DC Tom Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 So 4 of 4 people currently working for below a living wage (in SF, anyways*) turns into 3 of 3 people barely making a living wage, and 1 person unemployed/on a "handout". Kinda sucks either way. To be clear, though, in that article, I was responding to the fact that SF raised minimum wage 14%, and burrito prices (mostly) went up 10%. Also, thanks for more name calling, gotta love it here. * - I've said before, I do not support a national minimum wage of $15/hr... I do in certain jurisdictions, though. SF's cost of living calls for increased minimums, imo. And no, I have not a clue what to do about the employees who lose their jobs as a result. Hopefully the increase in spending from the lower classes offsets that with more jobs. I call everyone an idiot, you idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I call everyone an idiot, you idiot. What do you think the minimum wage should be in San Francisco? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 What do you think the minimum wage should be in San Francisco? Zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Zero. No minimum wage at all? What's to stop companies from exploiting workers then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 No minimum wage at all? What's to stop companies from exploiting workers then? The value of their labor, and the costs of replacing their labor should someone else value their labor more. IE. markets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) The value of their labor, and the costs of replacing their labor should someone else value their labor more. IE. markets. Are there any modern countries that this is working in? I know we used to have no minimums up until the 30s, right? (I'm asking because I'm genuinely open minded about this... my goal is a solution that helps bring the lower classes "up", since I have a belief that a strong lower and middle class creates a better overall condition in the country) Edited July 8, 2015 by Dorkington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Did a quick search, and it looks like some countries have no minimum wage set federally (example Finland), but have strong worker union participation, and those unions set minimum wages via collective agreements. Hm... that's another solution. Do those that support no minimum wage support unions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 (I'm asking because I'm genuinely open minded about this... my goal is a solution that helps bring the lower classes "up", since I have a belief that a strong lower and middle class creates a better overall condition in the country) Just my own opinion here, but the best way to 'bring the lower classes up' is to limit most peoples' access to welfare, adapting high schools to teach more trade skills, and making it easier for high school graduates to obtain student loans for community college and technical schools, to be paid back with the students' tax returns. Did a quick search, and it looks like some countries have no minimum wage set federally (example Finland), but have strong worker union participation, and those unions set minimum wages via collective agreements. Hm... that's another solution. Do those that support no minimum wage support unions? Yes. Unions have always supported having and raising the minimum wage, because the minimum wage is used by unions as a baseline for their contract negotiations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Did a quick search, and it looks like some countries have no minimum wage set federally (example Finland), but have strong worker union participation, and those unions set minimum wages via collective agreements. Hm... that's another solution. Do those that support no minimum wage support unions?A union is nothing more than multiple individuals choosing to associate for what they perceive to be their own betterment, so no, I take no issue with the concept of unions. With that said, unions should enjoy no special legal protections. It should be legal to fire an employee for organizing, and it should be legal for the wholesale replacement of a unionized labor force without closing a base of operations. Public sector unions should also be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Are there any modern countries that this is working in? I know we used to have no minimums up until the 30s, right? (I'm asking because I'm genuinely open minded about this... my goal is a solution that helps bring the lower classes "up", since I have a belief that a strong lower and middle class creates a better overall condition in the country) It is the individual's job to make themselves more valuable so that they can command a higher wage. Minimum wage laws and union contracts artificially set wages contrary to supply and demand. Go to the Dakotas and see if minimum wage laws mean anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 A union is nothing more than multiple individuals choosing to associate for what they perceive to be their own betterment, so no, I take no issue with the concept of unions. With that said, unions should enjoy no special legal protections. It should be legal to fire an employee for organizing, and it should be legal for the wholesale replacement of a unionized labor force without closing a base of operations. Public sector unions should also be illegal. Agree and in particular that unions should not have the power to strike and hold a company hostage for better wages or benefits. That's outrageous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Agree and in particular that unions should not have the power to strike and hold a company hostage for better wages or benefits. That's outrageous. I disagree with this point. Unions absolutely should be able to strike. Conversely, a business should be able to fire them for doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I disagree with this point. Unions absolutely should be able to strike. Conversely, a business should be able to fire them for doing so. We're saying the same thing. If they can be fired then they can't shut down a company in doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 We're saying the same thing. If they can be fired then they can't shut down a company in doing so. I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that it should be illegal for unionized workers to strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) So 4 of 4 people currently working for below a living wage (in SF, anyways*) turns into 3 of 3 people barely making a living wage, and 1 person unemployed/on a "handout". Kinda sucks either way. To be clear, though, in that article, I was responding to the fact that SF raised minimum