In April fast-food workers in Cali will get $20 an hour

[Jack V Savage]

i thought you were out of the conversation after "winning".
sounds like you're back for more crying.
all my arguments are in my posts. any reasonable person can find what they need there. but you just wanted to run away. you're not a serious poster.

I suspect that guy is a troll.

We've already been over this. Supply and demand. This shit is so simple, I don't feel like going over it again with you. If you give a bunch of people a substantial raise, there is now more money floating around in the economy. This is demand.

Housing supply is not going to go up when fast food workers get a $4 raise so demand will rise at an artificial rate while supply is basically the same as it was before the raise. When you have more demand than supply, prices go up.

This is all so very simple. I really don't get why it even needs to be discussed.

The claim that poor people being less poor could cause some inflation in goods primarily consumed by the poor is plausible, though not well-supported by the evidence. The claim that it absolutely would cause so much inflation that it would 100% offset the income gains is absurd--not a result of any model and strongly contradicted by actual evidence.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yes. Clearly they are. A lot of restaurants have also stopped table service to cut back.

One impact from wage gains among low-skill workers is a search for efficiency that leads to higher labor productivity, which in turn drives more wage gains, etc. This is a really good thing if it happens. Don't know why "this measure will lead to more technological advances" is seen as a con argument.

 

[Source]

In my experience working fast food, there's usually like 5-6 people standing around for a job 2 competent people can do. Might take slightly longer, but I think you'll see the competent people stay and get paid better and they will just cut down to the bare minimum to get the job done, which will make wait times longer.

Places that do not have those competent people will turn into complete shit shows. Like 40 minutes wait for cold shit food missing half the items.

Do you think franchise owners are intentionally over staffing? That simply does not make any sense. It’s the owners best interest to always run as lean as possible while providing an appropriate turn around time. Have you ever worked in fast food.

 

[RoastBeast]

I suspect that guy is a troll.

The claim that poor people being less poor could cause some inflation in goods primarily consumed by the poor is plausible, though not well-supported by the evidence. The claim that it absolutely would cause so much inflation that it would 100% offset the income gains is absurd--not a result of any model and strongly contradicted by actual evidence.

Here we go with the Jack Savage dishonest argument. "Could cause some inflation in goods primarily consumed by the poor". Like housing?

You have no argument here because you would have to argue against supply and demand. It's not me you're debating, it's capitalism. Supply and demand is real and a half million people in California having an extra 5-7 grand or so to spend is going to bump the prices of everything they purchase up, including housing.

Think more than one step ahead here. Increasing demand without increasing supply just increases inflation. Housing doesn't just appear out of no where because half a million people now have a few grand extra to spend per year. The supply is the same, the demand is up so prices go up.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Here we go with the Jack Savage dishonest argument. "Could cause some inflation in goods primarily consumed by the poor". Like housing?

"Dishonest" has an actual meaning beyond just "makes me mad."

You have no argument here because you would have to argue against supply and demand.

This makes no sense. You can't just say "supply and demand" like a mantra and think that it supports any crazy claim you make. The problem with your assertion (doesn't even rise to the level of an argument) is that it is contradicted by the evidence, and there's no plausible logical argument for it. As I said, you can make an argument that higher wages will drive up some prices under certain plausible conditions. You cannot make an argument that higher wages will drive up prices in the real world to the point that they 100% eat up in the wage gains.

It's not me you're debating, it's capitalism. Supply and demand is real and a half million people in California having an extra 5-7 grand or so to spend is going to bump the prices of everything they purchase up, including housing.

I'm defending capitalism, actually. Your argument is based on magic, really. And it's an argument for why capitalism cannot drive up living standards.

 

[RoastBeast]

"Dishonest" has an actual meaning beyond just "makes me mad."



This makes no sense. You can't just say "supply and demand" like a mantra and think that it supports any crazy claim you make. The problem with your assertion (doesn't even rise to the level of an argument) is that it is contradicted by the evidence, and there's no plausible logical argument for it. As I said, you can make an argument that higher wages will drive up some prices under certain plausible conditions. You cannot make an argument that higher wages will drive up prices in the real world to the point that they 100% eat up in the wage gains.



I'm defending capitalism, actually. Your argument is based on magic, really. And it's an argument for why capitalism cannot drive up living standards.

