Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True, but it's the 6th largest francise out of thousands.
Quote:
You have to understand...these are the same people that were and are willing to hire illegals for $3/hour under the table. Of course they don't want to pay a fair wage to someone American made and skilled. Why should they when they could just underpay someone who is willing to do what they consider a menial job?
If a company can find a replacement for half or 1/3 the pay, doesn't that infer that the pay is too much to begin with?
If pay were to follow market rates, housing would be in line as would general prices of goods and services. What we've created by increasing the minimum wage is inflation.
If the Government were to say that as of tomorrow min wage was $20/hr, do you think prices would remain unchanged?
I swear most of the people who say this also complain about outsourcing and how "foreigners" are stealing all of their jobs...the fact of the matter is there are literally billions of people who would line up to come to America to make a fraction of what low skill labor or the minimum wage pays in the United States. There is the "free market" for you. (I am not saying you personally complain about this, just most people who make this argument.)
That's where immigration policy and unions comes into play.
True, but it's the 6th largest francise out of thousands.
If a company can find a replacement for half or 1/3 the pay, doesn't that infer that the pay is too much to begin with?
If pay were to follow market rates, housing would be in line as would general prices of goods and services. What we've created by increasing the minimum wage is inflation.
If the Government were to say that as of tomorrow min wage was $20/hr, do you think prices would remain unchanged?
Inflation is created by monopolies and franchise agreements. Cable companies who own the monty on specific areas. Telephone companies who own the copper and then rent it out at the same rates they charge customers, making it anticompetitive. Car makers who price cars based on the number of customers in the area. There's a reason a hybrid has a $10k premium in California but is reasonable in Cleveland.
And your first question is not only silly, but somewhat insulting. That question is essentially saying, "well, if someone's willing to take $3, maybe $8 is too much!!" Maybe you don't know, but even homeless beggars get more than $3/hour. THAT is why such a rate is unacceptable.
Countering your third question, if the government dropped minimum wage down to $3, guaranteed employers would start dropping pay rates. Do you think retail prices will go down? Absolutely not.
You can't equate minimum wage levels to retail pricing. It doesn't work like that. Minimum wage is adhered to the cost of living in a particular area. Cost of living is adhered to supply and demand - NOT individual pay levels.
That's where immigration policy and unions comes into play.
No real free market advocate would allow unions or enact any kind of government policy that gives them any real power.
Free market advocates are also largely in favor of, at the very least, somewhat open immigration, if not totally open borders.
FWIW, most Republicans are not free market advocates...most of them are the exact opposite IMO. It just seems to me there are a lot of people who advocate free markets and then advocate policies that any real free market advocate would say is the exact opposite of free markets. Larry Kudlow is a good example of this on TV.
You don't and have not lived in California which is why you think the way you do.
Out in Colorado, $10/hour lets you live like a king.
In California, and yes, I've done the math, $10/hour lets you live in a crummy apartment in a shady part of town with absolutely no luxuries whatsoever.
You can't apply your blanket statement to every area. Out here, minimum wage is way too low, period.
Actually, I did live in California. I lived in Marina del Rey a few years back for a period of time. AND I have family as far south as Escondido and throughout various cities near LA and Sacramento. I'm well aware that California is expensive. I also have 2 friends from high school living there at the moment, both living just fine on $10.50/hr just outside of LA in a reasonably decent area (I've seen bad areas in LA and they don't live there so you can nix that argument right now).
As for living like a king on $10/hr here, that's one of the most ignorant comments I've ever heard. Colorado, while not California (a ridiculous monster of it's own that many residents have caused to become what it is), is NOT a cheap state to live in. Taxes are high, insurance is high. Denver is one of the largest and more expensive cities to live in, in the country. I've lived all over this country and in Europe...I know what cost of living is. There aren't many places in the states where you'd live like a "king" on 10/hr, but that's not the point. You can LIVE just fine on 10/hr. I'm not saying that you live just fine on minimum wage. That was never my argument. Minimum wage isn't MEANT to be lived on forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by revelated
Step 1: That's ONE franchise. Out of thousands.
