Yet another fast food worker strike

Page 23 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
History simply doesn't agree with you. I've posted plenty of studies to back up my opinion, what have you brought to back up yours?

It's your studies that history doesn't agree with. Why would it use 2000 to 2007 to show the effects of a lack of min wage hikes when you have to go 3 years further back for the last hike? Was that too many years of GDP growth for the study to handle?
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,738
126
Failed logic. Costs have to be passed on to the customer. If customers no longer find the product to be worth the price, they stop going there and he is out of business. You're making an awfully big assumption assuming he has other options. Restauranteering is a brutal business already, and a significant increase in the minimum wage will likely drive small shops out of business, further consolidating wealth at the corporate chains.

is mom+pop restaurants even a good example?
most of the labor costs (ie: waiter) is exempt from min wage hikes. they still make $2.12/hr.

# waiters > # cooks
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,349
16,727
136
It's your studies that history doesn't agree with. Why would it use 2000 to 2007 to show the effects of a lack of min wage hikes when you have to go 3 years further back for the last hike? Was that too many years of GDP growth for the study to handle?

Which study are you referring to? I've linked to several, perhaps you could provide your own study.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
is mom+pop restaurants even a good example?
most of the labor costs (ie: waiter) is exempt from min wage hikes. they still make $2.12/hr.

# waiters > # cooks

That's not universally true, and I don't know that the current calls for higher MW allow for tipped MW to stay at $2.13. I can't imagine that waitstaff will sit idly by and watch their incomes fall relative to other employees. I can imagine people (at least initially) tipping less simply because their meal is getting more expensive.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
is mom+pop restaurants even a good example?
most of the labor costs (ie: waiter) is exempt from min wage hikes. they still make $2.12/hr.

# waiters > # cooks

Nope.

ALL employees are covered by the minimum wage. The wait staffs' wages will go up. They are not exempt.

Fern
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Which study are you referring to? I've linked to several, perhaps you could provide your own study.

I guess it doesn't really matter which one as you said you read a few but any study that says raising the min wage boosts the economy is historically inaccurate. You don't need a study to see that, just look at any year the minimum wage was increased and you will see that GDP will be relatively unchanged.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Lol! Are you saying that the larger the business is the larger it's profit margin is? I suspect not as your examples prove you wrong.

Profit margin has nothing to do with a businesses size. Nor are the top businesses profit margins representative of the industry as a whole.

That's all besides the point and not really important to your argument. Your argument if I understand you correctly is that this large increase in mw will have a negative impact due to the large number of people who currently make less than $15. It seems logical when only looking at it in passing, however, the data, as I've pointed out numerous times doesn't support your conclusion.

Also every study I have read shows that any raise in minimum wage increases GDP by quite a bit even if you were to factor in potential job losses (which as I have pointed out, shows little to no impact on employment rate).

So once again, you link to opinion and what amounts to localized anecdotal evidence to support your position while I link to actual historical impacts of raising the minimum wage to support my opinion. Which one do you want to put money on?
The bolded is not only NOT what I am saying, the data I posted conclusively disprove that. What I AM saying is that some companies are well-capitalized and can withstand great societal disruption, even benefit from it long term. Mom and pop restaurants statistically never have the capital required to suddenly take a big hit; they simply don't generate the profit to build such capital. Some chains with marginal profit margins are the same; they simply could not survive having labor prices suddenly double because chains with more money in the bank could wait longer to raise prices without going under.

And you telling anyone they don't understand how business works is pure comedy gold.

So employees spending their wages don't contribute to the economy?
Certainly, but business owners (including shareholders) don't bury their money in mason jars. Their either spend it, or they invest it. This investment in stocks allows businesses to expand. This investment in CDs and Savings and Loans allows people to finance cars, businesses and houses. There is no free lunch.

Lower earners spend more of their disposable income than higher earners do.

By paying the lower earners more they will go out and spend it on iPhones, consoles, clothes, and all the other luxuries associated with our consumer economy.
Our consumer goods are largely made in China, so a substantial part of the increased economic activity leaves our economy and returns only as Chinese entities buying American companies, IP, and real estate. By contrast, a much smaller part of saved capital leaves our economy because most financing of consumer goods is via credit card whereas saved capital is mostly invested in things like buildings and automobiles and boats.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's better to have the business owners and investor class spend it; I'm just pointing out that there is no free lunch.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Nope.

ALL employees are covered by the minimum wage. The wait staffs' wages will go up. They are not exempt.

Fern
They are exempt from the employers' standpoint, as long as their reported tips bring them up the minimum wage. The Democrat $10.10 proposal for instance raises the exempt minimum wage to (IIRC) around $7. The employer still has to make up the difference, but only if their wages counting tips are below minimum wage.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
That's not universally true, and I don't know that the current calls for higher MW allow for tipped MW to stay at $2.13. I can't imagine that waitstaff will sit idly by and watch their incomes fall relative to other employees. I can imagine people (at least initially) tipping less simply because their meal is getting more expensive.
I know the Democrat $10.10 proposal includes a raise in minimum wage for tipped employees. I suspect (though I don't know) that any Democrat proposal will also tighten up rules on offsets. Right now a lot of restaurants figure your average wage for the pay period's hours worked, but as I understand the minimum wage (and it does not figure into our business at all) it applies to each hour or fraction thereof worked. Thus if you work two shitty four hour shifts and earned $10 in tips plus $17.04 in wages, your employer owes you another $30.96 for those hours (for a total of $58 for eight hours or $7.25 per hour) even if you also worked four great shifts and made out like a bandit for the week. For cheap restaurants especially this is a non-trivial distinction since with off-peak periods a waiter (or even bartender) sometimes doesn't clear enough to pay for the gas or bus fare to get there. And I've often seen restaurant owners mandate extra employees for their customers' benefit (e.g. two bartenders during slow periods, dedicated oyster shucker, bar waitress) who are essentially paid mostly from tip splitting. If one is earning good tips in an off peak shift but has to share tips between bus boys, cooks and dedicated non-tipped personnel, then one's actual income for that period can be next to nothing when by law it should be minimum wage for every hour worked. (Assuming I understand the minimum wage law as written rather than as casually enforced anyway.)

Should really be that employees not directly receiving tips must be paid minimum wage, period. The stated intent is to allow non-wait staff to share in tip bounty, but all too often it simply allows the restaurant owner to pay these people with the servers' tips.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
They are exempt from the employers' standpoint, as long as their reported tips bring them up the minimum wage. The Democrat $10.10 proposal for instance raises the exempt minimum wage to (IIRC) around $7. The employer still has to make up the difference, but only if their wages counting tips are below minimum wage.

I'm familiar with the tips thingy etc. The point is minimum wage increases have always included increases for wait staff. I don't think it important where the money comes from, tips or employer (I doubt wait staff does either). The only 'problem' I've ever seen (my office does payroll for restaurants, but I don't personally handle it) is when the tips reach a certain level such that the employer portion ($2.13) is insufficient to cover the withholding tax. In that case, the employee has to personally kick in the extra money.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
-snip- Right now a lot of restaurants figure your average wage for the pay period's hours worked, but as I understand the minimum wage (and it does not figure into our business at all) it applies to each hour or fraction thereof worked. Thus if you work two shitty four hour shifts and earned $10 in tips plus $17.04 in wages, your employer owes you another $30.96 for those hours (for a total of $58 for eight hours or $7.25 per hour) even if you also worked four great shifts and made out like a bandit for the week.

I don't think it works that way (again I don't personally do payroll except in extreme emergencies).

I believe the tips/minimum wage analysis is done on the whole pay period. Assuming a weekly pay period, e.g., Friday and Saturday's tips count towards Mondays - Thursday's shift. I.e., crappy tips on Mondays are offset by good tips on the weekend.

Imagine the PITA of having to do the min wage calc for each and every shift versus just one calc for the entire pay period.

This would also encourage 'cheating'. I.e., a waiter could withhold tips from Mon-Fri and then declare them all as Saturday's so as to get 'extra' money from the employer for Mon-Fri. (Of course that would only work for cash tips. But then again, imagine the PITA us looking through all CC receipts to post the tips to the employees' proper shift for each day.)

Fern
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I'm familiar with the tips thingy etc. The point is minimum wage increases have always included increases for wait staff. I don't think it important where the money comes from, tips or employer (I doubt wait staff does either). The only 'problem' I've ever seen (my office does payroll for restaurants, but I don't personally handle it) is when the tips reach a certain level such that the employer portion ($2.13) is insufficient to cover the withholding tax. In that case, the employee has to personally kick in the extra money.