Dishonest is pretending like the wage hike only drives up prices of "goods primarily consumed by the poor". Housing is not a good primarily consumed by the poor, yet the pricing of housing will be driven up. Stop being dishonest with your arguments and I'll start taking you seriously.

I can just say supply and demand because you have yet to refute it. Please tell me how housing won't be more expensive when there will now be a large influx of more applicants? The demand is now higher but supply is the same. What happens next in the magical make believe world of Jack Savage?

I guarantee nearly 100% of their wage gains will be eaten up when the market adjusts to it. When have burger flippers ever been able to live the American dream? When have they been able to support a spouse, two kids and a house with a white picket fence? They never have because the job itself is not worth that kind of value. If you artificially inflate the wages of those jobs beyond the value they provide, the market will adjust by driving prices up with the influx of extra money in the economy. That money appeared artificially. Not because value was added to he economy. That's inflation 101.

It's just simple supply and demand. You don't get it bend it to your needs. It is what it is.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

Good. How is this a bad idea?

 

[The XL]

People are mad at rasing minimums for labor, which is understandable, but fail to realize that government either directly or indirectly subsidizes those at the top too.

The only reason attornies get to charge $400 plus an hour is due to government making a bunch of nonsensical laws, allowing all kinds of fraudulent lawsuits etc which artificially raises demand. Psychiatrists charge hundreds of dollars an hour because government doesn't allow you to get your 20 dollar bottle of Ritalin without a prescription from one of them, even if you've been taking the medicine for years and don't really need to see them.

People are the top are way more subsidized than people at the bottom. So called high skill occupations are only profitable to the extent that they are due to outright government subsidizes or via government creating fake markets by creating unnecessary laws that hurt everyone else. It all winds up hurting people in the real economy who actually provide value

 

[DarthChen731]

I remember graduating from college 11 years ago and having a recruiter tell me that getting anything close to $20/hour was "basically impossible." Gotta love Murrican business.

 

[Morning Star]

They have 397 locations so this may affect them.
We will see.

When I was a teen (so ages ago) Inn N Out was notorious for paying more than other Fast Food and having good benefits. Indeed says average pay is $19.20/hr. Saw this online for SF Inn N Out.

They have pretty solid benefits for a burger joint too.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Dishonest is pretending like the wage hike only drives up prices of "goods primarily consumed by the poor". Housing is not a good primarily consumed by the poor, yet the pricing of housing will be driven up. Stop being dishonest with your arguments and I'll start taking you seriously.

Well, a wage hike specifically on fast food workers in one state would obviously not have a noticeable impact on overall price levels so I was reading your post generously to your argument--it could have an impact on more-specific items. But I guess that's what for trying to talk to a hotheaded partisan like a normal person.

I can just say supply and demand because you have yet to refute it.

There's nothing to refute. You didn't make any supply-and-demand-based argument for your theory. You just asserted it. I pointed out that people actually study the impact of, say, MW hikes (which isn't exactly the same thing but is related), and the results are not what you say. Additionally, people create models, and there's nothing that would back up the claim that a wage increase among low-skill workers in one sector would have the kind of price impact you're positing.

Please tell me how housing won't be more expensive when there will now be a large influx of more applicants? The demand is now higher but supply is the same. What happens next in the magical make believe world of Jack Savage?

Well, there's no magic to markets. If a small number of workers gets a modest raise, it might (or might not) have an impact on housing demand (not on the supply, unless the demand impact causes price increases, which would put pressure on supply to increase--this is actually how supply and demand works). But your claim was much more extreme than that--you said the price impact from the increase would 100% consume the benefit from the higher incomes. I pointed out that there is no logic or evidence to support that, and you started foaming at the mouth.

 

[Poatan Power]

It's an interesting conundrum. Increase minimum wage so the bottom tier of earners can make more livable wage, then everyone who employs them raises their prices and increases the cost of living. Keep fighting for scraps, peasants.

 

[emefer]

I say cut their pay so the prices of goods all across the country come down.
Supply and demand bitches.

 

[Clifford_Harris]

$20 an hour for $7 worth of work?

Still doesn't compare to the fleecing that Congress gets away with.

