Hundreds march at McDonald's HQ over low wages

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
What's the link though, between raising minimum wage and the amount of taxes a $250+k income needs to pay?
Up here we don't pay any taxes on the first $11-12k, so a bump in pay to the minimum wage income, equals more tax paid by that group. Plus they should qualify for less government assistance. This could/should result in lower taxes for upper incomes.


The link is pretty simple: increase minimum wage (and let's be serious, we're talking about doubling it), there will be fewer jobs, then there will be more people on public assistance (in its myriad forms), and more tax revenue will be needed to sustain them.

Happens every time...and yet, we keep trying it over and over, expecting a different result.

By the way, our intrepid 1% guy? He worked as a busboy, for $3.50 an hour, which was below minimum wage (because that doesn't apply to positions with tipping), in 1982 - 1984, to help pay for his college. He went to college on a combination of financial aid (which required student contributions) and academic/merit scholarships.

So, he knows what it's like...but he also knows the difference between a job and a career...which is why he worked so hard to get through college...

 

[SteveSRT8]

Sounds like my Wife. Her one year at Wal Mart during High School was enough to get her into college with a real drive to escape the low wages and long hours.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Since welfare was implemented the rolls have grown tremendously, much more just in the past few years.

Well yeah. That's what happens as the population grows. More of all kinds of people, including poor ones.


No, not really...what's happened is the number of folks on public assistance has gone up dramatically as a percentage of the population...so, while I expect the numbers to increase, the proportion of poor should stay the same, right?

But it hasn't. The proportion of folks who are poor has dramatically increased. So, while we increased federal spending to "stimulate the economy" and to "invest in XXXX jobs"...increasing taxes didn't yield the revenue that was projected, partly because the number of employed people decreased, thus decreasing federal revenue, and the number of people eligible for things like foodstamps has more than doubled, increasing that cost and increasing federal outlays beyond projections.

The USDA even brags about what a great job they're doing, because they're giving out so much now...from 28 million in 2008 to 46 million now...when the population increased from 304 million to 319 million, a roughly 5% increase...the number of folks on foodstamps increased by 65%...so, yep, numbers went up...but not due to population increase, but an increase in federal spending on the program by easing eligibility requirements...by redefining who is "poor".

And that increase was paid for by taxpayers...and individual taxpayers contribute about 45% of the federal budget.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: eljefino


There's a large rift between what the top paid people make and the bottom, and the issue at had is trying to get the bottom paid people a little further higher up, without really touching the top people. History has shown such rifts aren't healthy for societies. Instead of taxing doctors and others not proven to use McDonalds (like presently happens with EITC, food stamps etc to subsidize the workers) any increases would be directly borne by people who walk through the doors of the restaurant.

So I don't follow how you think a higher minimum wage is confiscating money from a doctor.

So you mean attack the poor that do go to fast food places to subsidize other poor people? Something doesn’t sound right there. LOL


Uh, boost the poor by helping their wages? Trickle up and whatnot.


That's the problem with all liberal arguments, you cant have it both ways. You Said..
Quote:
any increases would be directly borne by people who walk through the doors of the restaurant.

And that doctors and others (who are usually in the upper income bracket) don’t normally frequent the place so the only people affected by your price increase is other poor slobs. LOL
If this is true then who subsidises the poor buggers having paying the price increase? The taxpayer?

 

[hattaresguy]

Some people are just not worth $15 an hour so all this will do is decrease the number of jobs available.

In this particular case McDonalds itself isn't terrible profitable anymore because they sell [censored] so whatever is in their operating budget for workers will just cover fewer workers.

Instead of having say 2-3 cashiers they can switch to self order stations with 1 on duty. So instead of paying 3 employees $8.25 an hour, plus matching social security, and insurance, etc, they will just pay one, $15, saving a few bucks an hour.

Very few people who make these laws really understand how running a business works. Most business's in at least the food industry operate on razor thin margins.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Sounds like my Wife. Her one year at Wal Mart during High School was enough to get her into college with a real drive to escape the low wages and long hours.


Amen!

A few pages back I mentioned a girl going to medical school...super smart, worked so hard to get where she is.

Med School starts on 01 August. It's going to cost $45,000/year. That's after financial aid...it will cost $45K NET every year, so she's going to borrow $200,000 to make this work...

So, she's working at an ice cream shop this summer until that time, in order to save what she can for the upcoming four years. For $9/hour plus tips. It's a decent summer job for a kid. Not a career.

A few patrons have scoffed at the tip jar, which says "College fund" and then lists the colleges and "med school" and asked "who's going to med school?" with a tone of disbelief...only to be answered by the modest, hard-working girl in the Yale sweatshirt, "that would be me"...

But raise the wage to $15/hour? I'm not certain that the ice cream store would be able to stay in business...no one wants to pay $6 for a single scoop cone, even if it's hot outside and the ice cream is hand made...and our hard working young girl, trying to put away a few $$ would be in trouble...as would the owner of the shop...

 

[hattaresguy]

That's the kicker the little guys get screwed. They are not able to absorb the costs or invest in labor saving technology like the big guys can.

The only way is to either skirt the law and pay people off the books with cash or go to a tip based system.

And in other news the Chinese keep on going, when will we learn.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
The link is pretty simple: increase minimum wage (and let's be serious, we're talking about doubling it), there will be fewer jobs, then there will be more people on public assistance (in its myriad forms), and more tax revenue will be needed to sustain them.

Sounds like it should be true, but the research is inconclusive.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...ult-job-growth/ (addressing the opposite claim)

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf


Originally Posted By: Astro14
By the way, our intrepid 1% guy? He worked as a busboy, for $3.50 an hour, which was below minimum wage (because that doesn't apply to positions with tipping), in 1982 - 1984, to help pay for his college. He went to college on a combination of financial aid (which required student contributions) and academic/merit scholarships.

So, he knows what it's like...but he also knows the difference between a job and a career...which is why he worked so hard to get through college...

Yes, exactly. 1982-1984. 30+ years ago.

Not really possible any more given how much the cost of college has grown.

 

[javacontour]

Actually, what are called "progressive" taxes are inherently unfair. You set up differing classes of taxpayers. If everyone paid the same percentage, there is nothing more fair than that. Once you start charging one set of percentages to one group and a different percentage for another group, you've made an unfair system.

So sales tax, the same percentage for everyone is the most fair tax possible.

If you set up different tax brackets, you simply create an us vs them system.

One rate, all taxes, all sources of income, for all. Nothing more fair than that.

If you think someone making less than you should pay less, there is no reason you can't help pay their tax obligation. But none should be FORCED to pay a higher rate simply because another thinks they have "enough!"

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Since welfare was implemented the rolls have grown tremendously, much more just in the past few years.

Well yeah. That's what happens as the population grows. More of all kinds of people, including poor ones.


Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
A simple flat income tax with zero deductions for anyone not blind or disabled solves a lot of the revenue issues with a ridiculously complicated tax code. I personally love a national sales tax, nothing fairer. Spend a lot? Pay a lot.

100% agreement on simplifying the tax code.

Sales taxes are inherently regressive though, so... kind of the opposite of fair.


Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Raising wages will hugely impact the very folks we are being sold on it helping. This whole vilify the "rich" thing is a political creation designed to polarize us.

The only villification I see here is when people assume that poverty is a character defect.

 

[javacontour]

The war on poverty has been a failure.

It's like a treadmill. If you target incomes a certain percentage below some mean value, guess what? You will always have a certain percentage of people below that figure.

We really don't have fewer people at or below poverty since the programs were created.

As long as you say all those below some line get assistance, and that line keeps moving roughly at the rate of inflation, you'll end up with similar percentages below that line as long as you measure things.

If you don't fix the causes of poverty, one of the big ones being poor choices made by the person or their parents, you'll never fix the problem.

We are too politically correct to say to SOME people, you created your problem. If you got addicted to drugs or alcohol, or had children out of wedlock, or got busted for crimes, or dropped out of school, the problem isn't that the system is unfair. The problem is you were a knucklehead and put yourself behind the 8-ball.

Until we are willing to admit that much, no amount of class envy will solve the underlying issues.

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Since welfare was implemented the rolls have grown tremendously, much more just in the past few years.

Well yeah. That's what happens as the population grows. More of all kinds of people, including poor ones.

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d

Yes, exactly. 1982-1984. 30+ years ago.

Not really possible any more given how much the cost of college has grown.


Two reasons the costs of college has grown.

1. More people are going to college in a poor economy. If there are few jobs in the market, people delay going to college. Supply and demand. More fannies in seats means higher costs. Not to mention on-campus housing is more like the Taj Majal today than it was in the 1980's when I was in college.

2. More below market cost money. Below market federal student loans means there is more money in the system. Since that money was "discounted" compared to what the typical undergraduate would pay for that money for any other type of loan, that money will drive up prices.

Throw even more money at it, and the costs will rise even higher.

Anytime you have a big bucket of Other People's Money, look for rising prices and a big bubble. We saw it in the housing market 8 or so years ago. Look at the Dot.COM bust. How much of that was really OPM? Firms spending money based on stock valuations (OPM invested in their venture) but no profits.

If you look at any bust, it's when things are over-leveraged that the market implodes. Why do we think it's a good idea to use the same tactic, borrowing, for college. Look for that as a soon to be to big to fail bubble near you.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d

Originally Posted By: Astro14
By the way, our intrepid 1% guy? He worked as a busboy, for $3.50 an hour, which was below minimum wage (because that doesn't apply to positions with tipping), in 1982 - 1984, to help pay for his college. He went to college on a combination of financial aid (which required student contributions) and academic/merit scholarships.

So, he knows what it's like...but he also knows the difference between a job and a career...which is why he worked so hard to get through college...

Yes, exactly. 1982-1984. 30+ years ago.

Not really possible any more given how much the cost of college has grown.


Our intrepid 1% guy knows what college costs now, he's paying for his kids to go, remember? But he can't deduct it...so, he's paying through the nose for it...go back and re-read that post...this guy knows...and his busboy job, adjusted for inflation, would be paying about $6.00/hour now...plus tips...

However, your assertion above is false. It's absolutely possible!

The fact is, you can go to college on your own dime now, just as he did: merit scholarship, financial aid, work. That formula is as relevant now as it was then. There are more loan programs now, more grants, more work study, more aid. College costs have doubled in proportion to everything else since the 80s, but the approach is still viable.

Yale, the college I referred to earlier in this thread, will pay for 100% of your child's cost if you make less than $65,000/year. In other words, if you're slightly above the average income for a family of four in the US, Yale is FREE.

This is such an important point, I'll repeat it: If you're slightly above the average income for a family of four in the US, Yale is FREE.

Now, the student still has to WORK, both on campus and in the summer, to contribute roughly $3,000 per year...but that's not impossible. Harvard, by the way, is the same, as are most of the elite institutions in the US. 20% of the kids going to Harvard today go for FREE.

All you have to do to collect that free education is be willing to work as hard as the girl I described earlier in the thread. Or her brother, who just finished his freshman year at Harvard.

But 99% of the high school students simply won't come close to that level of effort...and then, they'll complain about how much she makes when, 15 years after high school, after 4 years at Yale, after 4 years at med school in which she borrowed $200K, and after a 7 year residency in which she made little, she finally starts earning a good income.

All those who didn't put forth her level of effort 15 years earlier will talk about how she's not paying her "fair share"...how she has to support those less fortunate.

And the truth is that they could have been there too, had they been willing to work like she did...maybe not Yale, but there some fine state institutions: UCONN, UVA, UMich, the entire UC system, that will grant 100% rides to those who've earned it...and from those schools, the kid can go anywhere...

http://www.yale.edu/sfas/finaid/index.html

https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid

Read what I said about this girl back here: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3739649/Re:_Hundreds_march_at_McDonald#Post3739649

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Trav


So you mean attack the poor that do go to fast food places to subsidize other poor people? Something doesn’t sound right there. LOL


Uh, boost the poor by helping their wages? Trickle up and whatnot.


That's the problem with all liberal arguments, you cant have it both ways. You Said..
Quote:
any increases would be directly borne by people who walk through the doors of the restaurant.

And that doctors and others (who are usually in the upper income bracket) don’t normally frequent the place so the only people affected by your price increase is other poor slobs. LOL
If this is true then who subsidises the poor buggers having paying the price increase? The taxpayer?




My whole point in bumping the minimum wage is it would help the economy in areas where minimum wage earners spend their money. So a retail associate at sears, making minimum wage, spends it at the mcdonald's in the mall food court. Since minimum wage went up, and it'll go up more than whatever fractional increase in food price will be, everyone will come out ahead. There's nothing "both ways" about it.

That's the micro- vs macro- economics. I can understand a business owner throwing up his hands and saying "I just can't do this", only seeing his books in front of him, and not the books of his customers, and the people who support his customers, and on and on. But he's ignorant.

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: eljefino

My whole point in bumping the minimum wage is it would help the economy in areas where minimum wage earners spend their money. So a retail associate at sears, making minimum wage, spends it at the mcdonald's in the mall food court. Since minimum wage went up, and it'll go up more than whatever fractional increase in food price will be, everyone will come out ahead. There's nothing "both ways" about it.

That's the micro- vs macro- economics. I can understand a business owner throwing up his hands and saying "I just can't do this", only seeing his books in front of him, and not the books of his customers, and the people who support his customers, and on and on. But he's ignorant.


He's either ignorant or knows more about his personal business than some Ivory Tower economists in DC who've never run a business.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Trav


So you mean attack the poor that do go to fast food places to subsidize other poor people? Something doesn’t sound right there. LOL


Uh, boost the poor by helping their wages? Trickle up and whatnot.


That's the problem with all liberal arguments, you cant have it both ways. You Said..
Quote:
any increases would be directly borne by people who walk through the doors of the restaurant.

And that doctors and others (who are usually in the upper income bracket) don’t normally frequent the place so the only people affected by your price increase is other poor slobs. LOL
If this is true then who subsidises the poor buggers having paying the price increase? The taxpayer?




My whole point in bumping the minimum wage is it would help the economy in areas where minimum wage earners spend their money. So a retail associate at sears, making minimum wage, spends it at the mcdonald's in the mall food court. Since minimum wage went up, and it'll go up more than whatever fractional increase in food price will be, everyone will come out ahead. There's nothing "both ways" about it.

That's the micro- vs macro- economics. I can understand a business owner throwing up his hands and saying "I just can't do this", only seeing his books in front of him, and not the books of his customers, and the people who support his customers, and on and on. But he's ignorant.


Why not pay them all $50 an hour so they can spend money all over the place, new cars, big name watch, new felony shoes, more big screen TV's. Heck it will be boom town.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Better read up on the Constitution. We are a representative republic.

If you want to get totally technical we are: a Constitutionally Limited Representative Democratic Republic . Most sourses just say Constitutiional Republic.

 

[Mr Nice]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
OT: Looking for Anesthesia field service technician for Palm Beach, Ft Lauderdale, Miami region. Same requirements as previously posted. This is a non union job with pension / full benefits. New multi year contracts at new accounts, needing more techs on team.

That's great, but not really helpful without a link to the job posting.


dishdude,

2 job postings and we are looking for qualified applicants:


Pensacola, FL
https://xjobs.brassring.com/tgwebhost/jobdetails.aspx?partnerid=54&siteid=5346&jobid=1236273


Palm Beach, FL
https://xjobs.brassring.com/tgwebhost/jobdetails.aspx?partnerid=54&siteid=5346&jobid=1240049

 

[Alfred_B]

Originally Posted By: Trav


Why not pay them all $50 an hour so they can spend money all over the place, new cars, big name watch, new felony shoes, more big screen TV's. Heck it will be boom town.


All they are asking for is livable wage. The wages are so low that these guys have to work two jobs, and still they qualify for means based assistance.

I do not think it is unreasonable to pay living wages to people.

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
Originally Posted By: Trav


Why not pay them all $50 an hour so they can spend money all over the place, new cars, big name watch, new felony shoes, more big screen TV's. Heck it will be boom town.


All they are asking for is livable wage. The wages are so low that these guys have to work two jobs, and still they qualify for means based assistance.

I do not think it is unreasonable to pay living wages to people.


Then start a business if you don't already have one, and pay what you consider to be a living wage.

No one is preventing you from doing this.

The market says that certain jobs are not worth more than the minimum wage. As I've said before, when you raise that wage, some jobs will go away as the cost to pay a human to do the job is no longer the most efficient means of getting it done. It will be eliminated, automated, or passed on to others.

Second, if the minimum wage goes high enough, you'll see better qualified candidates for those jobs. If I'm running a fast food place and all other things being equal other than if the person can count change without being confused by getting $20.02 for a $9.77 check and the candidate that didn't finish high school and needs pictures on the register to ring in the order, I'm going to hire the math wiz candidate.

Those whose skills are marginal will be further marginalized when higher skilled workers are tempted into these McJobs.

Then what happens to that worker on the margin? He's getting fewer hours or no hours because he can't compete with others willing to work for $15/hour.

Will it happen to all? Probably not. Will it happen? Of course it will. No one is talking about the plan to address that.

It seems we have no shortage of people willing to tell others what they should pay for labor for a given job. But few who are willing to either voluntarily start their own business and pay that out of their money. There are also few who are willing to speak out about those who are sinking their own chances with their life choices as I said before. There are some reliable predictors for poverty. When do we hold the person responsible for the circumstance they create?

Because it's not all bad luck. Some poverty is a choice. A bad choice by those who make decisions that put them at a severe disadvantage.

But we are too politically correct to bring that up.

Would addressing those choices solve the entire problem? Of course not. But why not start with solving the ones we can solve by holding people responsible for their choices.

Before you say we bailed out the banks, I was against that too. The bankers who made those choices should also have to face the consequences of their choices.

As long as a great number of people see Uncle Sam as the one who will absolve them of their responsibility, the path of our nation will continue to be in decline.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: javacontour

He's either ignorant or knows more about his personal business than some Ivory Tower economists in DC who've never run a business.


He needs to have an inkling on the world around him: Is there a Wendy's going up on the vacant land across the street? Are they putting in a center turn lane? Will his sub-18 year olds need "working papers" from the school dept? To pay attention and adjust is to be pragmatic. To not, ignorant.