Consequence of $20 minimum wage for fast food workers?

[Politesse]

As I posted in Seattle restaurants are closing or moving away because they can't pay the min wage and survive.

Nonsense. Seattle's food scene is no more likely to disappear thsn San Francisco's.

 

[laughing dog]

As I posted in Seattle restaurants are closing or moving away because they can't pay the min wage and survive.

Nonsense. Seattle's food scene is no more likely to disappear thsn San Francisco's.

You attended that econ 101 class pretty fast!!!

 

[steve_bank]

I'd say the issue is that fast food and other service jobs were never intended to provide a living wage. These days the traditional living wage jobs for those without skills and education are not as plentiful as they once were.

Here in Seattle Starbucks workers who just serve coffee all day are unionizing and demanding a living wage and benefits.

The area consequence of higher min wage for all jobs is small businesses and restaurants are closing or raising prices. Higher prices mean less customers and revenue.

A few years ago our city council passed an ordnance requiring surcharges on independent driver ride services. Drivers complained that with idle time their average hourly pay rate was low.

Cost was passed on to customers. Food delivery requests dropped and driver revenue went down. Drivers again complained.

Well, the career factory jobs leftthe continent.

Automation came to China as well, they have an employment problem on several levels.

Politicians saying we are going to bring back jobs to America is bogus. With factory automation the increase in jobs would not be significant.

Big auto is producingr more cars than ever at a much smaller labor force.

Back in the early 70s I drove a cab in Hartford Ct. On that I could afford a decent apartment and living expenses. I also worked as a cook and drove e a school bus.

A major part of the problem today is cost of housing. In Hartford my rent was $125 a month. As a cab driver in a god month I'd make around $400. Plenty of money in the day

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A major part of the problem is that life isn't easy, it is always changing, people hate change and wish things were easy.

What is worse though are the people complaining about paying a few bucks more for fast food just so that workers can have a low wage. I haven't earned less than $20 an hour since Clinton. I can't imagine trying to make ends meet at less than that today.

 

[steve_bank]

As I posted in Seattle restaurants are closing or moving away because they can't pay the min wage and survive.

Nonsense. Seattle's food scene is no more likely to disappear thsn San Francisco's.

I never said that and it is not being said around here.

Higher min wage is affecting food and other businesses in Seattle.

Lkike I said it is all connected, get an econ book and familiarize yourself with the p-rijnciplee of supply and demand.

Good pro athletes get paid a lot of money. High demand for sports ent6ertainmnet and few good enough to play pro sports.

The WNBA and women's soccer complained they were not co0mpejnsated at the level of their male counterparts. Part of it is the demand for women's sports are not as high as men's.

Many with a degree in English or literture, few jobs pajng a lving wage for that.

 

[steve_bank]

I have been thinking for over 10 years we are heading towards failure. The old economic paradigms are failing.

I believe there are workable solutions, but it is not in our politcal cultrue to make changes.

 

[Politesse]

Lkike I said it is all connected, get an econ book and familiarize yourself with the p-rijnciplee of supply and demand.

I have indeed heard of that p-rinjnciplee. But where is the demand for fast food going to go, Steve? If people want still their burgers, and I think they do, they'll be willing to pay a bit more for what it actually costs to make one, a price which includes the pay of the chef. Or if they aren't willing to pay anymore, and abandon McDonalds for home cooked meals, they'll be all the healthier for the switch.

 

[bilby]

The economic rationalist philosophy is a choice made by our society, not a law of nature.

It's certainly the best way to drive efficiency and increase value for shareholders; But I don't recall being invited to the meeting where humanity agreed that those should be our only, or even our major*, goals.

We could accept lower efficiency or lower value for shareholders, in pursuit of lower poverty, or full employment, or shorter working hours, or a smaller workforce, for example.

We could do lots of things that were considered routine as part of civic pride, back before the Great War - buildings could be beautiful as well as (or even at the expense of) being cheap to build, use, and maintain. Workplaces could be pleasant to be in. Civic facilities could be well maintained despite the expense, as a matter of honour, so that the people of the next town over don't look down their noses at ours.

But apparently, we have to squeeze every fucking penny at all costs, pay as little as possible for everything, and bow down at the altar of not just prices, but wages, set by supply and demand, because the little grey accountants in little grey suits rule the world. I don't recall seeing their names on any ballots*.








* John Major (British PM 1990-97) being the exception that proves the rule

 

[TV and credit cards]

As I posted in Seattle restaurants are closing or moving away because they can't pay the min wage and survive.

