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.
If you got the money together to open a new fast food restaurant in your hometown and starting hiring the workers, what would you pay the people who do the work? I am talking about the unskilled poorly educated workers who will cook the food, clean the toilets, mop the floor and stock the cooler. (Not the Managers)
Would you pay them about minimum wage so you could be the same as everyone else in town, or would you pay a few dollars above minimum wage so you could hold out for higher quality workers and reduce turnover, but then risk a lower profit margin because the higher wages would not guarantee good workers or less turnover, just make it more likely.
Remember this will be in your town, with it's unique labor market and wages and minimum wage. If you did the poll explain your answer please.
I'm sorry, but your poll as stated is unanswerable, IMO.
IF I were able to start a business in the local economy (ANY business, fast food or used book store, or any other business), I would ignore the government mandated minimum wage, and I would pay my employees slightly more than the going rate in the local area. I would have (if possible) slightly better benefits than comparable businesses in the area. In this way, I would have a better chance of getting quality people to serve my customers, perhaps even "stealing" some of those people from competitors!
I think you're asking the wrong question: Social conscience associated with fair wages isn't a solo sport. It's a cooperative venture. So the real question, and the only way anyone should answer your poll, is, "If you got to dictate the prevailing wage for all fast food restaurants within driving distance of your fast food restaurant, what would you set it at?"
I'm sorry, but your poll as stated is unanswerable, IMO.
IF I were able to start a business in the local economy (ANY business, fast food or used book store, or any other business), I would ignore the government mandated minimum wage, and I would pay my employees slightly more than the going rate in the local area. I would have (if possible) slightly better benefits than comparable businesses in the area. In this way, I would have a better chance of getting quality people to serve my customers, perhaps even "stealing" some of those people from competitors!
^^this^^. in addition i would push my employees to do the best job they were capable of doing, and i would do it with a profit sharing plan. if restaurant profits went above a certain level, all the employees would get a share of everything above that profit level. i would demand a lot, but in return i would reward a lot.
If you got the money together to open a new fast food restaurant in your hometown and starting hiring the workers, what would you pay the people who do the work? I am talking about the unskilled poorly educated workers who will cook the food, clean the toilets, mop the floor and stock the cooler. (Not the Managers)
Would you pay them about minimum wage so you could be the same as everyone else in town, or would you pay a few dollars above minimum wage so you could hold out for higher quality workers and reduce turnover, but then risk a lower profit margin because the higher wages would not guarantee good workers or less turnover, just make it more likely.
Remember this will be in your town, with it's unique labor market and wages and minimum wage. If you did the poll explain your answer please.
Please answer my poll.
I cannot answer your poll, because it fails to include the correct answer.
I have no say in what workers at my fast-food restaurant ought to be paid.
Wages for a given skill --- such as fast-food --- are determined by the Laws of Economics, specifically the Law of Supply & Demand, as it applies to the skill-set required of fast-food employees in a given Labor Market.
There are 1,539 separately functioning economies and Labor Markets in the US.
I can only speak for one of those 1,539 economies and Labor Markets, that being Cincinnati.
I could pay the federal minimum wage, but then I would be out of business in 7 months or less....due to the fact that this specific Labor Market has set starting wages at $8.50/hour.
Additionally, the Laws of Economics show that in this specific Labor Market, wages for the fast-food skill-set must be adjusted upward to $9.00-$10.00/hour six to eighteen months after hire.
Now, I could drive 30 miles north and open my fast-food restaurant there. I would only have to pay starting wages of $8.50-$9.00/hour....because the Laws of Economics say so.
The Laws of Economics also show that I would only need to give a $0.10 to $0.50/hour increase six months to eighteen months after hire.
I would do better by operating a warehouse, since the Laws of Economics show that I could start warehouse workers at $7.25/hour and never give them a pay increase.....of course the situation could change over the next 5-10 years and the Laws of Economics might require me to increase their pay from $7.25/hour to $7.35/hour.
I hope this Real World lesson in Economics and Realityâ„¢ has been instructive.
The Laws of Economics determine salaries and wages, not governments, not unions, not employers and not employees.
Note that at the micro-level, it is possible that an employee has an enhanced skill-set, and due to the enhanced skill-set, or other factors, the Laws of Economics would allow the employee to attain a salary or wage that is higher than the macro-level for that particular economy/Labor Market.
