GG Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 A Sonic restaurant nearby added an inside dining area this past winter. They were exclusively drive-up before that. There are now indoor tables in which to sit and eat and ordering inside is done on a kiosk. Sonic is doing well as a company, better than most fast food operations. They ain't waitin' for a $15 minimum wage, but for sure a $15 minimum wage will result in kiosks in many places. Good for the educated and skilled workers that develop and support that technology. Bad for those the libs want to help, but that won't stop libs from pushing it because they can collect votes for a while until those that got suckered are hurt by the very ideas sold to them. That's OK, because liberal politicians will just find another doomed cause to suck in the same crowd. I take it you didn't see post #2 of this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 The money wont come.All this will do is create layoffs,higher prices for consumers that will not be paid and finally store closures.The thinking of the people that support this crap is so simple its disgusting. Just curious,if someone decides to get out of bed every morning and be a productive member of society and carry his or her own weight by working at Toys r us who the hell are you to demean them? Your screen name would seem to be very appropriate. Do you always miss the mark this badly? Regardless, anyone that would work for a company with a name like "Toys R Us" is already being demeaned. He would be better off getting himself fired and when his unemployment ran out going on welfare. You phucking teabaggers are all alike. The government has programs, you know? Why not let them give him probably more than what he makes at a company that can't even spell "are" correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 The government has programs, you know? Why not let them give him probably more than what he makes at a company that can't even spell "are" correctly. You should visit the Greece thread. That is a country that has the same beliefs you do: That it's better to be on government assistance than have a job. Are you still trying to pretend you're not a far-left liberal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 You should visit the Greece thread. That is a country that has the same beliefs you do: That it's better to be on government assistance than have a job. Are you still trying to pretend you're not a far-left liberal? I suppose you are one of those 1%ers who idolize the Koch Brothers and want to destroy our planet with your SUV's while putting down the Occupy Movement? Stick to your Guns & God, you racist teabagger and I'll enjoy the fruits of your labor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Didn't that dork Clinton's labor secretary Robert reich say the minimum wage needed to be raised because you can't raise a family of 4 on it? Lol what an absurd standard. So some kid flipping burgs should make enough money to buy a home, support a stay at home mom, and put 2 kids thru school $15 per hour here in the Bay Area isn't going to get you out if mom's cellar so what's the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 How is that bad for unions that have their contracts tied to the minimum wage? Minimum wage goes up, D's solid voting block gets raises. Of course they're going to push for it. Those were the people you were referring to w/ the "those the libs want to help," right? You're joking, right? There will be fewer of them working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 You're joking, right? There will be fewer of them working. There'll be fewer unionized workers working? Probably. But union labor is far more inelastic to a minimum wage increase than labor making mimimum is. The campaign checks will keep rolling in, which is what's truly important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 A Sonic restaurant nearby added an inside dining area this past winter. They were exclusively drive-up before that. There are now indoor tables in which to sit and eat and ordering inside is done on a kiosk. Sonic is doing well as a company, better than most fast food operations. They ain't waitin' for a $15 minimum wage, but for sure a $15 minimum wage will result in kiosks in many places. . Dining areas inside a Sonic? That totally defeats the purpose of going there People don't go to Sonic for great food. They go there for the limited human interaction. You drive up, push a button, order food over a radio, swipe your card. Only real human interaction is when the car hop brings out your food. But eventually that can be automated too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) You're joking, right? There will be fewer of them working. There'll be fewer unionized workers working? Probably. But union labor is far more inelastic to a minimum wage increase than labor making mimimum is. The campaign checks will keep rolling in, which is what's truly important. I can tell you from personal experience (I'm a member of the Communications Workers of America, a telecom employee's union) that the unions are indeed involved in the fight to increase the minimum wage, since all union wages essentially use the minimum wage as a baseline to calculate union wage demands for the next contract. I'm not saying that's a smart thing to do, only that they indeed do it. Dining areas inside a Sonic? That totally defeats the purpose of going there People don't go to Sonic for great food. They go there for the limited human interaction. You drive up, push a button, order food over a radio, swipe your card. Only real human interaction is when the car hop brings out your food. But eventually that can be automated too. A Sonic opened up a few years ago here in down town Austin in a building that had previously been an Arby's. It's the only Sonic I've ever seen that had no curbside service at all, being 100% walk-in and sit-down only. Edited July 3, 2015 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 AP Article: Job market's new normal: Smaller workforce, sluggish pay http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c4f2a1cc39df4ed0ae6e9b1cea53b2c9/job-markets-new-normal-smaller-workforce-sluggish-pay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Meanwhile in San Francisco, home of the "livable" wage: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/07/07/we-are-seeing-the-effects-of-the-minimum-wage-rise-in-san-francisco/?utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Meanwhile in San Francisco, home of the "livable" wage: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/07/07/we-are-seeing-the-effects-of-the-minimum-wage-rise-in-san-francisco/?utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix My burrito goes up 60 cents in price, and the workers behind the counter have a better quality of life? I'm ok with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 My burrito goes up 60 cents in price, and the workers behind the counter have a better quality of life? I'm ok with that. And some people aren't ok with the price increase. So instead of going to Chipolte for what was already an overpriced burrito at lunch time, they opt for a TV dinner. Will the 60 cent increase that you and others are OK with offset the cumulative cost those lost $8 tickets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 My burrito goes up 60 cents in price, and the workers behind the counter have a better quality of life? I'm ok with that. Oh but there are likely fewer workers working fewer hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 My burrito goes up 60 cents in price, and the workers behind the counter have a better quality of life? I'm ok with that. The burrito won't go up in price, because if the market supported a more expensive burrito it would already have been priced higher. You can't just start raising the prices of goods and expect them to sell at the same rate as before. What happens is that people lose their jobs in order to accommodate a higher labor cost, and those that get to keep their jobs have to work even harder. Do you actually think that places like McDonald's just arbitrarily set their prices as their whims dictate? The more you raise the minimum wage, the more people get laid off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) My burrito goes up 60 cents in price, and the workers behind the counter have a better quality of life? I'm ok with that. That's now how restaurants operate. Labor is the easiest cost to control. People will lose their jobs. And it's not just your burrito or fast food. It will negatively affect every type of restaurant seeing they all employ many minimum wage employees. Pretty much every server/busboy/bartender works for minimum wage seeing most of their income comes from tips. So now, are you ok with that? Edited July 8, 2015 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 That's now how restaurants operate. Labor is the easiest cost to control. People will lose their jobs. And it's not just your burrito or fast food. It will negatively affect every type of restaurant seeing they all employ many minimum wage employees. Pretty much every server/busboy/bartender works for minimum wage seeing most of their income comes from tips. So now, are you ok with that? What he really meant to say was he was ok having absolutely no idea how economics or business or pretty much anything else works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 My burrito goes up 60 cents in price, and the workers behind the counter have a better quality of life? I'm ok with that. Quick BOTE calculation: Running a Chipotle tcounter probably takes a minimum of four people. At $10/hr, that's $40/hr labor costs (actually more, when you add in other expenses like payroll taxes and such, but let's keep it simple.) The rule of thumb is that 30% of finances goes to labor. So to cover that $40/hr labor costs, that's $133/hr in generated revenue to break even. Now raise the minimum wage to $15/hr. Labor costs go to $60/hr, so revenue has to rise accordingly...to $200/hr. That's a 50% increase - your steak burrito goes from $7.20 to almost $11. But in reality, no one's going to pay $11 for a steak burrito. So alternatively, you can keep labor costs relatively stable by firing one worker, forcing the other three to work harder and faster (and longer - employees stay later after closing to finish up maintenance tasks that didn't get done during the day), and revenue only has to rise to $160/hr or so. So your burrito goes up $1.20, and three of the workers behind the counter work harder to make up for the fourth being laid off. You're okay with that? (And in reality, that's still oversimplified. The calculation should be done weekly, not hourly...and I ignored the increased cost up and down the supply chain. I just kept it simple to show you you're an idiot.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 You're okay with that? (And in reality, that's still oversimplified. The calculation should be done weekly, not hourly...and I ignored the increased cost up and down the supply chain. I just kept it simple to show you you're an idiot.) Of course he's okay with it because it takes no effort on his behalf to do anything other than say he's okay with something that sounds like a good idea. Obama got elected on the very same thought process...promising to do things that sounded like a good idea when, in reality, he had absolutely no single clue how to move a bad idea out of the isolated realm of "it sounds good to me." "I will remove all of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan." "I will get free health insurance for all." "I will put Hillary in charge of my State Department." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Quick BOTE calculation: Running a Chipotle tcounter probably takes a minimum of four people. At $10/hr, that's $40/hr labor costs (actually more, when you add in other expenses like payroll taxes and such, but let's keep it simple.) The rule of thumb is that 30% of finances goes to labor. So to cover that $40/hr labor costs, that's $133/hr in generated revenue to break even. Now raise the minimum wage to $15/hr. Labor costs go to $60/hr, so revenue has to rise accordingly...to $200/hr. That's a 50% increase - your steak burrito goes from $7.20 to almost $11. But in reality, no one's going to pay $11 for a steak burrito. So alternatively, you can keep labor costs relatively stable by firing one worker, forcing the other three to work harder and faster (and longer - employees stay later after closing to finish up maintenance tasks that didn't get done during the day), and revenue only has to rise to $160/hr or so. So your burrito goes up $1.20, and three of the workers behind the counter work harder to make up for the fourth being laid off. You're okay with that? (And in reality, that's still oversimplified. The calculation should be done weekly, not hourly...and I ignored the increased cost up and down the supply chain. I just kept it simple to show you you're an idiot.) 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. Edited July 8, 2015 by Dorkington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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