Nonsense. Seattle's food scene is no more likely to disappear thsn San Francisco's.

Trying to validate Steve's claim here, I'm not finding much support for it.
Most recent news out of Seattle on the subject basically revolves around a "tip credit" and "service charge". I have to go back some months to find (much expected) restaurant closure scare stories on the pending minimum wage hike.

Closures nationwide look like little more than expected rotation as some restaurants fall out of favor.
2024 Restaurant Closures.
They blame inflation but then dining out is the first to go when household budgets are tight.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

As I posted in Seattle restaurants are closing or moving away because they can't pay the min wage and survive.

Nonsense. Seattle's food scene is no more likely to disappear thsn San Francisco's.

I never said that and it is not being said around here.

Higher min wage is affecting food and other businesses in Seattle.

Lkike I said it is all connected, get an econ book and familiarize yourself with the p-rijnciplee of supply and demand.

Good pro athletes get paid a lot of money. High demand for sports ent6ertainmnet and few good enough to play pro sports.

The WNBA and women's soccer complained they were not co0mpejnsated at the level of their male counterparts. Part of it is the demand for women's sports are not as high as men's.

Many with a degree in English or literture, few jobs pajng a lving wage for that.

You keep claiming that restaurants can't afford to pay minimum wages. If a business can't afford to pay the minimum wage (and more) then it doesn't deserve to exist. Also, as pointed out by someone in a previous post, fast food restaurant prices have risen at a higher rate than their costs (all their costs, not simply wages). Also, supply and demand is not the only principle involved. These fast food restaurants are willing to see less demand, if their excesses in pricing produce more income than the loss from less customers - what is that principle called?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'd say the issue is that fast food and other service jobs were never intended to provide a living wage. These days the traditional living wage jobs for those without skills and education are not as plentiful as they once were.

These days jobs not requiring skills or education are service sector jobs. Fifty years ago it was manufacturing jobs. What difference does it make if the unskilled worker is mindlessly toiling away making a thousand automotive fasteners a day or a thousand cheeseburgers? The unskilled of yesteryear got a living wage, why not now?

The unskilled white, American workers in unskilled jobs got enough to generally meet the definition of "living wage". Not for the non-whites, not for the non-Americans. And that was because WWII smashed the majority of non-US industrial capacity. Those were golden years for white Americans, not for anyone else.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'd say the issue is that fast food and other service jobs were never intended to provide a living wage. These days the traditional living wage jobs for those without skills and education are not as plentiful as they once were.

Here in Seattle Starbucks workers who just serve coffee all day are unionizing and demanding a living wage and benefits.

The area consequence of higher min wage for all jobs is small businesses and restaurants are closing or raising prices. Higher prices mean less customers and revenue.

A few years ago our city council passed an ordnance requiring surcharges on independent driver ride services. Drivers complained that with idle time their average hourly pay rate was low.

Cost was passed on to customers. Food delivery requests dropped and driver revenue went down. Drivers again complained.

Well, the career factory jobs leftthe continent.

Much more were lost to machinery than overseas.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'd say the issue is that fast food and other service jobs were never intended to provide a living wage. These days the traditional living wage jobs for those without skills and education are not as plentiful as they once were.

Here in Seattle Starbucks workers who just serve coffee all day are unionizing and demanding a living wage and benefits.

The area consequence of higher min wage for all jobs is small businesses and restaurants are closing or raising prices. Higher prices mean less customers and revenue.

A few years ago our city council passed an ordnance requiring surcharges on independent driver ride services. Drivers complained that with idle time their average hourly pay rate was low.

Cost was passed on to customers. Food delivery requests dropped and driver revenue went down. Drivers again complained.

Well, the career factory jobs leftthe continent.

Much more were lost to machinery than overseas.

Yes thank you, the point still stands.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I'd say the issue is that fast food and other service jobs were never intended to provide a living wage. These days the traditional living wage jobs for those without skills and education are not as plentiful as they once were.

These days jobs not requiring skills or education are service sector jobs. Fifty years ago it was manufacturing jobs. What difference does it make if the unskilled worker is mindlessly toiling away making a thousand automotive fasteners a day or a thousand cheeseburgers? The unskilled of yesteryear got a living wage, why not now?

The unskilled white, American workers in unskilled jobs got enough to generally meet the definition of "living wage". Not for the non-whites, not for the non-Americans. And that was because WWII smashed the majority of non-US industrial capacity. Those were golden years for white Americans, not for anyone else.

