do better for themselves.

 
humpback said:
NCCommish said:
humpback said:
I was hoping to have a serious discussion about it, but as expected, more platitudes and straw men.
No you don't want a discussion. If you did you'd look at all the examples I have given you and then point out the issues you see. Be glad to discuss them. But you want to ignore historical fact, 30 years of supply side has killed the middle class, and you want to ignore current things happening. You want to talk about a CBO number which has been killed by reality. And what have you brought to this discussion so far? Nothing. Not one bit of empirical evidence to counter anything I have said or pointed you to. Call them platitudes or straw men seems to be your big gotcha. i think you may need to look up both those words. But yeah I am the problem here.
You haven't given any specific examples, you just keep babbling about "studies" and "facts" such as "30 years of supply side has killed the middle class". Very compelling. I already said that just because some states raised the minimum wage and had slightly higher job growth rates doesn't mean that the wage hikes were responsible for them, but again, you haven't cited anything specific. I only brought up the CBO because you cited them earlier when their estimate helped your cause, but now you say they've got it wrong because this one doesn't. You won't answer whether there is a limit to your premise that raising the minimum wage creates jobs.

Call it whatever you want, but when you throw out ridiculous comments like "what catastrophes have befallen their economies", when I never hinted at such a thing, it's pretty clear you don't want to have a real discussion. Carry on.
Examples of higher minimum wages without killing job growth isn't good enough for you? Who is relying on theory again?

Frankly I don't even care if higher minimum wages hurt job growth. For me the ultimate goal isn't to provide a subsistence level job to every American but instead it's to provide more incentive for people to do better for themselves.
When the question is does raising the minimum wage produce more net jobs, no, examples of it not killing job growth isn't good enough (ignoring that none of these "examples" have been cited). If the question was does raising the minimum wage kill job growth, it might be.

Your second paragraph is fine, I'm sure many agree. That isn't what this particular discussion was about though.

 
humpback said:
NCCommish said:
humpback said:
I was hoping to have a serious discussion about it, but as expected, more platitudes and straw men.
No you don't want a discussion. If you did you'd look at all the examples I have given you and then point out the issues you see. Be glad to discuss them. But you want to ignore historical fact, 30 years of supply side has killed the middle class, and you want to ignore current things happening. You want to talk about a CBO number which has been killed by reality. And what have you brought to this discussion so far? Nothing. Not one bit of empirical evidence to counter anything I have said or pointed you to. Call them platitudes or straw men seems to be your big gotcha. i think you may need to look up both those words. But yeah I am the problem here.
You haven't given any specific examples, you just keep babbling about "studies" and "facts" such as "30 years of supply side has killed the middle class". Very compelling. I already said that just because some states raised the minimum wage and had slightly higher job growth rates doesn't mean that the wage hikes were responsible for them, but again, you haven't cited anything specific. I only brought up the CBO because you cited them earlier when their estimate helped your cause, but now you say they've got it wrong because this one doesn't. You won't answer whether there is a limit to your premise that raising the minimum wage creates jobs.

Call it whatever you want, but when you throw out ridiculous comments like "what catastrophes have befallen their economies", when I never hinted at such a thing, it's pretty clear you don't want to have a real discussion. Carry on.
Examples of higher minimum wages without killing job growth isn't good enough for you? Who is relying on theory again?

Frankly I don't even care if higher minimum wages hurt job growth. For me the ultimate goal isn't to provide a subsistence level job to every American but instead it's to provide more incentive for people to do better for themselves.
by giving them a guaranteed raise for doing even the lowest skilled job there is?

 
There is no historical evidence to suggest that simply raising the minimum wage does what the CBO says. Multiple studies have been done. And again demand creates jobs not supply. You get more demand when people have more money to spend. When there is more demand you need more employees. This isn't exactly Chaos Theory. It's really pretty easy to understand. Demand creates jobs. The more money people have the more demand there will be. We have done supply side for 30 years and where do we find ourselves? Broke, a declining middle class and a growing issue with people not making enough to live. Even large businesses are starting to talk about the need to get more money in the hands of the people who spend it not tie it up in some family tax shelter for 100 years.
And, funny enough, even with the socialist we have in office he has let the Fed run wild and institute ZIRP for forever, which has catapaulted income inequality. We have seen the enemy and he is us, even the socialist utopian version.

 
Examples of higher minimum wages without killing job growth isn't good enough for you? Who is relying on theory again?

Frankly I don't even care if higher minimum wages hurt job growth. For me the ultimate goal isn't to provide a subsistence level job to every American but instead it's to provide more incentive for people to do better for themselves.
by giving them a guaranteed raise for doing even the lowest skilled job there is?
Yes, because that job will actually have some value to low skilled workers. Right now it's easy for people (mainly single mothers) to not work and live off welfare because the pay is the same, if not more. If the minimum wage is raised so someone can make twice as much working than on welfare then that's the incentive to work.

 
Riddle me this:

McDonalds is paying workers in Denmark $20 an hour and not automating...why would they do it if wages were $15 here?

Also, cry me a river about McDonalds' profits down 30% to $1.5B in the 3rd quarter.
They are testing the automation. I assume that if it works well they would roll it out on a wider basis. Just because they aren't testing in Denmark doesn't mean they have no plans on automating there.

 
Riddle me this:

McDonalds is paying workers in Denmark $20 an hour and not automating...why would they do it if wages were $15 here?

Also, cry me a river about McDonalds' profits down 30% to $1.5B in the 3rd quarter.
*My guess is there are far, far more franchises in the US than Denmark...really can't compare the two markets...

*I don't know what I hate more...corporate America's greed or the left's foolish ideas...all I know is they both suck...

 
So they compare all US McDonalds workers (a huge number of which are under 21) with the ones that are over 21 in Denmark?

How many McDs workers in Denmark are under 21? How do the apples to apples numbers compare?

What is Denmark's unemployment rate for the demographic that most work at McD in the US compared to the demographic that most works at McD in Denmark?

All those are crucial statistics that aren't even mentioned.
Way to miss the point everybody - which is that the price of a Big Mac went up 7.3% but all of their workers earn a living wage.
Our workers earn a living wage. It's not a great living wage but it's a living wage.
I think the point is about the ratio. A very fair wage only causes a $.35 increase. McDonalds is saying it would cause a huge price surge.

Look, if you are going to have a minimum wage it should be raised every year to account for inflation and cost of living. If we had raised it a little every year we would not be having this debate, and we'd all be paying the same for our greasy fast food.

 
35 cents more than in the U.S.

Fast food workers across the globe have been holding protests and walking out on their jobs in an attempt to force the industry to raise wages to at least $15 an hour.

In response to the protests, McDonald's, one of the largest fast food chains in the world, has warned that wage increases would force franchisees to raise menu prices.

But in Denmark, McDonald's employees make twice what they do in the US, and the Big Mac costs just 35 cents more, William Finnegan writes in the New Yorker.

McDonald's workers in the US make a median hourly wage of $9.15, according a New York Times report citing PayScale, a firm that tracks compensation data. McDonald's does not provide data on its wages.

"In Denmark, McDonald's workers over the age of eighteen earn more than $20 an hour — they are also unionized — and the price of a Big Mac is only thirty-five cents more than it is in the United States," Finnegan writes.

Thanks to unionization, workers in Denmark also get paid sick leave and overtime pay.

On average, the Big Mac costs about $4.80 in the US and $5.15 in Denmark, according to the Economist's Big Mac index, which tracks the price of Big Macs across the world.

There are also domestic fast food chains, such as In-N-Out Burger, that have managed to pay employees more than McDonald's while still selling food at cheap prices, Finnegan points out. In-N-Out's starting wages are $11 an hour.

Fast food companies' "traditional defense of miserable pay — that most of their employees are young, part time, just working for gas money, really — has grown threadbare," Finnegan writes.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/denmark-mcdonalds-pays-20-an-hour-2014-9#ixzz3DDXwj4P3
McDonald's pricing has been ridiculously inflated over the last few years and is why sales are so down. Locally they started a new pricing scheme where Big Mac are $2.70 and it cost $1 to add a side or $1.50 for two sides. McDonald's price inflation was not due to costs, but just profit margin considerations.

 
It's a market economy and who is to fault them for trying to adjust their prices to what the market will bear?

Not that they have been successful mind you, actually US sales are slumping

 
Wal-Mart raises wages to $10 an hour.

McMillon spoke on CNBC after Wal-Mart announced that hourly workers will earn at least $1.75 above the the current federal minimum wage, or $9 per hour starting in April. By next February, they will earn at least $10 per hour.
Whoop de doo
Now that you've got the fancy new job you'll probably be sporting a "Who's John Galt" sticker on your BMW soon.
Who the F is john galt?Im not disparaging the employees

Im criticizing the big evil company that exploits them and contributes to running a once great nation in to the ground

And even when I can afford it I probably wont buy a car. They makes people weak.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Being sympathetic to the struggles of folks making minimum wage, I get it. It is hard to enjoy and live the good life on low wages. But really, if you are in an unskilled labor position that is literally worth minimum wage or less in terms of production, how can you justify forcing a business to pay more? Labor is worth whatever it's worth and if an individual wants to earn more, they have no barriers to enter a higher step in their current industry if they have grown in their ability to produce. McDs, then In N Out, then Sizzler, then Red Lobster, then fine dining, and perhaps opening a restaurant or shop as an owner some day. That's how you improve, not staying in an entry level dump for job experience forever. Is that really a Pipedream?

 
Being sympathetic to the struggles of folks making minimum wage, I get it. It is hard to enjoy and live the good life on low wages. But really, if you are in an unskilled labor position that is literally worth minimum wage or less in terms of production, how can you justify forcing a business to pay more? Labor is worth whatever it's worth and if an individual wants to earn more, they have no barriers to enter a higher step in their current industry if they have grown in their ability to produce. McDs, then In N Out, then Sizzler, then Red Lobster, then fine dining, and perhaps opening a restaurant or shop as an owner some day. That's how you improve, not staying in an entry level dump for job experience forever. Is that really a Pipedream?
Because the company is making profits off their work. The same goes for corporations - how can they justify maximizing profits rather than being content charging customers just enough to make a decent profit? If the company's goal is to maximize profits then it should be the employees goal to maximize their wages.

 
Being sympathetic to the struggles of folks making minimum wage, I get it. It is hard to enjoy and live the good life on low wages. But really, if you are in an unskilled labor position that is literally worth minimum wage or less in terms of production, how can you justify forcing a business to pay more? Labor is worth whatever it's worth and if an individual wants to earn more, they have no barriers to enter a higher step in their current industry if they have grown in their ability to produce. McDs, then In N Out, then Sizzler, then Red Lobster, then fine dining, and perhaps opening a restaurant or shop as an owner some day. That's how you improve, not staying in an entry level dump for job experience forever. Is that really a Pipedream?
Because the company is making profits off their work. The same goes for corporations - how can they justify maximizing profits rather than being content charging customers just enough to make a decent profit? If the company's goal is to maximize profits then it should be the employees goal to maximize their wages.
Fundamentally, are you opposed to businesses profiting from hired labor? My boss earns 60% of every dollar that I make in profit. I am currently looking for other opportunities since he refuses to pay me more of what I bring in to the business. I never for a moment thought that the government should step in and force my boss to pay me more because he earns so much profit on my labor. I accepted a job knowing what the terms were in the employment contract, and I am completely free to pursue other options at any time. Why is this any different from someone working at McD's?

