Dorkington Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 If the fast food restaurant workers in SF are not making a living wage how are they in fact living? Depends on your definition of a standard of living. If living wage purely means that they are surviving, and not homeless, then yes, they are probably making a living wage. OTOH, if living wage means, is able to afford a one bedroom apartment somewhere within reasonable distance of their job, then most likely they are not making a living wage. That's the problem with terms like living wage, there's no standard definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Depends on your definition of a standard of living. That's the problem with terms like living wage, there's no standard definition. But all the legislatures should ignore that and raise the minimum wage requirement to the point where many jobs are lost, So those on the Left can feel that they "helped. Good plan. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 That's the problem with terms like living wage, there's no standard definition. According to Merriam-Webster: an amount of money you are paid for a job that is large enough to provide you with the basic things (such as food and shelter) needed to live an acceptable life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 It's not the responsibility of an employer to pay "living wage" but to pay a "fair" wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 It's not the responsibility of an employer to pay "living wage" but to pay a "fair" wage. Who describes what is "fair"? I'm guessing "the market"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Who describes what is "fair"? I'm guessing "the market"? Yes. In this case, 'the market' is the job applicant. If they deem the wage to be fair compared with what other employers pay for the same work, they take the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Who describes what is "fair"? I'm guessing "the market"? Yes....There has never been a better determinant for the value of products and services than the "market", and I'm very certain that there never will be either. Are you advocating that some bureaucrat is able to determine a uniformed fair wage from private companies than the market? Is that what you are suggesting? Edited July 10, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 That's the problem with terms like living wage, there's no standard definition. And yet it doesn't keep people like yourself from advocating for something of which you believe has no standard definition...simply because it makes you feel good. This is why people bust your chops here. You advocate for things that sound good like "Hey, I'll pay an extra 60 cents for a burrito if it increases someone's quality of living," and yet have no ability whatsoever to truly define "quality of living" on a global level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 And yet it doesn't keep people like yourself from advocating for something of which you believe has no standard definition...simply because it makes you feel good. This is why people bust your chops here. You advocate for things that sound good like "Hey, I'll pay an extra 60 cents for a burrito if it increases someone's quality of living," and yet have no ability whatsoever to truly define "quality of living" on a global level. Great point LA. You pretty much obliterated his advocacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Yes....There has never been a better determinant for the value of products and services than the "market", and I'm very certain that there never will be either. Are you advocating that some bureaucrat is able to determine a uniformed fair wage from private companies than the market? Is that what you are suggesting? Generally I like the idea of localized minimum wages. But the union negotiated minimum wages of Finland is a fascinating idea as well. Either way, as long as there are protections for the worker involved, I'm ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Generally I like the idea of localized minimum wages. But the union negotiated minimum wages of Finland is a fascinating idea as well. Either way, as long as there are protections for the worker involved, I'm ok. In my view there is a huge difference between a minimum wage (which I support) and a "living wage". A living wage from my perspective basically means a wage that can sustain you through your monthly bills (generally speaking). A minimum wage is a floor. Now I generally support the market determining wages, however I do believe that there are some markets, specially in rural areas where there could be some market dislocations due to a variety of reasons, such as lack of job opportunities, overflow of under skilled workers relative to the job positions available etc that can distort what I could consider to be a "fair" wage. Yes, it's true that the worker as Azalin pointed out has the option to decide for or against taking that position, but sometimes that's a little easier said than done, specially when you really don't have that great of job skills and money to relocate to a higher paying city. On the other hand, I believe that minimum wages have probably hurt many people in more highly populated areas. I think since many companies knows that for low skilled positions they are able to pay X amount determined by the government. Where if that minimum wage hadn't been in place, it's very possible that they would have paid an even higher wage. In my view, it cuts both ways. Edited July 10, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Generally I like the idea of localized minimum wages. But the union negotiated minimum wages of Finland is a fascinating idea as well. Either way, as long as there are protections for the worker involved, I'm ok. So you would favor asking all the illegal immigrants working here to leave in order to protect American Workers? That way Americans can have the jobs they do at wages that Americans will accept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Very wide right Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 You guys are all posting rational thoughts.Your mistake is thinking this is anything more than an attempt to unionize for dues and to create a larger voting base for the democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Starbucks Announces New Effort to Break the Law by Roger Clegg According to the Wall Street Journal today, “Starbucks Corp. is teaming up with more than a dozen companies in a commitment to increase hiring of young, minority workers over the next three years.” It’s unclear from the article exactly how race and ethnicity are to be used in the hiring process. The definition of “minority” is also not spelled out, though, as is often the case, some minorities seem to be more equal than others (blacks and Latinos are mentioned, but no one else). Nor is it clear what the justification is for this nonsense. Starbucks chief executive Howard Schultz (of “Race Together” fame) says, “It’s very personal for me, having grown up in public housing and understanding what it was like to be that poor kid,” but Mr. Schultz does not appear to be black or Latino, and it may come as news to him, too, that there are many blacks and Latinos who have not grown up in public housing and are not poor. But logic and fairness aside, employment discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity is illegal, with only a few narrow exceptions that do not apply here. No doubt the Obama administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will quickly explain this to Starbucks and the other companies involved.Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 There you go, the burden just pushed back on the consumer. And at fast food its a safe assumption the consumers are lower wage earners. Fast Food Restaurant Responds to Minimum Wage Hike As San Francisco is set to raise its minimum wage to $15 over the next few years, Chipotle raised the price of its food. We believe the outsized San Francisco price hike was likely because of increased minimum wages (which rose from $10.74 per hour to $12.25 on May 1) as well as scheduled minimum wage increases in future years, Sharon Zackfia of the investment firm Williams Blair said in client note obtained by Investors Business Daily. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/11/fast-food-restaurant-responds-to-minimum-wage-hike/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 How do you really feel, OC? Feel? No, really, feel? WTF? Feel is what got leftists like you into this mess in the first place. Feel: is precisely why you don't understand that forced wage increases lead to forced price increases. How about you try: think....for a change? Ask me what I think. Hell: “What? What am I ‘bound to be feeling?’ People don’t think anymore. They feel. ‘How are you feeling? No, I don’t feel comfortable. I’m sorry, we as a group we’re feeling….’ One of the great problems of our age is that we are governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas. Thoughts and ideas. That interests me. Ask me what I’m thinking.” - Margaret Thatcher in the Iron Lady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 So Seattle gives its workers $15/hour...and many workers now want less hours because the increase in income is taking them off the welfare books. Terrific. How is it no one saw this coming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 So Seattle gives its workers $15/hour...and many workers now want less hours because the increase in income is taking them off the welfare books. Terrific. How is it no one saw this coming? Next step is to raise the welfare ceiling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 It only stands to reason. Let people collect $50k a year and still collect food stamps, and healthcare coverage. Married couple - $125k a year, and if they have kids - well $250k a year seams a reasonable amount to earn and still get help from the government. Have you seen a cable bill recently? And cell phone bills! Who can afford to pay for that stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 I guess this works here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts