U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-16-2016, 03:00 PM
 
Location: On the water.
10,527 posts, read 6,445,750 times
Reputation: 8773

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by alliance View Post
It's called a change in business structure, like online options, in order to improve efficiency so that goods can be bought at reasonable prices (otherwise costs of goods will have to go up significantly in order to break even). So in your analogy, when physical stores become too expensive to operate then cheaper options, like amazon, will see increases in sales since their overhead is significantly lower due to automation and a much smaller needed workforce. On the other side, though, as we're seeing in San Francisco is an increase in delivery service employees, which is a good thing. In the overall equation of this example, unfortunately, the jobs lost will still be more than the jobs created. Automation and consolidation of responsibilities will lead to the status quo in product volume, but not workforce.

Oh, and in our future world of chains and fast-food, how has no one on this thread mentioned the inevitable accelerated turn to automation yet...? Or did I miss that?
Um, yes, approximately. But my point remains, however I super-simplified it: consumer product demand or lack thereof isn't a function of minimum wage. The human propensity to consume/over-consume crap and baubles is pretty inextinguishable. Consumer capitalism is a stupidly suicidal economic model. But the consumer people have been completely, irreversibly conditioned and will not be denied. It takes personnel still to serve the demand. No employer wants ANY employees, ideally. Regardless of wages being high or low. And automation / AI / robotics is predicted by the experts to eliminate yet another 1/3 of the present world workforce within the next 20 years. More after that. Has pretty much nothing to do with wages. We are on the brink of finally realizing Huxley's prescient vision of a "Brave New World".

But not to worry. You will all be cared for nicely. Guaranteed Minimum Income is coming along with various forms of Soma tablets and VR to keep you all happily foggy. A future without homelessness or starvation - or much intellect either. Welcome!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-16-2016, 03:08 PM
 
234 posts, read 135,433 times
Reputation: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
Or it is - thankfully.
There are two problems I have with the law.

First the fact it's statewide seems pretty brutal for areas like imperial County. The fact businesses there have to pay the same minimum there as SF is pretty brutal.

Secondly I think it should have been rolled out as a 5% per year increase for 10 years then fix it to cpi.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 03:14 PM
 
Location: On the water.
10,527 posts, read 6,445,750 times
Reputation: 8773
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOIGUY View Post
There are two problems I have with the law.

First the fact it's statewide seems pretty brutal for areas like imperial County. The fact businesses there have to pay the same minimum there as SF is pretty brutal.

Secondly I think it should have been rolled out as a 5% per year increase for 10 years then fix it to cpi.
Reasonable. With the exception that chain retailers should pay up wherever they are, Imperial County or not, as they are being subsidized by the taxpayer for low wages in spite of high profitability. If WallyWorld and MickeyD's decided that would be unfair and take themselves out of the low-income low industry markets, fine. Make way for more small businesses to pick up the business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 03:44 PM
 
359 posts, read 314,147 times
Reputation: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
It takes personnel still to serve the demand. No employer wants ANY employees, ideally. Regardless of wages being high or low.
That's not at all true. All employers would love to work less. If they could afford it then I guarantee you most would choose to not work 60+ hour weeks with no time off, and take home pay barely above what their employees make (yes, there are years when I have made somewhere in the middle of the pack but worked 6 day weeks with zero days off).

Now whether or not someone pays you what you are worth is another story altogether, which has no simple solution as we are seeing on this thread. But free market would generally say that you are paid what you are worth or you are free to find a different job that does pay you what you are worth. If you are at an entrance-level job, then you are free to improve your worth from there. The problem is that people who are paid minimum wage should be young and willing and ready to improve their stock. The fact that there are so many 30+ year olds working for MW at fast food positions is the problem. As cold as it sounds, that problem is with them. They want more to do the same, without improving their skills or worth to the business. If they did they likely would have already moved up the latter. Granted there are plenty of places that will always underpay, which is why I said that they should go somewhere else. But perhaps they are content with doing less...? Giving them a forced raise for mediocrity is one of the issues at hand. If I have someone making minimum wage it is because they have zero skills and value to the business other than potential. If they meet that potential and work hard then they will get their raise within a few months (which they deserve based on performance rather than simply existing) or go somewhere else. I have no problem paying what they have earned. And again, they are free to take what I have taught them and go somewhere else that will pay them better. If they do nothing to improve their worth, then they will have to be let go since the cost is now too high to allow that to continue. And the other employees resent laziness since they have to pick up the slack. Hard work is not optional. Go figure.

I actually love my employees and would pay them twice what I give them if I could. But I can't, at least right now. They work their ass off, for each other, not for me. With it comes increased production and a better work environment, and raises for all. I might even take a cut of it if it's allowed. But I'm just an evil greedy business owner in the eyes of Californians, so the fact that I might benefit is considered a negative. Weird what has happened to this country so quickly. For many it will no longer be worth it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 03:46 PM
 
359 posts, read 314,147 times
Reputation: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOIGUY View Post
There are two problems I have with the law.

First the fact it's statewide seems pretty brutal for areas like imperial County. The fact businesses there have to pay the same minimum there as SF is pretty brutal.

