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.
In the 21st century these people are quite simply surplus to need.
You don't know that. We're in a huge recession, so generalizing trends based on a bad several years stretch is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational
with employers paying fairly for it.
It sounds like for you Fast Food workers are not fairly paid. What is fair in your opinion? Who determines "fair"? Furthermore how is "fair pay" insured?
In a market economy like ours market decides what is fair -- did I miss something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jertheber
What we're really talking about here is the sharing of profit..
Unless you are a shareholder, profit a private business generates is not yours to share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jertheber
does anyone really believe that the fast food industry can not be a more meaningful contributor to our local economies beyond the present mindset that produces the "value meal"?
There is nothing new and novel about your ideas. The idea of power-grabbing someone else's profit is about 6000 years old. It is same-old same-old tyrannical mindset. No one is willing to share its fruits of labor, until communism. Private businesses will not contribute more to the Govt until forced to do so. You need to force private businesses to do that. Taxation is one form. Excessive taxation is another method. Nationalization is a 3rd method. All of them represent a coercive transfer of wealth. Except taxation, or eminent domain -- everything else is unconstitutional.
If you want to talk ammending the constitution, or whatever let's talk about that.
If you want to talk about another kind of society -- let's have that conversation. But be specific and honest what you propose. And be specific.
May or may not be true. As the OP said, everyone is gaming this to their own advantage. I'm sure that includes massaging the numbers. But really, it goes back to the 1st point. Working fast food has always been a supplemental type job, not a "primary earner" type job.
You may be supposing that I am incapable of seeing more than one component to this issue.
I'm not really "advocating" anything merely engaging in a debate that provokes further discussion.
I know, right? Crazy!
Again, the $7 comment was in response to a poster who said if we get rid of minimum wage that might put downward pressure on wages, which they professed would be a good thing. I cant see how a further lowering of wages is realistic.
The fact remains that more and more people are relying on these jobs in lieu of better opportunities. Which means taking a long hard look at the landscape of America's employment picture may be more important than ever. Corporate America has shed many good paying positions, replacing them with much lower paying jobs or none at all. Some of those new found corporate earnings perhaps should be directed back into these lesser paying positions? If the individual franchisee's cannot shoulder the burden, then the corporation should assist with subsidies in some fashion maybe? Possibly there is another form of relief for independent small business owners.
Working for minimum wage used to be "supplemental" positions. Maybe not any more!
Last edited by shaker281; 09-09-2013 at 10:52 PM..
But raising the minimum wage will just raise that price you paid for a Big Mac even further....or as TexDav said, they will find a way to do more with fewer workers (or both).
The threat "we will raise prices or fire people, if we are forced to compensate better" is common and, history shows, somewhat specious.
The marketplace and competition will determine pricing.
In any case, I use the illustration of the cost of the meal to highlight how prices are outpacing compensation. Leaving more people behind.
Yet you advocated raising the minimum wage yourself. You may not agree on the dollar amount, but the mindset behind it remains the same.
No, I am just not entirely refusing to consider the issue. The mindset behind giving someone a $1/hr or a $100/hr raise may be the same. The reality is completely different.
Good link. I would also add that many states have higher minimums than $7.25 per hour, so If that is factored in, the U.S. would come out better than the map indicated.
Wouldn't the fact that many states already pay more, torpedo the idea that those wages levels are unsustainable and will result in mass firings and price escalations? Hmmm?
Some of those new found corporate earnings perhaps should be directed back into these lesser paying positions? If the individual franchisee's cannot shoulder the burden, then the corporation should assist with subsidies in some fashion maybe? Possibly there is another form of relief for independent small business owners.
Re-direct profits? How are you going to do that in, in real life? Of course, the answer is Govt. I am not against Govt, but I am against making Govt the Swiss-army knife for all things. And we have many many problems.
In order to re-direct profit we need to write another law, which I suspect will not be less than 2000 pages. Any law would require an army of bureaucrats to write 20,000 pages of regulations on how to execute the law of 2000 pages. Then create agencies, new office to insure Profit is re-directed. That create more bureaucracy to insure that the respective Govt agency is executing the law correctly.
Then you have the courts, then you have the lawsuits.
The answer to our problems is not another Govt mandate, because to be honest, you and I know, no one will re-direct their profit to another soul without some mandate.