Step 2: They claim those are the reasons. It's heresay. For all we know it could have been (A) subpar offerings, (B) too-high prices, (C) lack of customers, (D) lack of good employees (likely due to poor salary), (E) location, (F) inflation, (G) taxation, or (H) any combination of the aforementioned. It's just easier for them to blame it on something that they should have been offering anyway.
You have to understand...these are the same people that were and are willing to hire illegals for $3/hour under the table. Of course they don't want to pay a fair wage to someone American made and skilled. Why should they when they could just underpay someone who is willing to do what they consider a menial job?
As long as there are people willing to work for $3/hr there will ALWAYS be people willing to hire them. REGARDLESS of the minimum wage. In fact, raising the minimum wage will only aggravate the situation more. If an employer had to choose between hiring someone at $10/hr or $3/hr and would get the same productivity (or more) from the cheaper option, then obviously they're going to go that route.
Ages ago, my father used to work for a manufactured home builder as a line manager. Nearly half that company (or more maybe) were illegals. The company was raided AT LEAST once a month and workers removed. Guess what, the very next day they had replacements. And why? Because they could. Because the gov't doesn't honestly care all that much about illegals. All this noise about making it harder for employers to hire illegals is just that - noise. The "systems" being put into place have huge holes in them and they're not working very quickly to fix the issue either. The gov't makes a lot of money off the backs of cheap labor too.
At Ft Carson where my husband is stationed, they have a lot of construction going on at the moment. I drive through post almost daily, and I can guarantee that at least a quarter of those workers are illegals. On a regular basis, the gate guards catch one or two of them because they slipped up somewhere while trying to come on to work. Seeing as how these contractors are gov't paid, and these arrests and deports are made known to the gov't, and the contractors haven't been replaced yet by another that hires 100% legals, that just screams to me that they don't care.
In reality, the more you ask the gov't to get involved in something like minimum wage, and continue to raise it, I feel is just like shooting yourselves in the foot. There is and always will be cheap labor available. Whether it be through illegal immigrants or outsourcing, or computerizing, etc, it will be done. Every time you require an employer to pay more money to ALL their employees, people are going to lose out. There will always be less hours for all the employees, or layoffs, etc. So, while it may be beneficial for some, why should one person get to make $10/hr while 2 others get fired and now have no jobs at all? I'd far rather see people being able to at least make SOME money rather than no money at all - or worse - living on welfare and food stamps, etc. Because then it's not the employer supporting the person, now it's the taxpayer - which means YOU and ME. People need to learn to spend wiser and their dollar will go a lot further if they learn to be thrifty as opposed to "trendy."
Quote:
Originally Posted by revelated
Inflation is created by monopolies and franchise agreements. Cable companies who own the monty on specific areas. Telephone companies who own the copper and then rent it out at the same rates they charge customers, making it anticompetitive. Car makers who price cars based on the number of customers in the area. There's a reason a hybrid has a $10k premium in California but is reasonable in Cleveland.
And your first question is not only silly, but somewhat insulting. That question is essentially saying, "well, if someone's willing to take $3, maybe $8 is too much!!" Maybe you don't know, but even homeless beggars get more than $3/hour. THAT is why such a rate is unacceptable.
Countering your third question, if the government dropped minimum wage down to $3, guaranteed employers would start dropping pay rates. Do you think retail prices will go down? Absolutely not.
You can't equate minimum wage levels to retail pricing. It doesn't work like that. Minimum wage is adhered to the cost of living in a particular area. Cost of living is adhered to supply and demand - NOT individual pay levels.
It's all about supply and demand. Once the price gets higher than people are willing to pay then people will stop using service and purchasing the goods that are overpriced. As long as you're willing to pay their asking price, they're going to keep charging it. When the masses unquestioningly pay sticker prices and massive markups, of course companies are going to throw out feelers for higher prices. They aren't stupid. They pay people to monitor spending habits of consumers. They are not going to drop the price when the consumer happily pays what they're asking. If you have an issue w/ the price of something, you protest it with your feet. Walk out of the store or company that is "overcharging you." Shop where you can get it cheaper, or even places where you KNOW they only hire legitimate employees and pay them what you believe is a fair wage. If everyone did that then others would start to see their sales hurt and adjust accordingly.
