whateverer wrote:
Flagpole wrote:I knew what your point was. Just pointing out a flaw in the way you presented it. Also, raising the minimum wage isn't anything new. It gets raised every so often. I worked for $3.35 an hour when I was in high school.
Minimum wage should be automatically increased with inflation, to keep up with costs of living. (Rather than a big debate to raise it every time.)
Some states like CO do just that.
Starbucks also just announced that it would be raising the cost of some items. At about the same time that they are raising wages.
Raise wages, better cut hours or raise prices.
Anyone know the margins since that is something people forget? I bet it is far smaller than most think.
Also, some Starbucks are company owned and others are not so wage increases may not go across the board.
racer II wrote:
The part of the equation that I do not see mentioned are company profits. Maybe the cost associated with bring workers up to a workable wage should come from profits or bloated upper management salaries. Instead, companies cut labor, increase prices, and find 1000 other ways to make up the $ except affecting their take. How many millions are needed before thinking of others situations comes into play?
You are right, this is why a minimum wage increase is not the answer, the last thing companies will cut are the salaries of the big wigs, why would they cut their own salary?
We have to find a way to simulate the transfer of wealth from the top (who have inflated salaries) to those at the bottom (who have deflated salaries). Raising taxes for the rich, and then creating programs for the poor can be ineffective in terms of practicality. Lowering taxes for the rich in hopes of increasing spending (trickle down) doesn't work because of a lower marginal propensity to spend among rich people.
What I would propose is a maximum salary (like the NBA has), and maximum percentage of profit that owners can take away for themselves. The max would be very high, so the rich could still live their lavish lifestyle (they earned it), but think of it as having 5 Billion in your bank account instead of 10 Billion. When the big wigs aren't allowed to make more money, overhead costs are going to fall a lot, so the business has two options, use that money to expand the business and add more employees, or make their business mare attractive to work in by increasing wages for those lower on the ladder. However, our economy is currently at or very close to full employment (there are still unemployed people but we want that because we know we are using that resource to its potential, think why Daniels suggests you run intervals just slower than the prescribed pace), so it would be better for the business to raise wages to attract people away from competition.
I've spent the last four months working as an independent contractor for less than the minimum wage. I made $0.55 per order I placed, which equated to about $6-7 an hour over time. After four months of being reliable and performing well, the company promoted me to a lead position which makes $11 an hour. I now supervise all the other order taking contractors who make $0.55 per order. If contract work had not given me a loophole around the minimum wage, I never would have gotten any job period. In another few months I will meet the experience requirements to start applying for in-house employment at similar positions and will have references. The minimum wage is evil.
im just a friend wrote:
If contract work had not given me a loophole around the minimum wage, I never would have gotten any job period.
Why? What is wrong with you? I found a job paying well over minimum wage the summer between 8th and 9th grade. How can an adult not be qualified to be a dishwasher or a fast food worker?
McDonalds is replacing workers with kiosks, http://www.brandchannel.com/2015/08/03/mcdonalds-kiosk-080315/
douglas burke wrote:
McDonalds is replacing workers with kiosks,
http://www.brandchannel.com/2015/08/03/mcdonalds-kiosk-080315/
Japanese bomb Peal Harbor!
former dishwasher wrote:
well over minimum wage the summer between 8th and 9th grade. How can an adult not be qualified to be a dishwasher or a fast food worker?
being physically disabled has a lot to do with it
So why not boycott Starbucks?
I'd love to see the Bernie acolytes going through caffeine withdrawal..talk about irritable hippies.
Apparently there were a lot of absentees in Economics 101.
im just a friend wrote:
I've spent the last four months working as an independent contractor for less than the minimum wage. I made $0.55 per order I placed, which equated to about $6-7 an hour over time. After four months of being reliable and performing well, the company promoted me to a lead position which makes $11 an hour. I now supervise all the other order taking contractors who make $0.55 per order. If contract work had not given me a loophole around the minimum wage, I never would have gotten any job period. In another few months I will meet the experience requirements to start applying for in-house employment at similar positions and will have references. The minimum wage is evil.
You, my friend, are an American hero.
Bruh wrote:
racer II wrote:The part of the equation that I do not see mentioned are company profits. Maybe the cost associated with bring workers up to a workable wage should come from profits or bloated upper management salaries. Instead, companies cut labor, increase prices, and find 1000 other ways to make up the $ except affecting their take. How many millions are needed before thinking of others situations comes into play?
You are right, this is why a minimum wage increase is not the answer, the last thing companies will cut are the salaries of the big wigs, why would they cut their own salary?
We have to find a way to simulate the transfer of wealth from the top (who have inflated salaries) to those at the bottom (who have deflated salaries). Raising taxes for the rich, and then creating programs for the poor can be ineffective in terms of practicality. Lowering taxes for the rich in hopes of increasing spending (trickle down) doesn't work because of a lower marginal propensity to spend among rich people.
What I would propose is a maximum salary (like the NBA has), and maximum percentage of profit that owners can take away for themselves. The max would be very high, so the rich could still live their lavish lifestyle (they earned it), but think of it as having 5 Billion in your bank account instead of 10 Billion. When the big wigs aren't allowed to make more money, overhead costs are going to fall a lot, so the business has two options, use that money to expand the business and add more employees, or make their business mare attractive to work in by increasing wages for those lower on the ladder. .
Option 3: Entrepreneurs stop being entrepreneurs, or they at least open up their businesses in countries without absurd laws that limit their income potential.
Minimum wages may play a role when it comes to government jobs, since there is no competition and or a way the public can just not use their services. Private industry has the supply and demand factor that the public can influence. Don't like that Starbucks is charging $5 for a cup of coffee, don't buy it. Want to support $15 an hour at Starbucks, buy more product.
We as the public are primarily responsible as to how private businesses make money. In this country we tend to flock towards low price products, resulting in companies having to play quantity over quality, be it a pair of running shoes or a seat on an airplane.
Complaining and watching jobs disappear because a company raises its salary structure to appease those who buy their product (and Starbucks does seem to appeal to that sector of the buying public), doesn't do anything. The public has the power to make economic changes, as companies and major corporations are quick to adjust to the ongoing trends.
Just take the increase of "organic" foods and "gluten free" products that now are found on almost every grocery shelf in the country. The public demands through purchasing, not by complaining on this forum.
Raising your wage gets a higher quality employee. They are likely overstaffed.
jjjjjj wrote:
You can just tell that you are reading an unbiased article when it begins like this:
"Raising the minimum wage is popular among limousine liberals who love to be recognized as champions of the poor."
Post of the Month
Bruh wrote:
You are right, this is why a minimum wage increase is not the answer, the last thing companies will cut are the salaries of the big wigs, why would they cut their own salary?
We have to find a way to simulate the transfer of wealth from the top (who have inflated salaries) to those at the bottom (who have deflated salaries). Raising taxes for the rich, and then creating programs for the poor can be ineffective in terms of practicality. Lowering taxes for the rich in hopes of increasing spending (trickle down) doesn't work because of a lower marginal propensity to spend among rich people.
What I would propose is a maximum salary (like the NBA has), and maximum percentage of profit that owners can take away for themselves. The max would be very high, so the rich could still live their lavish lifestyle (they earned it), but think of it as having 5 Billion in your bank account instead of 10 Billion. When the big wigs aren't allowed to make more money, overhead costs are going to fall a lot, so the business has two options, use that money to expand the business and add more employees, or make their business mare attractive to work in by increasing wages for those lower on the ladder. However, our economy is currently at or very close to full employment (there are still unemployed people but we want that because we know we are using that resource to its potential, think why Daniels suggests you run intervals just slower than the prescribed pace), so it would be better for the business to raise wages to attract people away from competition.
That's a hilarious proposal.
Thanks for the laughs.
justthefacts wrote:
Minimum wages may play a role when it comes to government jobs, since there is no competition and or a way the public can just not use their services. Private industry has the supply and demand factor that the public can influence. Don't like that Starbucks is charging $5 for a cup of coffee, don't buy it. Want to support $15 an hour at Starbucks, buy more product.
We as the public are primarily responsible as to how private businesses make money. In this country we tend to flock towards low price products, resulting in companies having to play quantity over quality, be it a pair of running shoes or a seat on an airplane.
Complaining and watching jobs disappear because a company raises its salary structure to appease those who buy their product (and Starbucks does seem to appeal to that sector of the buying public), doesn't do anything. The public has the power to make economic changes, as companies and major corporations are quick to adjust to the ongoing trends.
Just take the increase of "organic" foods and "gluten free" products that now are found on almost every grocery shelf in the country. The public demands through purchasing, not by complaining on this forum.
I am not sure exactly what you are saying here.
I agree that we "vote" with our wallets. The working class, knowing this, should learn the skills that land them a job that doesn't rely on menial labor. Better yet, go invent something :-)
There is no evidence presented in The Federalist or in the labor petition circulating that proves or even suggests that the higher minimum wage is the cause of these business and labor issues. The writer, in her zeal at going after "limousine liberals" (an hilarious phrase she's resurrected from some forty-year-old conservative talking point), simply assumes that this is the problem. Perhaps it's a factor, I don't know, and neither, apparently, does she. I wonder why letsrun.com has made this a featured forum?
Leopardly wrote:
I don't see why fast food workers should be getting 15 per hour while i get 11 per hour to do what most of them could never do
Whining on the Internet is not a special skill, kid.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Some points for the idiots here:
1) Doubling your worker's wages doesn't mean you have to double the price of your product. There are many more expenses besides payroll.
2) It's not just that money is only tokens or whatever. Jobs themselves are only tokens too. America is so automated that nobody needs to work anymore.
3) So, anyone who complains about paying a prosperity wage to people with menial jobs is a piece of shit. ALL JOBS ARE MENIAL, some are merely considered more menial than others.
4) The economy is in the tank because consumers haven't got the money to spend on the countless luxuries and useless things produced by the country's machines and menial jobs. Until there is disposable income at the bottom, only necessities will be profitable, and the economy will stagnate.
5) there are two ways to fix this: the old way is to give money to the consumers so they will have disposable income again. This is difficult because of the envy it produces among the more fortunate who get less free stuff, and it has to be constantly repeated because it doesn't solve the natural tendency of money to end up with the rich people.
The new way is socialism, and boy do you all hate that, mainly because you can't stand the idea that you own the nation's wealth instead of some billionaire. This is due to the self-hatred and deep inferiority complex caused by your upbringing, particularly if it involved religion, which Marx was 100% correct about.
Are you the economic advisor for Bernie Sanders by chance??? No way you can be serious with those statements, surely no American is that stupid.
The owner Howard Schultz's net worth got wiped out?
Nope.
Looked it up.
Worth over $3 billion.
Maybe he can afford to pay the people who do the actual work a living wage.