Yet another fast food worker strike

[bshole]

Wait I thought you righties always said you have to pay well to get the best talent or to keep it? Now you are saying that these guys aren't worth what they make now? So paying them less will make them better employees?

Or does paying for good talent only apply to CEO's?


And you say they are the morons? Lol!

Check and mate. Well done sir.

 

[werepossum]

Wait I thought you righties always said you have to pay well to get the best talent or to keep it? Now you are saying that these guys aren't worth what they make now? So paying them less will make them better employees?

Or does paying for good talent only apply to CEO's?


And you say they are the morons? Lol!

Paying them less would make them better employees for the dollar, yes. Paying more would allow the employer to find better employees - although if it's raising the minimum wage it's just raising the bottom and hoping to stay ahead of inflation.

 

[BoberFett]

Wait I thought you righties always said you have to pay well to get the best talent or to keep it? Now you are saying that these guys aren't worth what they make now? So paying them less will make them better employees?

Or does paying for good talent only apply to CEO's?


And you say they are the morons? Lol!

Check and mate. Well done sir.

Don't worry, I'm sure you both make excellent fry cooks and your minimum wage is well deserved.

 

[bshole]

Don't worry, I'm sure you both make excellent fry cooks .

Thanks for that. I am indeed a very good cook. I especially enjoy cooking apple/chocolate pies, stews and chilis. My own home-grown chili recipe has over 20 ingredients ranging from tequilla to venison sausage to honey. I believe I make the best chili on the planet and will never divulge the entirety of my own special recipe. That recipe will be buried with me. Sweet and mildy hot is my preferred spiciness level. Not a fan of the scorching hot stuff.

Bober, you are good people and I always truly enjoy your contributions to this site. The place simply wouldn't be the same without you. I look forward to the day that you and I can break bread together...... lol.....

 

[ivwshane]

Paying them less would make them better employees for the dollar, yes. Paying more would allow the employer to find better employees - although if it's raising the minimum wage it's just raising the bottom and hoping to stay ahead of inflation.

You really think so? I'm sure you wouldn't have that opinion if people stopped going to that business. No amount of lowering a workers pay will overcome a declining customer base. Maybe that fast food restaurant could pay those employees less, except this time instead of complaining about a slippery floor, someone slips and sues. You can't beat that bang for a buck!

 

[ivwshane]

Don't worry, I'm sure you both make excellent fry cooks and your minimum wage is well deserved.

And that's about the extent of your posts now a days. Pretty lazy and not very creative.

 

[BoberFett]

And that's about the extent of your posts now a days. Pretty lazy and not very creative.

When you post something that has even a hint of intelligence (rather than the rambling mess of nonsense you did post, demonstrating your inability to comprehend) I'll respond in kind.

 

[BoberFett]

Wait I thought you righties always said you have to pay well to get the best talent or to keep it? Now you are saying that these guys aren't worth what they make now? So paying them less will make them better employees?

Or does paying for good talent only apply to CEO's?


And you say they are the morons? Lol!

I'll attempt to explain this slowly.

People say that minimum wage is too low, and that to be fair to workers, minimum wage should be higher.

Minimum wage is not in any way related to worker skill.

If you raise the minimum wage, underskilled employees will still be underskilled, they'll simply be making more money.

As these people are not worth even the current low minimum wage, they will have no function in a society with an even higher minimum wage.

The gap between the value of their skills and the minimum wage has grown, ensuring that these people are now completely unemployable.

Yes, I'm saying those people are morons. Clearly you're in the same league as they are, with your inability to comprehend simple concepts.

 

[bshole]

I'll attempt to explain this slowly.

People say that minimum wage is too low, and that to be fair to workers, minimum wage should be higher.

Minimum wage is not in any way related to worker skill.

If you raise the minimum wage, underskilled employees will still be underskilled, they'll simply be making more money.

As these people are not worth even the current low minimum wage, they will have no function in a society with an even higher minimum wage.

The gap between the value of their skills and the minimum wage has grown, ensuring that these people are now completely unemployable.