Yes thank you, the point still stands.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Lkike I said it is all connected, get an econ book and familiarize yourself with the p-rijnciplee of supply and demand.

It says things I don't want to hear. Thus it must be wrong. Don't tell me can't, tell me how to do it! The world is a good place, it must be possible!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The economic rationalist philosophy is a choice made by our society, not a law of nature.

It's the default that will happen in the absence of a force continuing to be applied to change it.

And note that any deviation from it will reduce the overall output of society.

It's certainly the best way to drive efficiency and increase value for shareholders; But I don't recall being invited to the meeting where humanity agreed that those should be our only, or even our major*, goals.

For society, not merely for shareholders.

We could accept lower efficiency or lower value for shareholders, in pursuit of lower poverty, or full employment, or shorter working hours, or a smaller workforce, for example.

The trade would be a lower average standard of living.

We could do lots of things that were considered routine as part of civic pride, back before the Great War - buildings could be beautiful as well as (or even at the expense of) being cheap to build, use, and maintain. Workplaces could be pleasant to be in. Civic facilities could be well maintained despite the expense, as a matter of honour, so that the people of the next town over don't look down their noses at ours.

Beautiful buildings because there were far fewer of them. And workplaces certainly weren't pleasant!

But apparently, we have to squeeze every fucking penny at all costs, pay as little as possible for everything, and bow down at the altar of not just prices, but wages, set by supply and demand, because the little grey accountants in little grey suits rule the world. I don't recall seeing their names on any ballots*.

It's not the altar of prices. Rather, higher prices means you have less.

 

[bilby]

The economic rationalist philosophy is a choice made by our society, not a law of nature.

It's the default that will happen in the absence of a force continuing to be applied to change it.

Really? Then why didn't it happen intil the late twentieth century?

And note that any deviation from it will reduce the overall output of society.

Nope. The overall economic output, maybe. The economy is not everything. Vincent van Gogh died poor, having sold only one painting. Are we to consider his "output" to be worthless?

It's certainly the best way to drive efficiency and increase value for shareholders; But I don't recall being invited to the meeting where humanity agreed that those should be our only, or even our major*, goals.

For society, not merely for shareholders.

Big woop. I Still didn't get invited to the meeting.

We could accept lower efficiency or lower value for shareholders, in pursuit of lower poverty, or full employment, or shorter working hours, or a smaller workforce, for example.

The trade would be a lower average standard of living.

A lower economic standard. Monetary worth is not the only human value.

We could do lots of things that were considered routine as part of civic pride, back before the Great War - buildings could be beautiful as well as (or even at the expense of) being cheap to build, use, and maintain. Workplaces could be pleasant to be in. Civic facilities could be well maintained despite the expense, as a matter of honour, so that the people of the next town over don't look down their noses at ours.

Beautiful buildings because there were far fewer of them. And workplaces certainly weren't pleasant!

You need to get out more. Look at some medieval European buildings.

But apparently, we have to squeeze every fucking penny at all costs, pay as little as possible for everything, and bow down at the altar of not just prices, but wages, set by supply and demand, because the little grey accountants in little grey suits rule the world. I don't recall seeing their names on any ballots*.

It's not the altar of prices. Rather, higher prices means you have less.

So what? Lots of people don't need more, yet make themselves miserable trying to "keep up with the Joneses"

We don't have to do that. It's not a natural law, nor a moral imperative.

 

[bilby]

Workplaces could be pleasant to be in.

Beautiful buildings because there were far fewer of them. And workplaces certainly weren't pleasant!

Note I said "be in", not "work in".

The office occupied by the Chief Yeoman Warder at the Tower of London is just an admin office; But it's a much nicer place to work than a 21st Century open plan 'efficient' office building.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You keep claiming that restaurants can't afford to pay minimum wages. If a business can't afford to pay the minimum wage (and more) then it doesn't deserve to exist. Also, as pointed out by someone in a previous post, fast food restaurant prices have risen at a higher rate than their costs (all their costs, not simply wages). Also, supply and demand is not the only principle involved. These fast food restaurants are willing to see less demand, if their excesses in pricing produce more income than the loss from less customers - what is that principle called?

"Deserve" exists in a world that is inherently fair.

The fact that a restaurant can hire someone at minimum wage says there are no better jobs.

 

[robnisch]

Who was it that said," Americans know the price of everything, and the value of nothing"?