And by the way - some of these monopolies you listed..people aren't FORCED to use them. People don't NEED cable. Hell, they barely need tv at all in my opinion. It's a convenience item, nothing more. *Most* people don't NEED telephone landlines. You could easily walk down to any number of cell phone companies and purchase a pay-as-you-go phone and use it only when you needed it. Almost everyone is on cell phones now as it is, and a very small percentage of people actually NEED to be on their phone EVERY day. It's another convenience item. Cars - people don't need the hottest new toy out on the market, but people in CA pay a premium for hybrids because everyone thinks it's the "cool" "responsible" "trendy" thing to do. Guess what, there is study after study showing that to make back your money on the gas you save by driving a hybrid, would take you nearly 10 years. They are NOT as "green" as you would think. They just happen to be the neat new toy on the market that everyone just *has* to have. My hyundai gets 32 mph and is 8 years old. Far more economical (and better for the environment) than all those "hybrid" SUVs all over California.
It's all about convenience and trends, and that's what people are paying for...and have happily been doling out money for, for years.
And your first question is not only silly, but somewhat insulting. That question is essentially saying, "well, if someone's willing to take $3, maybe $8 is too much!!" Maybe you don't know, but even homeless beggars get more than $3/hour. THAT is why such a rate is unacceptable.
You're missing the point. I'm not advocating a pay rate of $3/hr for minimum wage. I'm advocating no minimum wage. If homeless beggers make more than $3/hr than everyone will be homeless beggers instead of working the McD's counter. That means the business will have to pay more to get workers. IE the market is now setting the "minimum" wage.
Quote:
Countering your third question, if the government dropped minimum wage down to $3, guaranteed employers would start dropping pay rates. Do you think retail prices will go down? Absolutely not.
Prices will have to go down. Let's get away from this $3/hr pay rate. Again, I'm advocating NO minimum payrate. If people can't afford to buy anything or rent apartments, prices come down.
Quote:
You can't equate minimum wage levels to retail pricing. It doesn't work like that. Minimum wage is adhered to the cost of living in a particular area. Cost of living is adhered to supply and demand - NOT individual pay levels.
Absolutely. Which is why I believe there should be no federally mandated minimum wage. Looks like we agree .
You're missing the point. I'm not advocating a pay rate of $3/hr for minimum wage. I'm advocating no minimum wage. If homeless beggers make more than $3/hr than everyone will be homeless beggers instead of working the McD's counter. That means the business will have to pay more to get workers. IE the market is now setting the "minimum" wage.
Prices will have to go down. Let's get away from this $3/hr pay rate. Again, I'm advocating NO minimum payrate. If people can't afford to buy anything or rent apartments, prices come down.
Absolutely. Which is why I believe there should be no federally mandated minimum wage. Looks like we agree .
Then fine, take away Federal minimum, it's useless and too low anyway. But taking away State minimum is asking for trouble. We'll be in the Great Depression all over again. Big business is no longer wanting to make sure the common worker is taken care of. CEOs/CFOs/Fat Kats will just bump up their salary and drop everyone else's because they can. In this economy people aren't paying salary based on the position anymore; they're paying the lowest income people will take because they're desperate. I know some of you keep saying "wellllllll if people are willing to take it then I don't see a problem with it!!" It's the principle. If a job is rated at $75k there's no excuse - read me, NO EXCUSE - for paying some kid $28k to do the same job.
Bottom line there has to be a middle ground. I don't care which you pick.
A: Minimum wage enforcement.
B: Illegal worker COMPLETE prohibition - as in, $50k fine per illegal worker identified.
C: Requirement to pay rated cost of living as determined by the state, at minimum. Meaning if the annual income average in the area is $75k, you pay $75k to each worker you have that lives in that area. Not a desirable option, is it?
D: Outsourced employee tax of $50k per outsourced employee.
E: Amend the EEOA to allow employees to sue for discrimination if an employer hires an underqualified kid who just got their bachelor's degree over someone who has 10 years in the business.