Remember, we are a Constitutional republic, where our Federal Govt has been granted only some very specific powers. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you want to talk about another type of society, then sure -- let's have the discussion of kind of country do we want to be. Go first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
Working for minimum wage used to be "supplemental" positions. Maybe not any more!
In all mankind's history, there have always been people in society who were at bottom rung of the ladder. We have an economic problem -- we have no growth, we have no economic development. The real conversation should be -- how can the economy grow, so more jobs become available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
Wouldn't the fact that many states already pay more, torpedo the idea that those wages levels are unsustainable and will result in mass firings and price escalations? Hmmm?
What??? Prices have increased, unemployment is way too high -- mass firings and price escalations as already happened big time, and will even get worse as more mandates on wages are imposed on businesses.
Market has done its job -- reacted predictably. Playing with markets is like playing with fire. People who will get hurt the most are always the weakest -- minimum wage earners.
The problem is, as has been repeated numerous times by other posters and news outlets, people ARE going to school: more than ever before. But yet as soon as these people graduate, many of them are ending up, guess where, back at retail jobs making minimum wage.
That's because too many people are going to university for worthless bachelor's degrees that don't advance their career and getting themselves into tens of thousands of dollars of debt. It's important to make sure you're going to school for something that will actually pay off. You should not be going to school unless it's going to give you job skills that are in demand. However the notion now is that you have to have a bachelor's or master's degree to get a good job and it's not true. Too many people are buying into this idea and it's actually hurting the economy. As I'm sure you're aware, student loan debt has now surpassed credit card debt. Unfortunately the government has enabled this scenario by guaranteeing student loans. That is a different issue however.
Quote:
Like I said before, I am well-aware that retail gigs for minimum wage are not supposed to be paid with livable wages. However, the problem with job growth in this country is that there aren't enough GOOD jobs getting created. What's worse is that whenever there is an article like this online, trolls love to come out of hiding and will be the first to call a graduate who doesn't want to go back to a low-wage gig "entitled," but yet won't hesitate to mock a graduate who takes a job at Starbucks. We need companies to create more good, professional-level entry-level jobs for those with an education or equitable work experience. Lots of graduates that I know are more than happy to start at the bottom, but there needs to be a bottom to start with in the first place.
I agree that there are not enough good jobs being created. That is not going to change any time soon though. It's important for folks making the decision to go to school to do so for the right reasons. There are jobs out there though.
As I'm sure you're aware, student loan debt has now surpassed credit card debt. Unfortunately the government has enabled this scenario by guaranteeing student loans. That is a different issue however.
Govt got involved, made money easily available, 19-year olds bought their Lexuses, went on European vacation without earning a dime for those things, while they went to Community College. Play first, work later to pay for it. This is Govt playing with human nature.
Student Loan debt is a Govt-created problem. Again Govt contaminated how life is supposed to work. Education is not a given, you must acquire it. So again, who gets hurt the most? The people at the lowest economic rung who took out these loans.
So now -- what is the solution? The very Govt, and all-encompassing Govt mindset that created the problem will be proposed to be the solution. Mark my words..
You can balance asset inflation with wage inflation to undo the economic damage to an economy done by an asset bubble. You can turn an asset bubble into inflation with it.
The minimum wage controversy has come up during various administrations. The public argument is always the same and regardless of the particular political party in charge, the answer is similar. There is not a real big difference in the parties any longer - not in many things, at least. Look at this involvement in the war with Syria - that's played out too many times in the past, and the public got snookered. Now, both parties are shouting STOP. There seems to be a game being played out by our government and it does not seem to matter much who's in charge. When we, the public, are set against each other it becomes easier for the players to get their way.
Us Vs. Them.
Who is us and Who is them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain
Both parties are catering to illegals, both are favoring polluting fuel industries, both are fostering our involvement in foriegn wars, both did not penalize businesses for sending jobs overseas, both got rid of precautions put in place during the depression to prevent another one, both refused to penalize the guilty parties that caused this recession.
The face changes, the party changes, but the policies - financially based decisions - do not change.
If you want real change then you need a long term plan to get it and you need to know who you are fighting against.
Peg the minimum wage to the top total compensation packages. (20:1 or 100:1 it doesn't matter)
Peg the minimum wage to the full employment total debt to GDP ratio. (Keep it below 125% of GDP.)
Those two for starters will keep us out of trouble long term.
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.