Secondly I think it should have been rolled out as a 5% per year increase for 10 years then fix it to cpi.
Agree 100%. This will decimate the poorer regions of the state. What SF can easily absorb will never fly in other areas. SF will do fine with 15, but hayward? San Bernardino? Bakersfield? This experiment should be interesting. I just hope that the rest of the country waits it out to see how things go in california before taking this experiment to small town kansas, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 03:47 PM
 
359 posts, read 314,147 times
Reputation: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
Reasonable. With the exception that chain retailers should pay up wherever they are, Imperial County or not, as they are being subsidized by the taxpayer for low wages in spite of high profitability. If WallyWorld and MickeyD's decided that would be unfair and take themselves out of the low-income low industry markets, fine. Make way for more small businesses to pick up the business.
Aren't many of the fast food restaurants franchises though...? I honestly don't know how that works.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 03:53 PM
 
Location: On the water.
10,527 posts, read 6,445,750 times
Reputation: 8773
Quote:
Originally Posted by alliance View Post
Aren't many of the fast food restaurants franchises though...? I honestly don't know how that works.
Quote:
An average McDonald's franchise makes between $500,000 and $1 million in profits per year as of 2013, according to McDonald's Franchise Disclosure Document. For restaurants open at least 1 year in the United States, average total revenues are $2.6 million.
The average McDonald's franchisee own five McDonald's. You do the math.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 04:00 PM
 
359 posts, read 314,147 times
Reputation: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
The average McDonald's franchisee own five McDonald's. You do the math.
Gotcha. Source? Not doubting you, but I'm a numbers guy (if you haven't figured that out yet) and enjoy these kinds of breakdowns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 04:08 PM
 
Location: On the water.
10,527 posts, read 6,445,750 times
Reputation: 8773
Quote:
Originally Posted by alliance View Post
That's not at all true. All employers would love to work less. If they could afford it then I guarantee you most would choose to not work 60+ hour weeks with no time off, and take home pay barely above what their employees make (yes, there are years when I have made somewhere in the middle of the pack but worked 6 day weeks with zero days off).

Now whether or not someone pays you what you are worth is another story altogether, which has no simple solution as we are seeing on this thread. But free market would generally say that you are paid what you are worth or you are free to find a different job that does pay you what you are worth. If you are at an entrance-level job, then you are free to improve your worth from there. The problem is that people who are paid minimum wage should be young and willing and ready to improve their stock. The fact that there are so many 30+ year olds working for MW at fast food positions is the problem. As cold as it sounds, that problem is with them. They want more to do the same, without improving their skills or worth to the business. If they did they likely would have already moved up the latter. Granted there are plenty of places that will always underpay, which is why I said that they should go somewhere else. But perhaps they are content with doing less...? Giving them a forced raise for mediocrity is one of the issues at hand. If I have someone making minimum wage it is because they have zero skills and value to the business other than potential. If they meet that potential and work hard then they will get their raise within a few months (which they deserve based on performance rather than simply existing) or go somewhere else. I have no problem paying what they have earned. And again, they are free to take what I have taught them and go somewhere else that will pay them better. If they do nothing to improve their worth, then they will have to be let go since the cost is now too high to allow that to continue. And the other employees resent laziness since they have to pick up the slack. Hard work is not optional. Go figure.

I actually love my employees and would pay them twice what I give them if I could. But I can't, at least right now. They work their ass off, for each other, not for me. With it comes increased production and a better work environment, and raises for all. I might even take a cut of it if it's allowed. But I'm just an evil greedy business owner in the eyes of Californians, so the fact that I might benefit is considered a negative. Weird what has happened to this country so quickly. For many it will no longer be worth it.
I stand corrected. Only 99.999% of business owners would prefer zero employees. Although, I suspect you too would prefer to own/run a business without employees if you had the option.

I didn't say no business owner likes their employees. I said all business owners would prefer no employees. I also did not say that makes them evil. I was self-employed for most of my working years (now retired). I never employed anyone though I had a print shop where I could have expanded business by hiring help. I liked working by myself but mostly no interest in managing workers. Also not a bit focused on making much money. Just enough is plenty for me. I am a minimalist. Which is sane.

Your characterization of worth and advancement is dated, at least. First off, my definition of "worth" is: "Whatever you can get for something at the particular moment in time you are trying to sell it." There really is no other standard that isn't total BS. No matter how skilled or important an employee may be at a particular position, his value is nothing over minimum wage if he can't find another job elsewhere. It is also no longer the case that the classic stepping stone, youth employment minimum wage jobs are limited to that group. That's over. Automation is shrinking the workforce and more breadwinners are having to accept those positions by default as they age and youth continues to grow in numbers entering job markets with higher education. As I wrote previously, 1/3 of the world's workforce will soon be on the street corner with the other homeless. This notion that all a person has to do is continually strive to improve their productivity and work their way up the ladder is oversimplified horsecrap. There's limited space up that ladder and it's getting more so. In spite of all the noise about technical training making it sound like everyone can become a STEM 10 percenter, those very STEM jobs are all about creating less employment in the future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2016, 04:09 PM
 
Location: On the water.
10,527 posts, read 6,445,750 times
Reputation: 8773
Quote:
Originally Posted by alliance View Post
Gotcha. Source? Not doubting you, but I'm a numbers guy (if you haven't figured that out yet) and enjoy these kinds of breakdowns.
In the quote:
Quote:
McDonald's Franchise Disclosure Document
Page 36.

Google. It is a downloadable document.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top