Fast Food and Minimum Wage

[piezoe]

Quote from Arnie:

1969-1970. But you are missing the larger point. No one should be looking at these jobs as permanent.

An hour of flipping burgers has a market value. The govt should not be saying what that value is. its up to the markets. If you can't support yourself at McDonalds, then move on to something better.

If this was happening under a Republican administration, I'm sure you would singing a different tune.

I'd sing the same tune regardless. We know that we can not always depend on market forces to arrive at a balance between productivity and wages. Not letting wages and productivity get too far out of balance is one of the things that a good government does. Unless you own a lot of McDonald's stock or are in corporate management I would think you would be weary of indirectly subsidizing corporate salaries and dividends. That's what happens when wages are significantly below productivity. The excess profits are absorbed, ultimately at the upper end through salaries and bonuses and also through shareholder dividends.You, as a taxpayer, pay that excess profit indirectly via welfare, i.e., food stamps, etc., provided to the minimum wage worker. Bringing wages in line with productivity corrects, albeit slowly, these imbalances producing a healthier economy by lessening cost shifting. In other words, the real cost of these low wage workers is greater than minimum wage, and the cost of the difference is shifted ultimately to you and other tax payers.

Let's get on with it and bring wages into a better balance with productivity.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from Lucrum:

I don't see anything on that graph that supports your assertion that a higher min wage reduces welfare roles. Or that the current minimum wage is out of line with the employee's productivity.

In fact I don't see welfare roles or productivity even mentioned on that graph.

Sorry, I can't help you then. It will be obvious to most educated people.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from piezoe:

Sorry, I can't help you then. It will be obvious to most educated people.

Huh?

Quote from piezoe:
12-05-13 09:51 PM
... A vibrant economy requires that wages reflect productivity as closely as possible. The current minimum wage is out of whack with the productivity of minimum wage workers. When this happens people would rather stay home on the public dole than work. The marginal difference in reward for working does not make it worth working. So welfare roles are increased and a greater fraction of your taxes goes to welfare, and in effect, to subsidize the difference between the minimum wage and a minimum living wage. You are working part of every day to subsidize profits of minimum wage employers and to encourage people to stay home and watch MSNBC instead of working. To correct this mess, the minimum wage must go up to reflect and become in balance with productivity. In an ideal world filled with perfect people and perfect employers, employers would spontaneously raise their wages to reflect worker productivity. But this is not an ideal world filled with perfect employers and perfect people.

If you are tired of subsidizing Walmart then advocate for a raise in the minimum wage somewhere near the $10.10/hr mark. It is an inexact science, so if that is too low we can correct it, by further raises. If it is too high, we can let inflation over time correct it. We will know if it is about right if the welfare roles decline and the prices at minimum wage employers in competitive markets barely budge. That's the goal.

You say the current min wage doesn't match employee productivity.
You claim welfare roles are reduced with increases in the min wage.
The chart you show as your "proof" mentions neither productivity or welfare roles.

Do you have evidence of your claims or not?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from piezoe:

...We know that we can not always depend on market forces to arrive at a balance between productivity and wages....

Really? Who decides, you?

 

[piezoe]

Quote from bigarrow in response to Arnie's story:

What a heart warming story, please everyone post a rags to riches first job story just like Arnie did.

I see that at least Scat has provided another heart warming story. The rest of us, i'm afraid, are falling down on the job.

I've go one, but I don't want to make Y'all cry.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from Scataphagos:



In case anyone wonders... my first job was as a janitor at minimum wage. I did that job for a while because I wanted to eat regular and have a roof over my head... not much of one, but kept the rain out. All along, however, I thought, "I want more than this. I need to do something different/better as soon as I can."

Scatti I was just wondering what your first job was. jem is this proof that there is indeed a God?

 

[piezoe]

Quote from Lucrum:

Really? Who decides, you?

Legislating a minimum wage circumvents market forces and, when done judiciously, does what one would hope market forces would do but are failing to do. On the other hand, labor strikes are an example of market force, but strikes don't always work well, and can easily have undesirable consequences.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from piezoe:

Legislating a minimum wage circumvents market forces and, when done judiciously, does what one would hope market forces would do but are failing to do. On the other hand, labor strikes are an example of market force, but strikes don't always work well, and can easily have undesirable consequences.

1) Congress does almost nothing judiciously.
2) I agree strikes don't always end well. I don't see how that proves market forces don't work. As you're asserting.

Now do you have evidence of you're other assertions on productivity and welfare rolls vs min wage? Don't tell me those are just leftist talking points you pulled out of your <s>ass</s> hat.

 

[Max E.]

Raising minimum wage is an excercise in futility, you raise minimum wages all that happens is prices go up leaving the person in the exact same spot they were to begin with.

 

[Wallet]

I listened to the argument yesterday that increasing the fast food wage to $15 per hour would attract a better employee, longer term of employment thus offsetting the existing revolving door scenario that currently resides costing companies heavily in training costs.

I have a better idea..... stop the perpetual unemployment benefits forcing some of these higher educated unemployed into the labor force... and let the markets take care of themselves