 
Being sympathetic to the struggles of folks making minimum wage, I get it. It is hard to enjoy and live the good life on low wages. But really, if you are in an unskilled labor position that is literally worth minimum wage or less in terms of production, how can you justify forcing a business to pay more? Labor is worth whatever it's worth and if an individual wants to earn more, they have no barriers to enter a higher step in their current industry if they have grown in their ability to produce. McDs, then In N Out, then Sizzler, then Red Lobster, then fine dining, and perhaps opening a restaurant or shop as an owner some day. That's how you improve, not staying in an entry level dump for job experience forever. Is that really a Pipedream?
Because the company is making profits off their work. The same goes for corporations - how can they justify maximizing profits rather than being content charging customers just enough to make a decent profit? If the company's goal is to maximize profits then it should be the employees goal to maximize their wages.
Fundamentally, are you opposed to businesses profiting from hired labor? My boss earns 60% of every dollar that I make in profit. I am currently looking for other opportunities since he refuses to pay me more of what I bring in to the business. I never for a moment thought that the government should step in and force my boss to pay me more because he earns so much profit on my labor. I accepted a job knowing what the terms were in the employment contract, and I am completely free to pursue other options at any time. Why is this any different from someone working at McD's?
No, that's capitalism. However, there is a power inequality between management and employees so that's where the government can step in and level the playing field.

You have the advantage that you can afford to pursue other options, but the person making minimum wage who is trying to pay the rent and feed their kids doesn't.

By the way, if companies can replace people with robots they should go for it. But as long as they need people they should pay a living wage.

 
Being sympathetic to the struggles of folks making minimum wage, I get it. It is hard to enjoy and live the good life on low wages. But really, if you are in an unskilled labor position that is literally worth minimum wage or less in terms of production, how can you justify forcing a business to pay more? Labor is worth whatever it's worth and if an individual wants to earn more, they have no barriers to enter a higher step in their current industry if they have grown in their ability to produce. McDs, then In N Out, then Sizzler, then Red Lobster, then fine dining, and perhaps opening a restaurant or shop as an owner some day. That's how you improve, not staying in an entry level dump for job experience forever. Is that really a Pipedream?
Because the company is making profits off their work. The same goes for corporations - how can they justify maximizing profits rather than being content charging customers just enough to make a decent profit? If the company's goal is to maximize profits then it should be the employees goal to maximize their wages.
The issue isn't with employees trying to maximize their wages, it's the "forced" aspect that is problematic. You're conflating "goals" with "laws".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fyi had a Big Mac in CPH yday. Ordered from a human being, too, with no tablets or other ordering devices in sight

 
McDonald's is losing money because people have realized it is delicious garbage that is killing them. Unless they figure out a way to make that delicious stuff healthy, they're in trouble.

 
McDonald's is losing money because they forgot who they are. Their market was fast, cheap and fun for kids. They now are expensive and going for higher profit margin items and gearing away from kids. They will lose in that market. Too many better choices. Sell, sell, sell.

 
McDonald's is losing money because people have realized it is delicious garbage that is killing them. Unless they figure out a way to make that delicious stuff healthy, they're in trouble.
Their target does not care about health. Look around, America is not health conscience.

 
Any data on FTE per McD's? I am willing to bet that it is like Austalia (also pays more than US McD's) which it is heavily invested in efficiency creating technology which means the need for workers is less. Less people to pay and more money to them which equals slightly higher cost on a burger.

Further, I wonder what the margins are for the business. Are these corportate owned or frachise? Is the incentive to start one there as a business owner? How many of them are there? I am willing to go on a limb and say that there are going to be a significantly lower number of these than another and likely a higher percentage are corp owned than possible comparisons with lower wages.

 
McDonald's is losing money because people have realized it is delicious garbage that is killing them. Unless they figure out a way to make that delicious stuff healthy, they're in trouble.
Shake Shack is delicious and there is a line around the park. McDonald's is hot garbage that is neither delicious, nor healthy.

 
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/15/focus-on-low-income-families-to-boost-economic-growth-says-imf-study

Pay low-income families more to boost economic growth, says IMFStudy indicates stagnating incomes of the poor and middle classes could have been instrumental in the financial crisis

Larry Elliott Economics editor

Monday 15 June 2015 17.05 BST Last modified on Tuesday 16 June 2015 00.01 BST http://www.theguardian.com/business...boost-economic-growth-says-imf-study#comments
The idea that increased income inequality makes economies more dynamic has been rejected by an International Monetary Fund study, which shows the widening income gap between rich and poor is bad for growth.

