Consequence of $20 minimum wage for fast food workers?

[laughing dog]

Should Jack in the Box pay a living wage to a woman with six kids and a dog? It would require a huge payout from them to give her a living wage in California. And how much does JitB give to her coworkers? For example, a young single guy sharing an apartment with 2 other guys? Is it fair for her to get, say, $120,000/yr to support her family and give him only $40,000/yr to support just himself even though they may have similar experience and work histories? And why should JitB (or any employer for that matter) be obligated to, basically support someone (and their kids) who obviously made some very poor choices in life?

Exactly. "Living wage" is a deliberately unattainable objective, it's a dog-whistle for more no matter what.

How do you come up with such intellectual rubbish? Whether or not a particular living wage is attainable is an empirical question.

"Particular living wage"--binaries don't have ranges.

Living wage is not binary. If $25 per hour is a living wage, then any higher wage is as well.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Should Jack in the Box pay a living wage to a woman with six kids and a dog? It would require a huge payout from them to give her a living wage in California. And how much does JitB give to her coworkers? For example, a young single guy sharing an apartment with 2 other guys? Is it fair for her to get, say, $120,000/yr to support her family and give him only $40,000/yr to support just himself even though they may have similar experience and work histories? And why should JitB (or any employer for that matter) be obligated to, basically support someone (and their kids) who obviously made some very poor choices in life?

Exactly. "Living wage" is a deliberately unattainable objective, it's a dog-whistle for more no matter what.

No. thebeave and you are attempting to shape the narrative to your end. The worker should be paid a living wage. California can and does have programs in place to help children paid through taxation. To say a wage should be structured based on the number of children and pets a person has is akin to saying they should be paid enough to have a nice car and house just like you. That is not the argument. The argument is every wage being a living wage for work performed.

Not our problem that words mean what they mean. You're trying to walk back the inconvenient reality of your position.

Where? I don’t recall bringing family size into any of this. My first response to this was post #148.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Should Jack in the Box pay a living wage to a woman with six kids and a dog? It would require a huge payout from them to give her a living wage in California. And how much does JitB give to her coworkers? For example, a young single guy sharing an apartment with 2 other guys? Is it fair for her to get, say, $120,000/yr to support her family and give him only $40,000/yr to support just himself even though they may have similar experience and work histories? And why should JitB (or any employer for that matter) be obligated to, basically support someone (and their kids) who obviously made some very poor choices in life?

Exactly. "Living wage" is a deliberately unattainable objective, it's a dog-whistle for more no matter what.

How do you come up with such intellectual rubbish? Whether or not a particular living wage is attainable is an empirical question.

"Particular living wage"--binaries don't have ranges.

Living wage is not binary. If $25 per hour is a living wage, then any higher wage is as well.

1) You said "particular" implying there are multiple possible values.

2) What one person needs to survive isn't necessarily what someone else needs.

3) "Living wage" has frequently been represented to include supporting a family--but how many people is that?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Should Jack in the Box pay a living wage to a woman with six kids and a dog? It would require a huge payout from them to give her a living wage in California. And how much does JitB give to her coworkers? For example, a young single guy sharing an apartment with 2 other guys? Is it fair for her to get, say, $120,000/yr to support her family and give him only $40,000/yr to support just himself even though they may have similar experience and work histories? And why should JitB (or any employer for that matter) be obligated to, basically support someone (and their kids) who obviously made some very poor choices in life?

Exactly. "Living wage" is a deliberately unattainable objective, it's a dog-whistle for more no matter what.

No. thebeave and you are attempting to shape the narrative to your end. The worker should be paid a living wage. California can and does have programs in place to help children paid through taxation. To say a wage should be structured based on the number of children and pets a person has is akin to saying they should be paid enough to have a nice car and house just like you. That is not the argument. The argument is every wage being a living wage for work performed.

Not our problem that words mean what they mean. You're trying to walk back the inconvenient reality of your position.

Where? I don’t recall bringing family size into any of this. My first response to this was post #148.

"Living wage" normally refers to supporting a family on it.

 

[laughing dog]

Should Jack in the Box pay a living wage to a woman with six kids and a dog? It would require a huge payout from them to give her a living wage in California. And how much does JitB give to her coworkers? For example, a young single guy sharing an apartment with 2 other guys? Is it fair for her to get, say, $120,000/yr to support her family and give him only $40,000/yr to support just himself even though they may have similar experience and work histories? And why should JitB (or any employer for that matter) be obligated to, basically support someone (and their kids) who obviously made some very poor choices in life?

Exactly. "Living wage" is a deliberately unattainable objective, it's a dog-whistle for more no matter what.

How do you come up with such intellectual rubbish? Whether or not a particular living wage is attainable is an empirical question.

"Particular living wage"--binaries don't have ranges.

Living wage is not binary. If $25 per hour is a living wage, then any higher wage is as well.

1) You said "particular" implying there are multiple possible values.

2) What one person needs to survive isn't necessarily what someone else needs.

3) "Living wage" has frequently been represented to include supporting a family--but how many people is that?

So you now agree that the motion of a living wage is not binary. Good.

My point was that agreement on what a living wage means is necessary. For example, does a living wage mean mere biological survival or something more? Claiming something that is undefined is unattainable is intellectual laziness at best.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Should Jack in the Box pay a living wage to a woman with six kids and a dog? It would require a huge payout from them to give her a living wage in California. And how much does JitB give to her coworkers? For example, a young single guy sharing an apartment with 2 other guys? Is it fair for her to get, say, $120,000/yr to support her family and give him only $40,000/yr to support just himself even though they may have similar experience and work histories? And why should JitB (or any employer for that matter) be obligated to, basically support someone (and their kids) who obviously made some very poor choices in life?

