Consequence of $20 minimum wage for fast food workers?

[Toni]

Given the time lag in legislation, and the fact that wages may be different in different locales, it means there could be a perceived need.

There are big differences in cost of living in different parts of California.
And why single out fast food?

I don’t know.

Why not explain what you have against people earning enough money to live on? What is your objection to a $20/hr minimum wage for fast food workers?

When I was a teenager and even when my kids were teenagers, many/most fast food workers were teenagers. I can understand arguing against their ‘need’ to earn so much money as a distraction away from spending their time and efforts on getting a good education and preparing for college, or trades or whatever comes next. Unfortunately a lot of teenagers are either helping to support their families or are in fact supporting themselves.

BTW, last summer I paid a teenager $15/hr to do some yard work for me—some of it involving rosebushes and need up paying him more than that because it was hot, unpleasant ( thorns!) and because he did such a good job.

But that’s distracting from what point I was trying to make. I don’t eat out much and rarely at fast food restaurants but I have noticed over the past several years that more and more, it is adults who are holding these jobs. I’m pretty sure whatever they are earning is going directly towards keeping a roof over their heads.

 

[DBT]

The outrage over excessive pay seems to be focused on those at the bottom, those earning more that $10 dollars per hour.

Generally speaking, very little of that moral outrage is aimed at those at the top of the heap, who's value is measured in multiple millions, without a blink of the moral eye.

 

[Bomb#20]

I don’t understand why you seem to resent people earning enough money at their jobs to be able to afford a roof over their heads and food. Can you explain that, please?

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you?

Like Reactions: DBT, ZiprHead and Jimmy Higgins

 

[Bomb#20]

The outrage over excessive pay seems to be focused on those at the bottom, those earning more that $10 dollars per hour.

Generally speaking, very little of that moral outrage is aimed at those at the top of the heap, who's value is measured in multiple millions, without a blink of the moral eye.

What reason is there for moral outrage aimed at those at the top of the heap, whose value to their customers is measured in multiple millions? Those people's pay is what willing buyers pay to willing sellers, for mutual benefit. The moral outrage over excessive pay is focused on coercive busybodies who appoint themselves to hunt down mutually beneficial trade they aren't a party to and stop it from happening, thereby preventing both transacting parties from making themselves better off. It only "seems to be focused on those at the bottom" because the coercers are currently laser-focused on stopping anyone whose work is worth $15/hour to customers from making a living. The coercers are currently letting people who want to trade with Jeff Bezos et al. go ahead and do it, so at that end of the scale there's no coercive wage control for anyone to get outraged about.

 

[DBT]

The outrage over excessive pay seems to be focused on those at the bottom, those earning more that $10 dollars per hour.

Generally speaking, very little of that moral outrage is aimed at those at the top of the heap, who's value is measured in multiple millions, without a blink of the moral eye.

What reason is there for moral outrage aimed at those at the top of the heap, whose value to their customers is measured in multiple millions? Those people's pay is what willing buyers pay to willing sellers, for mutual benefit. The moral outrage over excessive pay is focused on coercive busybodies who appoint themselves to hunt down mutually beneficial trade they aren't a party to and stop it from happening, thereby preventing both transacting parties from making themselves better off. It only "seems to be focused on those at the bottom" because the coercers are currently laser-focused on stopping anyone whose work is worth $15/hour to customers from making a living. The coercers are currently letting people who want to trade with Jeff Bezos et al. go ahead and do it, so at that end of the scale there's no coercive wage control for anyone to get outraged about.

Perhaps those at the top of the heap tend to overestimate their own value and underestimate the value of those who contribute to the running of a business and help make their plans and visions a reality? Where each side needs the other, management needs workers and workers need employment in order for the business to function and turn a profit.

 

[Toni]

I don’t understand why you seem to resent people earning enough money at their jobs to be able to afford a roof over their heads and food. Can you explain that, please?

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you?

I do. Do you?

Also, I am not in this to adhere to formal debate rules. Cool if you are but not me.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This article is from 2014:

Can you make $45,000 per year at McDonald's in Denmark?

As President Barack Obama spent the Labor Day weekend stumping for a hike in the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, a Faceb

www.politifact.com

 

[TV and credit cards]

This article is from 2014:

Can you make $45,000 per year at McDonald's in Denmark?

As President Barack Obama spent the Labor Day weekend stumping for a hike in the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, a Faceb

www.politifact.com

Surely a Big Mac there must cost a king’s ransom?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This article is from 2014:

Can you make $45,000 per year at McDonald's in Denmark?

As President Barack Obama spent the Labor Day weekend stumping for a hike in the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, a Faceb

www.politifact.com

Surely a Big Mac there must cost a king’s ransom?