Um.... perhaps you should go back to insulting us. At least that has some entertainment value. The above steaming pile of tripe has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

 

[Fern]

I think the example of fast food employees ignoring the need to fix the slippery floor shows why they are minimum wage employees. No initiative.

If I'm the owner or manager the employees standing there with a stupid look on their refusing to anything more than the minimum required for their job won't be promoted. The one who recognizes the need and gets into action all while holding down their other responsibilities is now an assistant manager.

Any manager or asst manager who stood around with a stupid look on their face is now unemployed. I don't need them. I already found their replacement.

Edit: I'm starting to think that not only is system 'broken', but many of our people are too. I should note I just got reading about a guy with $150k in debt for an entrepreneur degree and can't figure out how to get a job.

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

Um.... perhaps you should go back to insulting us. At least that has some entertainment value. The above steaming pile of tripe has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Go back to crying because you didn't get a day off, wanker. If what I said is unclear to you in any way, it's because you're deficient.

 

[Matt1970]

Wait I thought you righties always said you have to pay well to get the best talent or to keep it? Now you are saying that these guys aren't worth what they make now? So paying them less will make them better employees?

Or does paying for good talent only apply to CEO's?


And you say they are the morons? Lol!

The problem is you aren't going to get that much better of a fry cook or burger flipper no matter how much you pay. There just isn't that much room for improvement with those types of jobs. The difference between an average fry cook and a top of the line fry cook would pale in comparison between an average CEO and a top of the line CEO.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm sure you guys have studies that show a raise in pay doesn't lead to higher productivity. There is no way you guys are talking out of your asses! No way at all!

Lol!


Again, you righties claim CEO's need to be paid well to do well, to stay around, and to attract good talent but for some reason you think that doesn't apply to the bottom rung employees.
I'm sure you guys won't address that point...again.

 

[ivwshane]

When you post something that has even a hint of intelligence (rather than the rambling mess of nonsense you did post, demonstrating your inability to comprehend) I'll respond in kind.

Oh I'm sorry was my post not up to your level? Was your anecdotal story, some high minded intellectually deep, revelation that we are so lucky to have been graced with your insight?

Ok sure bud! I give what I get, you get garbage from me because garbage is all you offer.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm sure you guys have studies that show a raise in pay doesn't lead to higher productivity. There is no way you guys are talking out of your asses! No way at all!

Lol!


Again, you righties claim CEO's need to be paid well to do well, to stay around, and to attract good talent but for some reason you think that doesn't apply to the bottom rung employees.
I'm sure you guys won't address that point...again.

Why aren't these amazing employees who are held back only by their low pay moving on to bigger and better things? If the only reason they aren't model employees is because of their lowly wage, then surely some company is just waiting to snatch these superstars up and pay them more money. Right?

 

[ivwshane]

Why aren't these amazing employees who are held back only by their low pay moving on to bigger and better things? If the only reason they aren't model employees is because of their lowly wage, then surely some company is just waiting to snatch these superstars up and pay them more money. Right?

Who said they aren't? But let's be honest here, there isn't exactly a job surplus right now and middle class jobs are getting the boot left and right. There is a reason why the median age of minimum wage jobs is going up.

 

[PliotronX]

Why aren't these amazing employees who are held back only by their low pay moving on to bigger and better things? If the only reason they aren't model employees is because of their lowly wage, then surely some company is just waiting to snatch these superstars up and pay them more money. Right?

 

[bshole]

Fucking conservatives and their demand for a race to the bottom. We have a minimum wage that is 40% LOWER than it was in the 60s and these jackholes still oppose raising it? Do they really hate America that much? Completely and utterly indefensible.

 

[BoberFett]

Your tears sustain me.

 

[OverVolt]

$15 no. $8-10 then maybe.

These people asking for $15/hr have no idea the shitty jobs people put up with for $15/hr that would come flocking to Mcdonalds in a heartbeat.

Fast food restaurants aren't even doing that well financially. I do actually think years and years of underpaying their employees and treating them like shit has spread word of mouth via employees past and present to avoid the place. I borderline feel bad ordering from there with some single mom age 30 giving me my food who looks stressed out. Gone are the days of teenagers working there.

 

[realibrad]

I'm sure you guys have studies that show a raise in pay doesn't lead to higher productivity. There is no way you guys are talking out of your asses! No way at all!

Lol!


Again, you righties claim CEO's need to be paid well to do well, to stay around, and to attract good talent but for some reason you think that doesn't apply to the bottom rung employees.
I'm sure you guys won't address that point...again.

So lets work with the idea that pay does not represent the productivity/hr in dollars. I would think that your view is that the fast food worker is making 10/hr, but is actually producing a value of 16+/hr.

First, do you have any data to show that people are producing 16+/hr, or is that a belief without data? I would ask that you provide that, because it would be interesting to me. The question then becomes, how are companies able to get around wage competition? Assuming that there are enough jobs to employ everyone, why are wages not higher?

If firm A has 10 jobs that if each filled, would make 20/hr each in profits, and firm B has the same number of jobs that make the same profit, and there are only 10 workers, you would see competitive pressure to raise wages. This is because each firm wants to make the most money possible. If Firm A were to offer 15/hr, and Firm B were to offer 16/hr, then Firm A would make 0 profits, and Firm B would make 3/hr per employee. Firm A would then have to decide if they are willing to go above 16/hr to try and capture the 3/hr in profits. This is a simple situation and reality is a bit more complex.

So assuming people are producing far more than the wages they are collecting, must be due to downward pressure on wages. What most economists would say, is there are likely 2 main reasons for this. First, its possible that due to unequal information, people are not able to negotiate a higher wage, because they dont know what their worth is. That seems strange, because you would think that if companies were willing to pay more, it would be worth their time to lure those underpaid employees away. The other main idea, is that we have far more people fighting for low paying jobs, than there are low paying jobs. In that 2nd case, the competition on wages is on the workers, who do the same thing as I was describing before. Either they get a job for 10/hr, or they dont work at all.

I will assume that your argument is, that if its the 2nd idea, that companies should be forced to pay more to make up for labor competition. The problem with that is net job loss, at the expense of higher wages.

I said a lot though, so before I go into that part, I will leave this open to allow you to respond if you wish.

 

[OverVolt]

So lets work with the idea that pay does not represent the productivity/hr in dollars. I would think that your view is that the fast food worker is making 10/hr, but is actually producing a value of 16+/hr.

First, do you have any data to show that people are producing 16+/hr, or is that a belief without data? I would ask that you provide that, because it would be interesting to me. The question then becomes, how are companies able to get around wage competition? Assuming that there are enough jobs to employ everyone, why are wages not higher?

If firm A has 10 jobs that if each filled, would make 20/hr each in profits, and firm B has the same number of jobs that make the same profit, and there are only 10 workers, you would see competitive pressure to raise wages. This is because each firm wants to make the most money possible. If Firm A were to offer 15/hr, and Firm B were to offer 16/hr, then Firm A would make 0 profits, and Firm B would make 3/hr per employee. Firm A would then have to decide if they are willing to go above 16/hr to try and capture the 3/hr in profits. This is a simple situation and reality is a bit more complex.

So assuming people are producing far more than the wages they are collecting, must be due to downward pressure on wages. What most economists would say, is there are likely 2 main reasons for this. First, its possible that due to unequal information, people are not able to negotiate a higher wage, because they dont know what their worth is. That seems strange, because you would think that if companies were willing to pay more, it would be worth their time to lure those underpaid employees away. The other main idea, is that we have far more people fighting for low paying jobs, than there are low paying jobs. In that 2nd case, the competition on wages is on the workers, who do the same thing as I was describing before. Either they get a job for 10/hr, or they dont work at all.

I will assume that your argument is, that if its the 2nd idea, that companies should be forced to pay more to make up for labor competition. The problem with that is net job loss, at the expense of higher wages.

