Starbucks raises minimum wage. Guess what happened???

Dug a little deeper into The Federalist Papers -- well, I searched around on it for 30 seconds. One of their claims about the Black Lives Matter movement: "The movement is nothing but a Marxist/Communist movement that was able to convince people to be their useful idiots." A Marxist/Communist movement? What kind of time warp are these people living in. Please, everyone. Why are we wasting time on a totally unsubstantiated claim about how the minimum wage is hurting Starbucks?

Stanford runner wrote:

Dug a little deeper into The Federalist Papers -- well, I searched around on it for 30 seconds. One of their claims about the Black Lives Matter movement: "The movement is nothing but a Marxist/Communist movement that was able to convince people to be their useful idiots." A Marxist/Communist movement? What kind of time warp are these people living in. Please, everyone. Why are we wasting time on a totally unsubstantiated claim about how the minimum wage is hurting Starbucks?

A better question is; "Why are we wasting time on people who don't understand basic economics?"

If your business relies on paying full time workers a wage so low they can't live on it then maybe your business model is immoral. If your business basically requires thousands of workers to enroll in government subsidy programs in order to survive then maybe your business model is immoral (Wal-Mart).

The best argument I have seen in support of a minimum wage increase is that when workers make less than a living wage, there are societal costs. Welfare, potential for crime, etc. are correlated with low incomes. These costs are borne by everyone - and they should be borne by the company and its customers. When it is not, we (meaning the government) is effectively subsidizing the firm in question.

So, for example, if a full timer at McD's makes $20k a year, but costs society an additional $10K in welfare benefits, how is that fair? McD's should take on that costs and either accept lower profits or increase prices to its customers.

I never eat at McD's. So, in this example, why should my taxes support their workers? Those of thus who stay away from McD's are subsidizing those who eat there.

This logic has convinced me that a minimum wage increase is needed. But, it needs to be across the board and not for specific industries, as it is not the government's role to pick winners and losers.

feelin the bern wrote:

If your business relies on paying full time workers a wage so low they can't live on it then maybe your business model is immoral. If your business basically requires thousands of workers to enroll in government subsidy programs in order to survive then maybe your business model is immoral (Wal-Mart).

Yeah! Think of how much money the Welfare program will be able to save when Wal-Mart goes out of business! Then there will be no more working-poor Wal-Mart employees!

If the costs of having low-skill employees making too little money are born by everyone, then why shouldn't the wages be subsidized by everyone (earned-income tax credit) instead of by taxing companies that employ low-skill employees (the minimum wage)?

feelin the bern wrote:

If your business relies on paying full time workers a wage so low they can't live on it then maybe your business model is immoral. If your business basically requires thousands of workers to enroll in government subsidy programs in order to survive then maybe your business model is immoral (Wal-Mart).

1) It isn't immoral to pay the market wage.

2) It isn't the business's duty to keep people off welfare.

3) Bernie Sanders is more immoral than Walmart.

Bad Wigins wrote:

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.

Question for you: who's going to continue creating these innovative machines and new luxuries if you destroy the incentive of the people who make them? Why innovate if you get paid the same amount as the dullard next door? Marx may have been right about religion, but he completely ignored (or simply didn't realize) that people respond to incentives and self-interest.

inverted morality wrote:

feelin the bern wrote:

If your business relies on paying full time workers a wage so low they can't live on it then maybe your business model is immoral. If your business basically requires thousands of workers to enroll in government subsidy programs in order to survive then maybe your business model is immoral (Wal-Mart).

1) It isn't immoral to pay the market wage.

2) It isn't the business's duty to keep people off welfare.

3) Bernie Sanders is more immoral than Walmart.

Agreed. This has been discussed on here before. Wages are a reflection of value, and aren't simply arbitrary. The reason a fry cook makes $8/hr is because the skills necessary to cook fries are worth about $8/hr.

The reason a CEO makes six or seven figures (or more) is because the skill set needed to navigate complicated markets and industries is worth that much. What kind of CEO would Apple have if they paid $50,000 a year? If you owned Wal-Mart stock, would you rather have a guy steering the ship being compensated to the tune of several million dollars a year, or someone who is willing to work for considerably less? It's about the value the employee adds to the organization.

I don't like Starbucks.