F: Amend the labor laws to allow employees to sue if a company terminates their position, then immediately hires someone else into it for lower than what they were making.
Bottom line - the employers need oversight. What some propose - letting them decide how much they will and won't pay - is asking for anarchy. Maybe back in 1945 when things weren't expensive that methodology would fly, but now the big businesses have discovered that they don't actually have to push for more profitability or pay good money...they can just hire cheap labor. It's wrong. I'm sorry, but it is. The pizza delivery driver deserves to make what they deserve to make, according to what the law says, at minimum. IF companies don't want to pay it, stop offering delivery service until you do. The loss of customers will convince you to do the right thing. It's what got Little Sleazers out of the delivery business in a lot of areas.
Your entire post shows that you have not taken the time to understand ANYTHING that the lawsuit is about.
The lawsuit is NOT about demanding increased wages. The lawsuit is about being properly reimbursed for BUSINESS EXPENSES incurred by the employees.
It's a pizza DELIVERY BUSINESS.
The DRIVERS supply the DELIVERY vehicles for the DELIVERY BUSINESS.
The BUSINESS under-compensated the drivers for the use of the DELIVERY vehicles.
The DRIVERS are suing the BUSINESS to get their BUSINESS EXPENSES paid.
Get it?
Obviously the thread didn't start there. You apparently haven't bothered to read the track the rest of the thread got off onto. Maybe bother to read the 7 pages of posts first to see that we're now discussing more than one topic on this thread because, as any dynamic conversation would have it, it's gone onto other related issues. Do *you* get it?
That doesn't make it OK to violate minimum wage laws by 'using' the drivers car to support the business and then under-compensating them for the use of the vehicle.
Quitting doesn't solve the problem; it just ignores the violation for someone else to be suckered into.
By allowing stores to violate minimum wage laws, it gives them an unfair advantage by illegally lowering wage expenses and allowing them to profit more and cut prices to steal market share. Other companies must lower prices to compete, which puts downward pressure on all wages in that market. You still loose if you leave the low paying store!
Quitting is not the answer to minimum wage violations. Prosecution and enforcement are the only way to root out the problem.
I see no problem with enforcing laws that are already in place, but the issue that everyone seems to want to argue in this thread now is about raising minimum wage. If that is a person's problem is the minimum wage, find a job that pays more then. Simple enough. If these people are GENUINELY being under-compensated, and the courts find that to be the case, then they'll enforce it. I'm just tired of people finding every reason possible to sue someone else in order to get more money the easy way. Welcome to the new american dream.
But why should the Government dictate what the wage is? Shouldn't it be the market? If employers aren't paying enough people will move to places they can survive (such as Colorado according to you).
You are making a couple bad assumptions
1. There are less jobs then people. We have unemployment numbers, by Federal standards, around 10% right now (if you actually counted several categories not counted by federal standards, it would be closer to 15-20%). If you didnt know, less then 70% of adults are employed already ( I think its actually like 58%). This creates a situation where all jobs will artificially be bid down, especially those on the bottom. If there were no minimum wage, the complete lower two income quintiles would likely be cut directly in half.
2. Housing is needed. Utilities are needed. Food is needed. Clothes are needed. This creates a situation where one MUST subject themselves to an unfair "voluntary" work relationship, and must pay the prevailing price for these neccessities. Housing will always have a floor, regardless of whether people can truely afford it, because demand for it will not fall by that much, nor will demand for food. Most utilities are monopolies, and charge whatever they want anyway, with only a rubber stamping state regulatory board in the way.
So in other words, even though your wage drops, your prices for neccessities, largely wont. Youll just be forced to pay a higher percent of income for them.
3. People move where there are jobs. There is a reason why rural areas that people can live on low wages dont have influxes of people, its because there isnt any jobs for people to work. Plentiful jobs are usually concentrated around larger city centers, which are normally much more expensive to live in. Its really a catch 22, in order to get a job at low wage, normally you have to live somewhere that is completely unaffordable to live on those wages or very dangerous.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