In other words, the Laws of Supply & Demand might say that in Evansville, Indiana, starting salaries for a manager are $45,000 but an employee with an enhanced managerial skill-set might command a starting salary of $50,000 to $90,000.
That of course would not be true for the Education System, since unions interfere with the Free Market, and unions deem that a teacher with an enhanced skill-set to be of no value, so a teacher would get paid a starting salary same as every other teacher....that keeps Liberals from being butt-hurt with their Penis Envy and Butt/Breast Implant Envy over someone getting more than they are.
Economically...
I cannot answer your poll, because it fails to include the correct answer.
I have no say in what workers at my fast-food restaurant ought to be paid.
Wages for a given skill --- such as fast-food --- are determined by the Laws of Economics, specifically the Law of Supply & Demand, as it applies to the skill-set required of fast-food employees in a given Labor Market.
There are 1,539 separately functioning economies and Labor Markets in the US.
I can only speak for one of those 1,539 economies and Labor Markets, that being Cincinnati.
I could pay the federal minimum wage, but then I would be out of business in 7 months or less....due to the fact that this specific Labor Market has set starting wages at $8.50/hour.
Additionally, the Laws of Economics show that in this specific Labor Market, wages for the fast-food skill-set must be adjusted upward to $9.00-$10.00/hour six to eighteen months after hire.
Now, I could drive 30 miles north and open my fast-food restaurant there. I would only have to pay starting wages of $8.50-$9.00/hour....because the Laws of Economics say so.
The Laws of Economics also show that I would only need to give a $0.10 to $0.50/hour increase six months to eighteen months after hire.
I would do better by operating a warehouse, since the Laws of Economics show that I could start warehouse workers at $7.25/hour and never give them a pay increase.....of course the situation could change over the next 5-10 years and the Laws of Economics might require me to increase their pay from $7.25/hour to $7.35/hour.
I hope this Real World lesson in Economics and Realityâ„¢ has been instructive.
The Laws of Economics determine salaries and wages, not governments, not unions, not employers and not employees.
Note that at the micro-level, it is possible that an employee has an enhanced skill-set, and due to the enhanced skill-set, or other factors, the Laws of Economics would allow the employee to attain a salary or wage that is higher than the macro-level for that particular economy/Labor Market.
In other words, the Laws of Supply & Demand might say that in Evansville, Indiana, starting salaries for a manager are $45,000 but an employee with an enhanced managerial skill-set might command a starting salary of $50,000 to $90,000.
That of course would not be true for the Education System, since unions interfere with the Free Market, and unions deem that a teacher with an enhanced skill-set to be of no value, so a teacher would get paid a starting salary same as every other teacher....that keeps Liberals from being butt-hurt with their Penis Envy and Butt/Breast Implant Envy over someone getting more than they are.
Economically...
Mircea
I think that is the fundamental disconnect here. Liberals understand perfectly well that you must pay what the market demands. Obviously you want to pay your employees as little as possible to ensure maximum profits for youself, while paying them enough to ensure that you can attract and retain talent. You're not going to give them a raise out of the kindness of your heart.
Unions and labor laws are what create the middle class. Without that, you have the wealthy who want to make as much as possible, and the working class who largely have no ability to negotiate wages higher than they "deserve."
I think that is the fundamental disconnect here. Liberals understand perfectly well that you must pay what the market demands. Obviously you want to pay your employees as little as possible to ensure maximum profits for youself, while paying them enough to ensure that you can attract and retain talent. You're not going to give them a raise out of the kindness of your heart.
Unions and labor laws are what create the middle class. Without that, you have the wealthy who want to make as much as possible, and the working class who largely have no ability to negotiate wages higher than they "deserve."
Precisely. No one is disputing the economics. The fact is that economics isn't an overriding factor in society's decisions. Economics is important, no question, but economics would have prompted the US to sit out WWII. Economics would have our military adopt a policy of leaving behind the bodies of those lose their lives defending our nation's interests. Economics would reduce every citizen down to a number of dollars, and rationalize all manner of morally offensive actions in response to that. The reality is that economics takes a back seat to our nation's values, our nation's humanity, our nation's honor.
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.