It turns out that some right-wingers claimed this but it was debunked. Maybe they've automated all the McDonald's there with robots and AI???

Danish Robot: "*beep boop boop beep* Welcome. To. McDonald's. Would. You. Like. Some. Gravlax. With. That. Shake? Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha."

 

[Bomb#20]

This article is from 2014:

Can you make $45,000 per year at McDonald's in Denmark?

As President Barack Obama spent the Labor Day weekend stumping for a hike in the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, a Faceb

www.politifact.com

But over there the job requires an extra skill American McDonald's workers don't have.

 

[Bomb#20]

What reason is there for moral outrage aimed at those at the top of the heap, whose value to their customers is measured in multiple millions? Those people's pay is what willing buyers pay to willing sellers, for mutual benefit. The moral outrage over excessive pay is focused on coercive busybodies who appoint themselves to hunt down mutually beneficial trade they aren't a party to and stop it from happening, thereby preventing both transacting parties from making themselves better off. ...

Perhaps those at the top of the heap tend to overestimate their own value and underestimate the value of those who contribute to the running of a business and help make their plans and visions a reality? Where each side needs the other, management needs workers and workers need employment in order for the business to function and turn a profit.

"overestimate their own value" to whom? "underestimate the value" to whom? Your speculation appears to presuppose that "value" is an objective, observable, measurable quantity that's independent of the subjective preferences of concerned parties. If two people disagree about a thing's value, what observation can settle the matter?

 

[Bomb#20]

I don’t understand why you seem to resent people earning enough money at their jobs to be able to afford a roof over their heads and food. Can you explain that, please?

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you?

I do. Do you?

Yep.

Also, I am not in this to adhere to formal debate rules. Cool if you are but not me.

Are you proposing that the only thing wrong with ad hominem arguments is that formal debate rules discourage them? They're fallacies. Whether the OP resents someone has no bearing on whether further automation and job loss will be a consequence of $20 minimum wage for fast food workers.

 

[laughing dog]

I don’t understand why you seem to resent people earning enough money at their jobs to be able to afford a roof over their heads and food. Can you explain that, please?

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you?

I do. Do you?

Yep.

Also, I am not in this to adhere to formal debate rules. Cool if you are but not me.

Are you proposing that the only thing wrong with ad hominem arguments is that formal debate rules discourage them? They're fallacies. Whether the OP resents someone has no bearing on whether further automation and job loss will be a consequence of $20 minimum wage for fast food workers.

Derec wrote "I never understood why fast food workers should have a higher minimum wage than other industries, or why burger flipping and cashiering should get you $20/hour anyway." Clearlyt Toni's comment is directed to the italicized bold-faced part. Which means it is not an ad hominen argument.

 

[DBT]

What reason is there for moral outrage aimed at those at the top of the heap, whose value to their customers is measured in multiple millions? Those people's pay is what willing buyers pay to willing sellers, for mutual benefit. The moral outrage over excessive pay is focused on coercive busybodies who appoint themselves to hunt down mutually beneficial trade they aren't a party to and stop it from happening, thereby preventing both transacting parties from making themselves better off. ...

Perhaps those at the top of the heap tend to overestimate their own value and underestimate the value of those who contribute to the running of a business and help make their plans and visions a reality? Where each side needs the other, management needs workers and workers need employment in order for the business to function and turn a profit.

"overestimate their own value" to whom? "underestimate the value" to whom? Your speculation appears to presuppose that "value" is an objective, observable, measurable quantity that's independent of the subjective preferences of concerned parties. If two people disagree about a thing's value, what observation can settle the matter?

Caught up in their own self image as 'leaders of industry,' managers, organizers, CEO's, they overestimate their own importance in their own eyes and minds as the big shots, the elite, and their position of power enables them to reward themselves handsomely, even while suppressing modest wage growth for the average worker.

Basically the reason why unions were formed in the first place, and why the unions fought for better pay and conditions for workers.

 

[Bomb#20]

I don’t understand why you seem to resent people earning enough money at their jobs to be able to afford a roof over their heads and food. Can you explain that, please?

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you?

I do. ... Also, I am not in this to adhere to formal debate rules. Cool if you are but not me.

Are you proposing that the only thing wrong with ad hominem arguments is that formal debate rules discourage them? They're fallacies. Whether the OP resents someone has no bearing on whether further automation and job loss will be a consequence of $20 minimum wage for fast food workers.

Derec wrote "I never understood why fast food workers should have a higher minimum wage than other industries, or why burger flipping and cashiering should get you $20/hour anyway." Clearlyt Toni's comment is directed to the italicized bold-faced part. Which means it is not an ad hominen argument.