Exactly. "Living wage" is a deliberately unattainable objective, it's a dog-whistle for more no matter what.

How do you come up with such intellectual rubbish? Whether or not a particular living wage is attainable is an empirical question.

"Particular living wage"--binaries don't have ranges.

Living wage is not binary. If $25 per hour is a living wage, then any higher wage is as well.

1) You said "particular" implying there are multiple possible values.

2) What one person needs to survive isn't necessarily what someone else needs.

3) "Living wage" has frequently been represented to include supporting a family--but how many people is that?

So you now agree that the motion of a living wage is not binary. Good.

My point was that agreement on what a living wage means is necessary. For example, does a living wage mean mere biological survival or something more? Claiming something that is undefined is unattainable is intellectual laziness at best.

In other words, you are arguing for an undefined term.

You should be making clear what it stands for before you argue for it! The lack of such a definition shows it's actually a dog whistle.

 

[laughing dog]

Should Jack in the Box pay a living wage to a woman with six kids and a dog? It would require a huge payout from them to give her a living wage in California. And how much does JitB give to her coworkers? For example, a young single guy sharing an apartment with 2 other guys? Is it fair for her to get, say, $120,000/yr to support her family and give him only $40,000/yr to support just himself even though they may have similar experience and work histories? And why should JitB (or any employer for that matter) be obligated to, basically support someone (and their kids) who obviously made some very poor choices in life?

Exactly. "Living wage" is a deliberately unattainable objective, it's a dog-whistle for more no matter what.

How do you come up with such intellectual rubbish? Whether or not a particular living wage is attainable is an empirical question.

"Particular living wage"--binaries don't have ranges.

Living wage is not binary. If $25 per hour is a living wage, then any higher wage is as well.

1) You said "particular" implying there are multiple possible values.

2) What one person needs to survive isn't necessarily what someone else needs.

3) "Living wage" has frequently been represented to include supporting a family--but how many people is that?

So you now agree that the motion of a living wage is not binary. Good.

My point was that agreement on what a living wage means is necessary. For example, does a living wage mean mere biological survival or something more? Claiming something that is undefined is unattainable is intellectual laziness at best.

In other words, you are arguing for an undefined term.

I'm not arguing for anything. I am pointing out your claim is rubbish.

You should be making clear what it stands for before you argue for it! The lack of such a definition shows it's actually a dog whistle.

Whether or not people agree what a term precisely means does not imply the term is a dog whistle. That is more intellectual rubbish on your part.

 

[thebeave]

It seems we might have an answer as to why there was an "onsite bread making" exemption to the new California fast food $20/hr minimum wage law. Something that I thought was a seemingly very random and curious exception:

Panera Bread exempt from following California’s new minimum wage law due to relationship with Newsom: reports

The new law doesn’t recognize places that operate “a bakery that produces for sale on the establishment’s premises bread” as fast food, according to the law’s text.

Why the line was drawn at bread remains unclear.

“That’s part of the sausage-making,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said during a news conference when asked about the exemption, Insider reported.

However, Newsom pushed for the exemption, people familiar with the matter told Bloomberg. One of the primary beneficiaries of the exemption is Greg Flynn, a billionaire and longtime Newsom donor who has two dozen Panera Bread locations in California.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Flynn also owns multiple Arby's, Wendy's, and Taco Bells which are fast food restaurants. His franchise group owns 2600 restaurants. It is difficult to track how many fast food restaurants in California. It could easily be more than 24. Newsom should of course also explain himself.

 

[TV and credit cards]

It seems we might have an answer as to why there was an "onsite bread making" exemption to the new California fast food $20/hr minimum wage law. Something that I thought was a seemingly very random and curious exception:

Panera Bread exempt from following California’s new minimum wage law due to relationship with Newsom: reports

The new law doesn’t recognize places that operate “a bakery that produces for sale on the establishment’s premises bread” as fast food, according to the law’s text.

Why the line was drawn at bread remains unclear.

“That’s part of the sausage-making,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said during a news conference when asked about the exemption, Insider reported.

However, Newsom pushed for the exemption, people familiar with the matter told Bloomberg. One of the primary beneficiaries of the exemption is Greg Flynn, a billionaire and longtime Newsom donor who has two dozen Panera Bread locations in California.

Obviously the cutoff line for defining fast food should have been being seated and waited on. The line where most people consider tipping to be appropriate, thus hourly wages get subsidized.



People see these snippets on their local news and it sours them towards politics in general. Just one more small cut in the death of democracy where people rightly or wrongly seek change.

 

[ZiprHead]

It seems we might have an answer as to why there was an "onsite bread making" exemption to the new California fast food $20/hr minimum wage law. Something that I thought was a seemingly very random and curious exception:

Panera Bread exempt from following California’s new minimum wage law due to relationship with Newsom: reports

The new law doesn’t recognize places that operate “a bakery that produces for sale on the establishment’s premises bread” as fast food, according to the law’s text.

Why the line was drawn at bread remains unclear.

“That’s part of the sausage-making,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said during a news conference when asked about the exemption, Insider reported.

However, Newsom pushed for the exemption, people familiar with the matter told Bloomberg. One of the primary beneficiaries of the exemption is Greg Flynn, a billionaire and longtime Newsom donor who has two dozen Panera Bread locations in California.

That would also include Subway and Jimmy Johns.

 

[TSwizzle]

People see these snippets on their local news and it sours them towards politics in general. Just one more small cut in the death of democracy where people rightly or wrongly seek change.

Rightly or wrongly, I always seek change when paying cash.