Fern
You'd think so, but not always. The last federal minimum wage increase in 2007 did not cover tipped employees' wages, although of course the minimum still applies. The employer minimum has stayed the same since 1991, and most states' increases have ignored the employer minimum. (Which arguably has no effect since the minimum wage remains the same.) But I've seen too many cases where the employee is earning well above minimum wage for the week, yet come home with maybe $10 in tips from a four, six or even eight hour shift. Sometimes that's due to people's tendency to tip based on meal cost, so that say, a waffle house waitress splitting a slow shift's tips with the cook comes up short. But a lot of times it's due to management moving other people to tipped employee status. If two waitresses total $100 in tips for a four hour shift they've done fairly well, near $15 an hour. But if those tips must be split with two bus boys, two cooks, a drink waiter, and an oyster shucker, suddenly those waitresses didn't even make minimum wage for that shift. Maybe with their peak shifts they are earning an average of $20 an hour, but for that shift they got shafted by having to support the restaurant's non-tipped employees. I think a more fair system would be either to only allowed directly tipped employees to share tips OR to pay every employee minimum wage and then share tips. At the least, every tipped employee should earn at least minimum wage for every shift, regardless of overall performance.

I've heard the righteous screaming when wait staff have to fork over tips to pay the withholding. Usually after a couple such occurrences this magically went away as tipped were always under that level. Nowadays so many people pay with plastic there isn't much wiggle room, especially in expensive restaurants.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I don't think it works that way (again I don't personally do payroll except in extreme emergencies).

I believe the tips/minimum wage analysis is done on the whole pay period. Assuming a weekly pay period, e.g., Friday and Saturday's tips count towards Mondays - Thursday's shift. I.e., crappy tips on Mondays are offset by good tips on the weekend.

Imagine the PITA of having to do the min wage calc for each and every shift versus just one calc for the entire pay period.

This would also encourage 'cheating'. I.e., a waiter could withhold tips from Mon-Fri and then declare them all as Saturday's so as to get 'extra' money from the employer for Mon-Fri. (Of course that would only work for cash tips. But then again, imagine the PITA us looking through all CC receipts to post the tips to the employees' proper shift for each day.)

Fern
That's definitely how it is done, although I don't think that was the intent of the law. I'm just arguing that it's not right to pay someone $3 or $4 or $5 an hour just because they make it up in subsequent hours. You do have a good point about the added accounting overhead, although surely today's software makes that moot. And as far as cheating, wouldn't the employee just not report it ever? That way he'd get more money and wouldn't have to share at all.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
Where do you think iPhones, consoles, and most clothes are made?

Your attempts at obfuscation are astounding.

You asked:

Matt1970 said:
I will never understand how people think taking money from business owners and giving it to employees boosts the economy.

I then provide you with the answer:

Veliko said:
Lower earners spend more of their disposable income than higher earners do.

And instead of acknowledging it, you go off in a completely different direction.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
Our consumer goods are largely made in China, so a substantial part of the increased economic activity leaves our economy and returns only as Chinese entities buying American companies, IP, and real estate. By contrast, a much smaller part of saved capital leaves our economy because most financing of consumer goods is via credit card whereas saved capital is mostly invested in things like buildings and automobiles and boats.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's better to have the business owners and investor class spend it; I'm just pointing out that there is no free lunch.

This is completely and utterly irrelevant to the part that was being discussed:

Matt1970 said:
I will never understand how people think taking money from business owners and giving it to employees boosts the economy.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Your attempts at obfuscation are astounding.

You asked:



I then provide you with the answer:



And instead of acknowledging it, you go off in a completely different direction.

Your answer is wrong pal. I know plenty of business owners and higher earners and they spend their money just like anyone else and they are more than likely to buy higher prices stuff made in the US. You came up with iPhones, consoles, and clothes as examples which are all made overseas in sweatshops. Ya, we need more of our money going there.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
Your answer is wrong pal. I know plenty of business owners and higher earners and they spend their money just like anyone else and they are more than likely to buy higher prices stuff made in the US. You came up with iPhones, consoles, and clothes as examples which are all made overseas in sweatshops. Ya, we need more of our money going there.

How very amusing.

And you say you're a business owner? Your posts make it very clear that you're not.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
How very amusing.

And you say you're a business owner? Your posts make it very clear that you're not.

You are right. I should call all my customers and tell them they can no longer bring their TV and computers for me to fix. Damn, I had a good run faking it all these years. I should probably take my website down and end all my eBay listings as well.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,349
16,727
136
You are right. I should call all my customers and tell them they can no longer bring their TV and computers for me to fix. Damn, I had a good run faking it all these years. I should probably take my website down and end all my eBay listings as well.

Exactly which parts are you using to fix things that were made in the US?
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
You are right. I should call all my customers and tell them they can no longer bring their TV and computers for me to fix. Damn, I had a good run faking it all these years. I should probably take my website down and end all my eBay listings as well.

That's not a business in any meaningful sense of the word ffs!