wage 14%, and burrito prices (mostly) went up 10%. Also, thanks for more name calling, gotta love it here. * - I've said before, I do not support a national minimum wage of $15/hr... I do in certain jurisdictions, though. SF's cost of living calls for increased minimums, imo. And no, I have not a clue what to do about the employees who lose their jobs as a result. Hopefully the increase in spending from the lower classes offsets that with more jobs. So what you're saying that everyone working in fast food in SF prior to the minimum wage hike was homeless?? BTW $100k per year isn't a living wage in SF. Edited July 9, 2015 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) Not reading this thread, because I already know I know more than gatorman about econ and history. Has anyone bothered to explain that if you artificially increase wage, you automatically increase price? Thus, the best case scenario: you accomplish nothing. Let me say that again: NOTHING, gator, you unmitigated moron! How, why? Here's yet another free lesson: because the "new Obama money I got " will be instantly eaten up by the increase in prices, of everything, which is how the various evil retail/fast food chains will offset the cost of your forced increase in wages. Never mind the surety that many people will go from $7.00 to $15.00 to $0/hr because they get laid off. How do I know that? Simple: because the officers of these various companies WILL come to me, and anyone else with a solution, and ask for a way to get rid of as many $15/hr jobs as possible. See GGs first post in this thread? That is precisely how. How about history? Has anybody bothered to explain Nixon/Ford/Carter listening to a Harvard professor dbag and his wage/price control nonsense, and how badly it/he failed? Do we not remember Reagan getting rid of all that crap, and the economy booming as a result? Why are we proceeding with anything that defies both fundamental economics, and historical evidence? Edited July 10, 2015 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 But, but, but Jeb Bush says that "Americans need to work more!" He's in fact stating the obvious - that the ACA cut a generation of Americans (and illegal immigrants) down at the knees because they're now either A.) Part time employees or B.) Unemployed. Way to get the economy going again in this - the sixth year of economic recovery under the current socialist regime. Forward Hillary! A 20 hour work week, no benefits and free kallage fer every young'in. Yup! The masses will sop that **** right up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) But, but, but Jeb Bush says that "Americans need to work more!" He's in fact stating the obvious - that the ACA cut a generation of Americans (and illegal immigrants) down at the knees because they're now either A.) Part time employees or B.) Unemployed. Way to get the economy going again in this - the sixth year of economic recovery under the current socialist regime. Forward Hillary! A 20 hour work week, no benefits and free kallage fer every young'in. Yup! The masses will sop that **** right up. Short Post: However, you do realize that there's a faction of the Republican party, and I don't know if Bush is a member or not yet, that wants to do nothing to Obamacare whatsoever? This faction is reveling in the SCOTUS decisions, because, Obamacare remains a 100% legislative and executive D problem. Long Post: Why? There's no cover from Obamacare. (Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts belongs to this faction, and has played his hand quite well?) Are Roberts and Bush secret liberals? No. Then why would they want to leave Obamacare untouched? Simple: They are very good politicians, and they know Obamacare hasn't even begun to cause its inevitable suffering, especially this year and next, when all of the "delayed until after 2014 elections" effects come to pass. To me this is cynical. However, it's also reasonable: they think that Obamacare will destroy the Democratic party, permanently. Why win a battle when you can win a war? Left unreformed, Obamacare can destroy the Ds with ease. The only thing that binds the factions of the Democratic party is the need to stand against "big"...something. They will help each other out, to fight against each faction's "Big" enemy. However, since the Ds are and have been solely responsible for Big Health Care, and did nothing to fix it since 2009? That inevitably breaks their alliance. Consider: in reality, unions have nothing in common with, and very few shared political interests with, the techno left, or college professors, or Hollywood, or identity hustlers, or NARAL, or environtologists, and certainly gays. Obamacare's sustained destruction of the public's trust WILL eventually lead to some of these groups cutting side deals with the Rs, and leaving their once-allies to hold the bag. I see unions and NARAL turning on the rest of the Ds first. Obamacare hurts them most. Once this starts, it will be every faction for itself. Betrayal after betrayal makes the Ds, not the Rs, into the regional party, at best. Napolean: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake". That seems like exactly what this "scorcred earth" faction of Rs subscribes to, and the best/worst is: you can't pin them down on it. They can simply say/do nothing, and let the other R factions fight it out publicly with the Ds. They will gladly vote another 47 times to repeal it, safe in the knowledge that nothing will change, and that the political radiation of Obamacare is killing the Ds every day, all the time. The irony: the best case for Ds is to eventually come begging, on their knees, to the Rs for Obamacare reform. Why? Because the Rs taking ownership of anything health care will require a heavy price. They can just do nothing, and let the country continue to suffer from Obamacare, and blame the Ds for it. The worst case is the Ds lose 2016 and don't get the Senate, in which case the Rs can claim 3/4 elections as a mandate on Obamacare, destroy it/reform it however they see fit, and gain 100% of the credit. In all cases, I told D clowns on this board in 2009 that this would be the result...and here we are. Nice work, morons! A permanent end to this "minimum wage" nonsense is merely one small item on the list the Rs will demand for their involvement in bailing the Ds out of Obamacare. In fact I see the Ds losing ground on everything, everywhere. Edited July 10, 2015 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 How do you really feel, OC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 How do you really feel, OC? If the fast food restaurant workers in SF are not making a living wage how are they in fact living? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts