Some restaurants face pressure to trim menus and staffs under California's wage hike

[tweaker2]

By all means let's keep hourly worker's wages suppressed FOREVER while profits keep rising for the "job creators" that, instead of expanding and hiring more workers, merely stash the cash overseas and/or dump the cash in 501c's to corrupt our politicians even more than they are now.

Let's keep the middle class and the poor in their place, or better yet, let's keep going with the way things are by having the middle class get inexorably driven into the ranks of the poor whereby the rich get richer while the vast majority of the nation, the middle class and the poor, stagnate into a pool of dirt cheap labor, exactly where the "job creators" can extract maximum profits out of them without fear of being "over-regulated" ever again.

In this way, our thoroughly corrupted politicians will be able to completely ignore the concerns of those folks whose votes put them office, except when it's time for these blood suckers to get re-elected. Our "job creators" who corrupted these sock puppets can then crank up their well-oiled propaganda machines again to keep their voters' minds fixated on abortion, gay rights, the Second Amendment, the war against Christianity, family values, illegal immigrants and those Muslim suicide bombers that are, by some miraculously strange coincidence, living right next door to every person who have their media channels permanently tuned in to FOX News and AM Conservative talk radio.

Yes, by all means, let's keep this trend humming right along. It's really working out well for the middle class and the poor, isn't it?

 

[ivwshane]

The fact that governments have special minimum wages specifically for handicapped people? The government is fully aware that handicapped people are unemployable at $10/h. If hiring you is a net loss for the company, you will not be hired. It's that simple.
Of course, we wouldn't need to keep raising the minimum wage if our stupid federal reserve would just stop inflating the shit out of our currency.

What? Are you equating disabled people with hourly workers? Try again.

 

[UglyCasanova]

But the market ISN'T determining what their labor are worth. These businesses are paying their employees less than what it takes to live in their communities in a lot of cases. That would mean in a purely market based negotiation these people would in many cases not be able to work for so little as they would become homeless, starve, whatever.

That statement makes no sense. What the job is worth has nothing to do with how much it costs to live.

 

[ivwshane]

That statement makes no sense. What the job is worth has nothing to do with how much it costs to live.

No? In a perfect world where demand in labor is equal to the labor supply you think the cost of living would have zero impact on the wage negotiated?

Even in an imperfect world are you saying companies in San Francisco pay the same as companies in Sacramento? Despite having a huge difference in the costs of living?

 

[UglyCasanova]

so working 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet is acceptable to you?
you're a good little republican. You should get a treat.

If that's what it takes based on the wages you are able to bring in, what's the issue? We should dissuade people from trying to make it on their own? Cutting too much into tv time? This country was built upon hard work, I see no issue with someone working more than one job in order to pay their way.

 

[UglyCasanova]

No? In a perfect world where demand in labor is equal to the labor supply you think the cost of living would have zero impact on the wage negotiated?

Even in an imperfect world are you saying companies in San Francisco pay the same as companies in Sacramento? Despite having a huge difference in the costs of living?

Sure, but I can absolutely guarantee you that the wage negotiated isn't higher than the marginal net benefit to the employer.

 

[Cozarkian]

1. EITC would not be a better method as it would simply offload the cost of employing low wage workers onto the rest of society. Why should the rest of society subsidize their business model? The better way to do it is through a combination of higher minimum wage and an expanded EITC, that way all the bases are covered.

2. The taxpayers most certainly won't be bearing the cost of increased minimum wage, the people who patronize businesses that employ primarily minimum wage workers will. That's in fact the whole point as again, why should we subsidize their business model? There are plenty of restaurants and other businesses that don't rely on primarily minimum wage workers that compete with ones that do. In-N-Out, for example, is a fast food place that pays its workers dramatically more than minimum wage. In this case we are simply removing the government subsidies for businesses that employ primarily low cost workers.

3. The economics literature finds small to zero effect on the number of jobs available by minimum wage hikes.

1. I agree a combination would be better. I'd also like to see a less black and white minimum wage. For example, lower minimum wage for half-time employees or seasonal employees.

2. My real point here is that it is not as simple as EITC = taxpayer burden and min wage = business burden. In the long run, I believe min wage increases will have a higher total cost that falls more heavily on the middle class while EITC has a lower total cost distributed among all taxpayers.

3. That's because minimum wage increases aren't immediately followed by massive short-run layoffs. As I stated, fewer jobs is only one long-term effect. Further, fewer jobs can be divided between businesses closing, layoffs, and less expansion and is difficult to isolate from the myriad of other economic factors.

Other potential negative consequences beyond fewer jobs include less hours, worse benefits, reductions in the size of raises, more pressure on salaried employees to work unpaid overtime, and higher prices.

 

[fskimospy]

That statement makes no sense. What the job is worth has nothing to do with how much it costs to live.

What a job is worth most certainly has something to do with the cost of living. There's a reason why jobs in NYC generally pay more than jobs in say, Wichita. Do you think that people in NYC are just more productive or something?

Regardless, if a job pays less than it takes to live then people will gradually stop doing that job or stop living there. This will either cause wages to rise as competition for that job decreases or if the maximum 'worth' of that job is so low that it becomes unprofitable then that job will cease to exist.

It's pretty simple: businesses that rely predominately on minimum wage workers are getting an indirect subsidy from the government as the government provides additional funds or benefits to allow their workers to continue to be productive despite getting wages that are less than what that requires. If you think that the government should subsidize fast food places just say so. If you don't, then what's the issue?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

If that's what it takes based on the wages you are able to bring in, what's the issue? We should dissuade people from trying to make it on their own? Cutting too much into tv time? This country was built upon hard work, I see no issue with someone working more than one job in order to pay their way.

maybe deterring the amount of time you have to rest between jobs can be a health issue? or maybe not spending time with family and friends?
eh why bother, you're another billy badass on the interwebz. Fuck them if they aren't smart enough or lucky enough to make a sustainable amount working 1 job.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

What a job is worth most certainly has something to do with the cost of living. There's a reason why jobs in NYC generally pay more than jobs in say, Wichita. Do you think that people in NYC are just more productive or something?

Regardless, if a job pays less than it takes to live then people will gradually stop doing that job or stop living there. This will either cause wages to rise as competition for that job decreases or if the maximum 'worth' of that job is so low that it becomes unprofitable then that job will cease to exist.

It's pretty simple: businesses that rely predominately on minimum wage workers are getting an indirect subsidy from the government as the government provides additional funds or benefits to allow their workers to continue to be productive despite getting wages that are less than what that requires. If you think that the government should subsidize fast food places just say so. If you don't, then what's the issue?

A worker in NYC probably is more productive than one in Wichita; the former is likely to have many more customers than the latter.

You could just as easily argue that the federal government subsidizes over-population. By allowing excessive population density, maximizing the number of tax payers in local governments, the cost of living becomes unaffordably high. Therefore, cities should have instituted a maximum urban density law, preventing too many people from working or living in a given area.

 

[fskimospy]

1. I agree a combination would be better. I'd also like to see a less black and white minimum wage. For example, lower minimum wage for half-time employees or seasonal employees.

2. My real point here is that it is not as simple as EITC = taxpayer burden and min wage = business burden. In the long run, I believe min wage increases will have a higher total cost that falls more heavily on the middle class while EITC has a lower total cost distributed among all taxpayers.

I agree it's not so simple, but I think it broadly falls that way. Similarly, an increased EITC would incentivize businesses to rely more on minimum wage labor. The percentage of workers that make minimum wage is small enough that there isn't really a meaningful impact on inflation. (the economics literature shows little relationship between the two)

3. That's because minimum wage increases aren't immediately followed by massive short-run layoffs. As I stated, fewer jobs is only one long-term effect. Further, fewer jobs can be divided between businesses closing, layoffs, and less expansion and is difficult to isolate from the myriad of other economic factors.

I wasn't talking about immediate layoffs, I mean that even over time there is somewhere between a small effect and zero effect on overall employment, depending on what research you're looking at.

Other potential negative consequences beyond fewer jobs include less hours, worse benefits, reductions in the size of raises, more pressure on salaried employees to work unpaid overtime, and higher prices.

Again, the economics literature just doesn't report these effects in any significant way.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

maybe deterring the amount of time you have to rest between jobs can be a health issue? or maybe not spending time with family and friends?
eh why bother, you're another billy badass on the interwebz. Fuck them if they aren't smart enough or lucky enough to make a sustainable amount working 1 job.

Yeah, fuck them tbh. Why do they have a right to work and live in downtown San Francisco? They can always move to Barstow or maybe just leave California.

 

[fskimospy]

A worker in NYC probably is more productive than one in Wichita; the former is likely to have many more customers than the latter.

Higher wages persist across all industries, including ones that don't even service local populations. There's no evidence that I'm aware of that the average worker in NYC is more productive than one in Kansas.

You could just as easily argue that the federal government subsidizes over-population. By allowing excessive population density, maximizing the number of tax payers in local governments, the cost of living becomes unaffordably high. Therefore, cities should have instituted a maximum urban density law, preventing too many people from working or living in a given area.

Cities are more economically efficient than spread out communities, so if anything governments should be subsidizing increased population density. Furthermore, simply allowing something to happen is not subsidizing it and most state and federal means tested programs don't discriminate based on local cost of living.

So no, I don't think you could easily argue that at all. Not only are cities not subsidized by government (they actually subsidize less dense areas, generally), but even if we were in the business of subsidizing that sort of thing we should be subsidizing city living as society would be more efficient overall.

 

[ivwshane]

Sure, but I can absolutely guarantee you that the wage negotiated isn't higher than the marginal net benefit to the employer.

No shit! Was someone making that claim?

 

[ivwshane]

You could say you are probably talking out of your ass but why bring in gut feelings into the conversation?

A worker in NYC probably is more productive than one in Wichita; the former is likely to have many more customers than the latter.

You could just as easily argue that the federal government subsidizes over-population. By allowing excessive population density, maximizing the number of tax payers in local governments, the cost of living becomes unaffordably high. Therefore, cities should have instituted a maximum urban density law, preventing too many people from working or living in a given area.

 

[UglyCasanova]

No shit! Was someone making that claim?

Yes, several people in this thread either knowingly or not. Not all jobs are economically worth $15/hr, but putting a price floor on labor forces an employer to pay them above the net marginal return they bring in. I'm glad you do agree with me on that point though.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, several people in this thread either knowingly or not. Not all jobs are economically worth $15/hr, but putting a price floor on labor forces an employer to pay them above the net marginal return they bring in. I'm glad you do agree with me on that point though.

I do agree with you. The question is; will a $15 floor cause any significant loss in jobs or business's to close or raise prices? Guess what studies and history has shown us?

 

[DrPizza]

1. I agree a combination would be better. I'd also like to see a less black and white minimum wage. For example, lower minimum wage for half-time employees or seasonal employees.

And, you don't think companies would game the system? All employees working 20 hours per week? The system would gravitate toward such a situation unless the difference in pay rates was fairly negligible.

 

[UglyCasanova]

And, you don't think companies would game the system? All employees working 20 hours per week? The system would gravitate toward such a situation unless the difference in pay rates was fairly negligible.

For these low paying jobs the vast majority of them are part time anyways. Other than a manager I think you'd be hard pressed to find a full time true 40 hour a week employee at most of these places. The reason being to not pay overtime and not pay healthcare costs.

I remember when I worked them we had to constantly fight for hours, and if you hit 40 hours you'd probably get a warning. Do it twice and don't expect to see your name on next weeks shifts.

 

[stlc8tr]

3. The economics literature finds small to zero effect on the number of jobs available by minimum wage hikes.

All of those studies are for small hikes.

No one has any idea what the effects of a hike to $15 would be.

 

[ivwshane]

For these low paying jobs the vast majority of them are part time anyways. Other than a manager I think you'd be hard pressed to find a full time true 40 hour a week employee at most of these places. The reason being to not pay overtime and not pay healthcare costs.

I remember when I worked them we had to constantly fight for hours, and if you hit 40 hours you'd probably get a warning. Do it twice and don't expect to see your name on next weeks shifts.

How does your reply address his question?

 

[ivwshane]

All of those studies are for small hikes.

No one has any idea what the effects of a hike to $15 would be.

And like pretty much everywhere else, this wage increase would take effect over a period of time (5-6 years), just like every minimum wage increase before it.

 

[fskimospy]

All of those studies are for small hikes.

No one has any idea what the effects of a hike to $15 would be.

That's true that they tended to be for smaller hikes, but even in this case the hike is slow (phased in over 6 years) and assuming 2% annual inflation will actually only be going up to a bit over $13 in today's dollars.

I would agree that we have less of an idea as to what would happen in this situation, but to say we have no idea is wrong. In addition, that same logic would hold for claims that this would cost jobs.

 

[UglyCasanova]

How does your reply address his question?

I'm stating that they are already gaming the system. He specifically asked about all jobs going down to 20 hours a week, my response being that for these low waged jobs by and large they already are.


Off topic question, why are you so militant in all of your responses? Instead of having a discussion you and several others in this thread (hell this board) chastise, curse, and belittle the other side. Why?

 

[marincounty]

I thought Americans were exceptional, were winners?
If Denmark can pay $20 per hour minimum, we can certainly pay $15 per hour.
If you can't pay people a decent minimum wage, you don't have a viable business.