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.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

McDonald's considering $5 meal deal to lure back inflation-hit customers | Fox Business

McDonald's is reportedly mulling a $5 meal deal in an effort to lure back inflation-plagued customers as sales at fast food restaurants dip due to consumers eating more meals at home.

www.foxbusiness.com

That's weird. We were told they had to raise prices like mad due to inflation. But all along, they could drop a meal to $5?! They still have to be telling the truth about how minimum wage increases will hurt consumers, though, right? I mean, we can't possibly be so gullible that everything they say is a lie we believe...

 

[thebeave]

McDonald's considering $5 meal deal to lure back inflation-hit customers | Fox Business

McDonald's is reportedly mulling a $5 meal deal in an effort to lure back inflation-plagued customers as sales at fast food restaurants dip due to consumers eating more meals at home.

www.foxbusiness.com

That's weird. We were told they had to raise prices like mad due to inflation. But all along, they could drop a meal to $5?! They still have to be telling the truth about how minimum wage increases will hurt consumers, though, right? I mean, we can't possibly be so gullible that everything they say is a lie we believe...

I've heard something about that. It's a burger with an all new patty they call "The McSeeThrough".

I can't see that meal deal happening here in California, but maybe it could be minimally profitable in less expensive areas. I suspect MickeyD's knows this is not going to make them a lot of money no matter where its available, but maybe they're hoping it will be enough to draw people into the place where they could subsequently supersize it, or add a slice of cheese for $3 or tack on a McFlurry (if they ever get those machines working) to their order.

 

[steve_bank]

From local reporting fast food busyness is declining, it is getting too expensive for some.

Cash-strapped consumers, bad weather and challenges overseas are adding up to a slow start to 2024 at McDonald's, the company said. Lower-income consumers increasingly have spent their savings and are turning to grocery stores instead of restaurants, McDonald's CFO Ian Borden said Wednesday at an investor conference.Mar 13, 2024

Here in Seattle food delivery drivers complained they were not making enough money. Seattle enacted a surcharge which was passed on to customers. The idea was to have average charges to equal the local min wage.Demand slowed down and drivers complained were making less than before.

Fast food jobs were always mostly part time. Same with coffee shop jobs. I do not go to Starbucks anymore, I could afford i but it is too expensive.

I can buy a small bag of cofee at the store for around $10 and that lasts me a week and half of two cups a day. I had a drip coffee when I went to a doctor;s appoint met yesterday, $3 and change.

Economics 101, supply and demand along with cost of resources set prices. Tinker too much with it and it can make things worse.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

McDonald's considering $5 meal deal to lure back inflation-hit customers | Fox Business

McDonald's is reportedly mulling a $5 meal deal in an effort to lure back inflation-plagued customers as sales at fast food restaurants dip due to consumers eating more meals at home.

www.foxbusiness.com

That's weird. We were told they had to raise prices like mad due to inflation. But all along, they could drop a meal to $5?! They still have to be telling the truth about how minimum wage increases will hurt consumers, though, right? I mean, we can't possibly be so gullible that everything they say is a lie we believe...

I've heard something about that. It's a burger with an all new patty they call "The McSeeThrough".

Come on, man. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. On the table among other combo meals is the McDouble.

Meanwhile,

McDonald’s has jacked up its menu prices by more than 100% over the course of the last decade — more than three times the rate of US inflation, according to a research report.

...

The McDouble sandwich, which in 2014 cost on average $1.19, now costs almost three times that amount — $3.19 — while a medium fries has seen its price point go from $1.59 to $3.79.

 

[thebeave]

McDonald's considering $5 meal deal to lure back inflation-hit customers | Fox Business

McDonald's is reportedly mulling a $5 meal deal in an effort to lure back inflation-plagued customers as sales at fast food restaurants dip due to consumers eating more meals at home.

www.foxbusiness.com

That's weird. We were told they had to raise prices like mad due to inflation. But all along, they could drop a meal to $5?! They still have to be telling the truth about how minimum wage increases will hurt consumers, though, right? I mean, we can't possibly be so gullible that everything they say is a lie we believe...

I've heard something about that. It's a burger with an all new patty they call "The McSeeThrough".

Come on, man. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. On the table among other combo meals is the McDouble.

Meanwhile,

McDonald’s has jacked up its menu prices by more than 100% over the course of the last decade — more than three times the rate of US inflation, according to a research report.

...

The McDouble sandwich, which in 2014 cost on average $1.19, now costs almost three times that amount — $3.19 — while a medium fries has seen its price point go from $1.59 to $3.79.

MickeyD's does seem to be the worst of the bunch. I'm not sure what's going on with them, but they've been getting more and more expensive for years, even before the pandemic and subsequent inflation. I do know that, at least in my area, they did major remodels of their stores recently to project a more modern upscale image (with new kiosks, McCafe, etc) so perhaps they are trying to recover their costs. It used to be fairly crowded when I would occassionally go in for breakfast or lunch, but there are mostly empty tables when I go in now. In fact, about the only time I even go in anymore is for a cup of coffee, which is good and much cheaper than Starbucks, etc.

If they are jacking up prices in an effort to make more profit, it does seem to be backfiring on them...badly. You can only go so far until people catch on and stay home or go somewhere cheaper.

 

[ZiprHead]

In fact, about the only time I even go in anymore is for a cup of coffee, which is good and much cheaper than Starbucks, etc.

The only times I go in are when I have to use the can.