I said a lot though, so before I go into that part, I will leave this open to allow you to respond if you wish.

I think with the creation of internet job boards there is a temporary (couple of years) glut of job applicants. Glassdoor is like, you'd be perfect to be a developer at this company 2,554 miles away you should apply!

HR sees all these people applying and starts getting choosy and lowering wages. I think its mostly a faux surplus of workers. For jobs that really require a good worker, they have a hard time finding the right person.

So anywho a glut of applicants is keeping wages low.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/04/28/one-million-applications-62000-jobs-served-at-mcdonalds/

Close to 1,000,000 applicants for 62,000 jobs, remember that? Need anymore proof of a glut of applicants?

 

[1prophet]

You do not need absolute advantage, just comparative. Each and every country has comparative advantage in the production of something. It's a mathematical necessity. And it can be easily shown that specialization in that (and trade) is what brings about the best equilibrium for both parts. Import substitution is always a failing policy, precisely because it forces a country to ignore its comparative advantage.

The products that the US imports from China are products the US has no comparative advantage in. China does. As China climbs the ladder of product complexity the production of the things we today associate with China will move somewhere else. Rich countries are those capable of having comparative advantages in the production of very complex goods. You do not want to be in China's place given that you can instead be where you are now.

Trade balances are short term metrics, what we are talking about here are (very) long term ones (business cycles are just a blip to those who study growth theory).

P.s. In fact a country can maintain a current account deficit forever. You'll find the proof of this (intuitively surprising) fact in most introductory macro books (most likely in appendix).

When you say to hell with EPA, OSHA, Labor laws, and benefits and all you care about is making money you too can win the race to the gutter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-LLsODnuHI

 

[realibrad]

I think with the creation of internet job boards there is a temporary (couple of years) glut of job applicants. Glassdoor is like, you'd be perfect to be a developer at this company 2,554 miles away you should apply!

HR sees all these people applying and starts getting choosy and lowering wages. I think its mostly a faux surplus of workers. For jobs that really require a good worker, they have a hard time finding the right person.

So anywho a glut of applicants is keeping wages low.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/04/28/one-million-applications-62000-jobs-served-at-mcdonalds/

Close to 1,000,000 applicants for 62,000 jobs, remember that? Need anymore proof of a glut of applicants?

I would say that the frictions that used to hold people back from taking a job where they would have to move have been greatly reduced. Posting a nation wide search is cheaper than ever before. Transportation is always improving, so I am assuming that has gotten better as well. I would day that competition has increased, because, instead of competing in your city or state, you now compete nationally and even globally. So where as the individual used to be able to command higher wages because of reduced competition, its now reversing.

To me, this is why you are seeing big firms growing and middle to small firms failing. Big firms have have likely gotten that big by being efficient or having costs reduced, and can out compete other firms. That allows the firm to produce products that the competition cannot not, and thus take more market share due to people buying a cheaper and or superior product.

 

[OverVolt]

I would say that the frictions that used to hold people back from taking a job where they would have to move have been greatly reduced. Posting a nation wide search is cheaper than ever before. Transportation is always improving, so I am assuming that has gotten better as well. I would day that competition has increased, because, instead of competing in your city or state, you now compete nationally and even globally. So where as the individual used to be able to command higher wages because of reduced competition, its now reversing.

To me, this is why you are seeing big firms growing and middle to small firms failing. Big firms have have likely gotten that big by being efficient or having costs reduced, and can out compete other firms. That allows the firm to produce products that the competition cannot not, and thus take more market share due to people buying a cheaper and or superior product.

No.

Hence why I think internet job boards have led to a false sense of mobility and ability to relocate. You can apply for a job 2,500 miles away but just like before, most people barely move out of the 50 mile circle where they were born. With the housing crash and gas prices and such its actually the exact opposite trend. Its more expensive than ever to relocate and less companies offer it as a perk.

http://time.com/money/3393300/move-relocate-trade-up/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trulia/2013/09/27/americans-arent-yet-back-on-the-move/

So you're exactly the type of person I'm talking about.