I lost you. Are you suggesting that "Derec resents them. Therefore burger flipping and cashiering should get you $20/hour." would be a logical argument? The words "...you seem to resent people earning enough money..." are plainly referencing Derec's personal characteristics rather than the moral and/or economic merits of "burger flipping and cashiering should...". So how the heck do you infer that it's not an ad hominem argument? Show your work.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don’t understand why you seem to resent people earning enough money at their jobs to be able to afford a roof over their heads and food. Can you explain that, please?

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you?

I do. ... Also, I am not in this to adhere to formal debate rules. Cool if you are but not me.

Are you proposing that the only thing wrong with ad hominem arguments is that formal debate rules discourage them? They're fallacies. Whether the OP resents someone has no bearing on whether further automation and job loss will be a consequence of $20 minimum wage for fast food workers.

Derec wrote "I never understood why fast food workers should have a higher minimum wage than other industries, or why burger flipping and cashiering should get you $20/hour anyway." Clearlyt Toni's comment is directed to the italicized bold-faced part. Which means it is not an ad hominen argument.

I lost you. Are you suggesting that "Derec resents them. Therefore burger flipping and cashiering should get you $20/hour." would be a logical argument? The words "...you seem to resent people earning enough money..." are plainly referencing Derec's personal characteristics rather than the moral and/or economic merits of "burger flipping and cashiering should...". So how the heck do you infer that it's not an ad hominem argument? Show your work.

Why don't you address the argument instead of focusing on a minuscule logical fallacy?

 

[Toni]

I don’t understand why you seem to resent people earning enough money at their jobs to be able to afford a roof over their heads and food. Can you explain that, please?

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you?

I do. ... Also, I am not in this to adhere to formal debate rules. Cool if you are but not me.

Are you proposing that the only thing wrong with ad hominem arguments is that formal debate rules discourage them? They're fallacies. Whether the OP resents someone has no bearing on whether further automation and job loss will be a consequence of $20 minimum wage for fast food workers.

Derec wrote "I never understood why fast food workers should have a higher minimum wage than other industries, or why burger flipping and cashiering should get you $20/hour anyway." Clearlyt Toni's comment is directed to the italicized bold-faced part. Which means it is not an ad hominen argument.

I lost you. Are you suggesting that "Derec resents them. Therefore burger flipping and cashiering should get you $20/hour." would be a logical argument? The words "...you seem to resent people earning enough money..." are plainly referencing Derec's personal characteristics rather than the moral and/or economic merits of "burger flipping and cashiering should...". So how the heck do you infer that it's not an ad hominem argument? Show your work.

You're not dumb. My question was only why Derec resented burger flipping and cashiers getting paid $20/hr. I thought that was extremely obvious.

 

[laughing dog]

I don’t understand why you seem to resent people earning enough money at their jobs to be able to afford a roof over their heads and food. Can you explain that, please?

You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you?

I do. ... Also, I am not in this to adhere to formal debate rules. Cool if you are but not me.

Are you proposing that the only thing wrong with ad hominem arguments is that formal debate rules discourage them? They're fallacies. Whether the OP resents someone has no bearing on whether further automation and job loss will be a consequence of $20 minimum wage for fast food workers.

Derec wrote "I never understood why fast food workers should have a higher minimum wage than other industries, or why burger flipping and cashiering should get you $20/hour anyway." Clearlyt Toni's comment is directed to the italicized bold-faced part. Which means it is not an ad hominen argument.

I lost you. Are you suggesting that "Derec resents them. Therefore burger flipping and cashiering should get you $20/hour." would be a logical argument? The words "...you seem to resent people earning enough money..." are plainly referencing Derec's personal characteristics rather than the moral and/or economic merits of "burger flipping and cashiering should...". So how the heck do you infer that it's not an ad hominem argument? Show your work.

Where you get "Derec's personal characteristics" from is a mystery. The use of "should" in this situation is a personal opinion based on one's personal views. Asking why one has those views is not an ad hominmen argument.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

recognized insult:

Nounedit​

burger flipper (plural burger flippers)

1. (informal, derogatory) A cook in a fast food restaurant.

Related termsedit​

• flip burgers

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

"overestimate their own value" to whom? "underestimate the value" to whom? Your speculation appears to presuppose that "value" is an objective, observable, measurable quantity that's independent of the subjective preferences of concerned parties. If two people disagree about a thing's value, what observation can settle the matter?

Usually a kitchen sink. If you can show up to your office job carrying a kitchen sink but security doesn't stop you and people scratch their heads at you, you probably deserve a $56 billion compensation package.