California $15/hr Wage On November Ballot (Los Angeles, Fresno: credit, tax credit, cost)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Well, here you go then:
Think the franchises can't afford the wage hike?

Not to mention, the average Mc Donald's franchisee owns 5 stores

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Not to mention, the average Mc Donald's franchisee owns 5 stores

End of thread?

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Expat, for a guy who claims to own 3 businesses, you sure say some things that intrigue me. Any well run business utilizes only enough employees to service its market share. And paying higher wages doesn't reduce market share because consumer demand isn't a function of retail pay scale.

So, if a business is maximally serving a market share profitably, and cuts service to cut costs, they risk market share loss due to service dissatisfaction. What businesses do to adjust to rising costs in a demand market is raise prices and or alter their product offering by expanding it or upscaling it. Example: gas station mini-marts. Used to be that you bought gas and oil changes. Some years back station owners figured out that they could make more money selling hot dogs and beer and candy. And they even started discounting the gas to get customers to stop in to the higher margin market items. Similarly, grocery stores now have delis selling chicken and jo-jo's and potato salads, etc. when I was growing up and a young man there weren't any deli's in grocery stores. Etc.

The kinds of businesses that cut employees to address shrinking margins are businesses that have marketing employees and can suspend their efforts to expand market share, where expansion efforts are speculative, to grow the business. Or, businesses who can't manage to hold market share or are in a declining market, will also have the option to cut employment.

Successful, well run businesses in demand markets won't cut services.

I have 3 businesses in CA. None of the employees receive minimum wage. Never have paid minimum wage to anyone, with any of the eleven companies I have owned in my life. I am in a major technology field.

The companies who hire such at minimum wage, do so because they can not afford more. They may be big companies, but they are structured around inexperienced workers to whom minimum wage is a proper level at the start and low costs to their customers.

Successful and well run business do not pay minimum wage except in a few categories like McDonalds where minimal experience is needed. I have a friend who works in a company like McDonalds, but not in the food industry. They have been cutting hours and employees to stay profitable and they are well known as a large national company.They also sell at the bottom of the pricing market, so they have minimum room for more pay. Think of a chain like ... "Dollar" anything for example.

You did say above: What businesses do to adjust to rising costs in a demand market is raise prices.

That is what I said.Just watch how the main minimum wage employers handle it.

[Elliott_CA]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

End of thread?

Why end the thread? It's the only $15 min wage thread that doesn't have a biased title.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Yeah! Because businesses are always so socially responsible!

I'm also shocked at the number of people that think the purpose of business is to be socially responsible.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Elliott_CA

Why end the thread? It's the only $15 min wage thread that doesn't have a biased title.

Heh. Good point! There are so many competing for outrage I feel like it's been like a game of 'Whack-A-Mole'.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by ringwise

I'm also shocked at the number of people that think the purpose of business is to be socially responsible.

Well, I, for one, don't think so. Nor have I expressed any such sympathies. My point to you would be that each endeavor has its own valuable function. And government's role is to safeguard and develop society for the health and benefit of the citizens. Business can't be relied upon to do so. Therefore government has to impose controls to establish and maintain balance.

Ultimately, while business drives society, it is not the point of living.

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute

The automation argument against labor costs is disingenuous. Automation will win out well within our lifetimes regardless of minimum wage hikes: Even if we don't raise wages, the cost of processing power and hardware will continue to fall until it is cheaper to run machines than to hire people, even if it is on wages that they cannot live on anyway.

Then why force minimum wage hikes? Any different than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?

Do progressives then look at minimum wage hikes as necessary conditioning to make the idea of an eventual Guaranteed Minimum Income more palatable?

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

If Brown HAD become a priest, California would have missed the most effective governor probably in its history. His approval rating is pretty much unprecedented, even with Republicans and Libertarians.

California Republicans and Libertarians aren't necessarily the same as those in other states.


You're right though, all that matters is what a majority of current California residents think. If you guys are happy...be my guest.


Certain foods taste good. That doesn't mean they are good for you.

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by ringwise

The government has no business deciding which businesses are "worthy" and which are not. NO BUSINESS.

I'm am constantly shocked at the number of people that think the government should be telling businesses how to run their companies.

Other than making sure the workplace is safe, I agree with you.