Mojo Jerkin wrote:

The best argument I have seen in support of a minimum wage increase is that when workers make less than a living wage, there are societal costs. Welfare, potential for crime, etc. are correlated with low incomes. These costs are borne by everyone - and they should be borne by the company and its customers. When it is not, we (meaning the government) is effectively subsidizing the firm in question.

...

If that is the best argument that you have seen then you have seen exactly zero valid arguments. The company is actually subsidizing the government and not the other way around. Let the company fold, lay off 100% of its workers and then see how much government assistance is required for those former employees.

You are mostly right.

But the notion that CEO pay is market-based is pretty much nonsense. The "market" for CEOs is much more of a good old boys network than a free market. Not to say that CEOs should not be paid quite a bit and that some of them are worth what they are paid, but market-based? No.

Thanks for posting the original source for the Federalist Papers article because it does NOT support what is in the article you first cited (the one ricocheting around social media by right wingers).

Thejeff wrote:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/30/reuters-america-starbucks-workers-petition-for-more-hours-amid-labor-cuts.html

Also here, if you think conservative news outlets cannot be trusted :-)

Stanford runner wrote:

Dug a little deeper into The Federalist Papers -- well, I searched around on it for 30 seconds. One of their claims about the Black Lives Matter movement: "The movement is nothing but a Marxist/Communist movement that was able to convince people to be their useful idiots." A Marxist/Communist movement? What kind of time warp are these people living in. Please, everyone. Why are we wasting time on a totally unsubstantiated claim about how the minimum wage is hurting Starbucks?

That, my Stanford-educated(?) friend, is why I posted two separate links :-)

feelin the bern wrote:

If your business relies on paying full time workers a wage so low they can't live on it then maybe your business model is immoral. If your business basically requires thousands of workers to enroll in government subsidy programs in order to survive then maybe your business model is immoral (Wal-Mart).

Your question of morality is a valid one.

Still, I challenge you to create a viable business model in which you pay employees more than they are worth.

I also challenge you to decide if any position which requires zero prior education or experience should ever be intended to be a "full time livng wage" position. If such a thing should exist, why get an education at all?

But it would appear you did not actually read the second link since it presents a complex picture in which Starbucks' wage increase plays only, with a generous interpretation, a potentially partial role. Somehow your preferred source forgot all of the main factors discussed in the Reuters source.

Thejeff wrote:

Stanford runner wrote:

Dug a little deeper into The Federalist Papers -- well, I searched around on it for 30 seconds. One of their claims about the Black Lives Matter movement: "The movement is nothing but a Marxist/Communist movement that was able to convince people to be their useful idiots." A Marxist/Communist movement? What kind of time warp are these people living in. Please, everyone. Why are we wasting time on a totally unsubstantiated claim about how the minimum wage is hurting Starbucks?

That, my Stanford-educated(?) friend, is why I posted two separate links :-)

Mojo Jerkin wrote:

So, for example, if a full timer at McD's makes $20k a year, but costs society an additional $10K in welfare benefits, how is that fair? McD's should take on that costs and either accept lower profits or increase prices to its customers.

It is clear that you don't really understand the subject matter. No one making $20k a year is getting $10k in welfare unless they have some kind of extraordinary circumstance. It is not a matter of being fair or not. The situation you just tried to use does not exist.

foif8 wrote:

Mojo Jerkin wrote:

So, for example, if a full timer at McD's makes $20k a year, but costs society an additional $10K in welfare benefits, how is that fair? McD's should take on that costs and either accept lower profits or increase prices to its customers.

It is clear that you don't really understand the subject matter. No one making $20k a year is getting $10k in welfare unless they have some kind of extraordinary circumstance. It is not a matter of being fair or not. The situation you just tried to use does not exist.

What the Heck? wrote:

Mojo Jerkin wrote:

The best argument I have seen in support of a minimum wage increase is that when workers make less than a living wage, there are societal costs. Welfare, potential for crime, etc. are correlated with low incomes. These costs are borne by everyone - and they should be borne by the company and its customers. When it is not, we (meaning the government) is effectively subsidizing the firm in question.

...

If that is the best argument that you have seen then you have seen exactly zero valid arguments. The company is actually subsidizing the government and not the other way around. Let the company fold, lay off 100% of its workers and then see how much government assistance is required for those former employees.

Let the company fold or innovate. That just means the market doesn't want what they sell at the prices they are charging.