A report by five IMF economists dismissed “trickle-down” economics, and said that if governments wanted to increase the pace of growth they should concentrate on helping the poorest 20% of citizens.

The study – covering advanced, emerging and developing countries – said technological progress, weaker trade unions, globalisation and tax policies that favoured the wealthy had all played their part in making widening inequality “the defining challenge of our time”.

The IMF report said the way income is distributed matters for growth. “If the income share of the top 20% increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20% is associated with higher GDP growth,” said the report.

Echoing the frequent warnings about rising inequality from the IMF’s managing director, Christine Lagarde, the report says governments around the world need to tackle the problem. It said: “Raising the income share of the poor, and ensuring that there is no hollowing-out of the middle class, is actually good for growth.”

The study, however, reflects the tension between the IMF’s economic analysis and the more hardline policy advice given to individual countries such as Greece, which need financial support.

During its negotiations with Athens, the IMF has been seeking to weaken workers’ rights, but the research paper found that the easing of labour market regulations was associated with greater inequality and a boost to the incomes of the richest 10%.

“This result is consistent with forthcoming IMF work, which finds the weakening of unions is associated with a higher top 10% income share for a smaller sample of advanced economies,” said the study.

“Indeed, empirical estimations using more detailed data for Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries [34 of the world’s richest nations] suggest that, in line with other forthcoming IMF work, more lax hiring and firing regulations, lower minimum wages relative to the median wage, and less prevalent collective bargaining and trade unions are associated with higher market inequality.”

The study said there was growing evidence to suggest that rising influence of the rich and stagnant incomes of the poor and middle classes caused financial crises, hurting both short- and long-term growth.

“In particular, studies have argued that a prolonged period of higher inequality in advanced economies was associated with the global financial crisis by intensifying leverage, overextension of credit, and a relaxation in mortgage-underwriting standards, and allowing lobbyists to push for financial deregulation,” it said.

It added that pretax incomes of middle-class households in the US, the UK, and Japan had experienced declining or stagnant growth rates in recent years. Additional pressures on the middle class reflected a declining share of labour income – the predominant source of income for the majority of households.

Inequality could lead to policies that hurt growth, the IMF study said, noting that it could it could cause a backlash against growth-enhancing economic liberalisation and fuel-protectionist pressures against globalisation and market-oriented reforms. “At the same time, enhanced power by the elite could result in a more limited provision of public goods that boost productivity and growth, and which disproportionately benefit the poor.”

The paper called for extra investment in health and education policies that reduce poverty, and more progressive taxation. “Fiscal policy already plays a significant role in addressing income inequality in many advanced economies, but the redistributive role of fiscal policy could be reinforced by greater reliance on wealth and property taxes, more progressive income taxation, removing opportunities for tax avoidance and evasion, better targeting of social benefits while also minimising efficiency costs, in terms of incentives to work and save.”
 
Has anyone shown any ill effects in markets that have made the wage increase, yet?

Signed,
Someone who was inherently against the idea, but is now coming around to it if it's being rolled out successfully elsewhere.

 
Has anyone shown any ill effects in markets that have made the wage increase, yet?

Signed,

Someone who was inherently against the idea, but is now coming around to it if it's being rolled out successfully elsewhere.
There was a bit of an inflation discussion going in the "Seattle to raise minimum wage" thread before the purge. MT pretty much shot that down IMHO.

The argument that has meant the most to me is a simple one: efficiency of the raise.

And it comes from lack of savings. It is not a secret that people who struggle to make ends meet don't save their money. They spend it.

So if they get more money, that money goes straight back into circulation - and that creates jobs.

It may also mean that where before one person had to take two jobs to make ends meet, he or she now only takes one - leaving one open for another, previously unemployed person.

There was also some talk about fast food jobs disappearing. From my own experience, seeing minimum wages soar in Brazil over my decade there - McDonald's and other fast food outlets are still available everywhere. Now, granted during that time ordering from a tablet was not available, but if wages had a strong net negative pressure on profitability, it would have been visible in the streets and malls

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top