 

[shunyata]

Oh they CAN, they just don't want to and there's no real reason to. Unlike Europe there are no strong forces protecting workers rights. That's supposed to be the domain of the government, but they've been in the pocket of big business since before anyone on this board was born.

There was that one time we had a whole war about a bunch of rich guys wanting to own workers and never pay them.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's an interesting conundrum. Increase minimum wage so the bottom tier of earners can make more livable wage, then everyone who employs them raises their prices and increases the cost of living. Keep fighting for scraps, peasants.

But the wage increases are more than any increase in cost of living they cause.

Really, when we have really hot labor markets, as we do now, that takes care of this. And as I pointed out earlier, it also leads to a virtuous cycle. Higher wages leads companies to look for greater efficiencies and more labor-saving technology, which in turn drives up wages, etc. There's a plausible case for that being very important to the Industrial Revolution getting started.

 

[chardog]

pretty soon, automated ordering will be the only option at those franchises, and after that, only a matter of time before the rest of the operations.

 

[RoastBeast]

Well, a wage hike specifically on fast food workers in one state would obviously not have a noticeable impact on overall price levels so I was reading your post generously to your argument--it could have an impact on more-specific items. But I guess that's what for trying to talk to a hotheaded partisan like a normal person.



There's nothing to refute. You didn't make any supply-and-demand-based argument for your theory. You just asserted it. I pointed out that people actually study the impact of, say, MW hikes (which isn't exactly the same thing but is related), and the results are not what you say. Additionally, people create models, and there's nothing that would back up the claim that a wage increase among low-skill workers in one sector would have the kind of price impact you're positing.



Well, there's no magic to markets. If a small number of workers gets a modest raise, it might (or might not) have an impact on housing demand (not on the supply, unless the demand impact causes price increases, which would put pressure on supply to increase--this is actually how supply and demand works). But your claim was much more extreme than that--you said the price impact from the increase would 100% consume the benefit from the higher incomes. I pointed out that there is no logic or evidence to support that, and you started foaming at the mouth.

It's always easy to tell when you've lost the argument when you start minimizing everything. Half a million workers in a state getting roughly a 30% raise is not a small number, nor a modest raise. The most noticeable impact will be on low income housing. Prices will adjust and they'll be back where they started. The evidence is the world we live in. If giving people artificially large raises just made everyone's lives better, then we would already be living in that world. It's not sustainable and we all would just wind up back where we were in the beginning.

Minimum wage keeps rising, yet everyone is still in the same basic situation they've always been in. It's just the way capitalism is. If a bunch of fast food workers get a hefty raise, there's going to be a bunch of hungry sharks looking to capitalize on that. That's not me foaming at the mouth. That's just how the world works but it involves thinking more than one step ahead.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's always easy to tell when you've lost the argument when you start minimizing everything.

And I can tell when you know you are wrong when you start resorting to bizarre claims like this.

Half a million workers in a state getting roughly a 30% raise is not a small number, nor a modest raise. The most noticeable impact will be on low income housing. Prices will adjust and they'll be back where they started. The evidence is the world we live in. If giving people artificially large raises just made everyone's lives better, then we would already be living in that world. It's not sustainable and we all would just wind up back where we were in the beginning.

The world we live in is one where people get raises and it increases the amount of goods and services they can buy.

Minimum wage keeps rising, yet everyone is still in the same basic situation they've always been in.

MW doesn't, in fact, keep rising. And people do, in fact, see rising living standards.

 

[shunyata]

That simply isn't true, and my opinion has nothing to do with this.

20$/Hr x 40 Hr/Week x 52 Week/Annum = $41,600.

This means a two person household of high school dropouts would have access to an $83,200 income. That is higher than the median for the entire USA (all skills and education). The reason this isn't happening in other nations is multifaceted, but includes lower standards of living (yes, even in the EU).

Again, don't take my word for it:

2023, Release Tables: Real Median Household Income by State, Annual | FRED | St. Louis Fed

Release Table for 2023, Release Tables: Real Median Household Income by State, Annual. FRED: Download, graph, and track economic data.

fred.stlouisfed.org

And before anyone protest with respect to California explicitly, please see #6 on the list above; their median household income is $85,300.

Are you really going to bother with High School and College for just $2,100/year (before taxes)? Do you know what college costs? Consider the extra 2 years of High School alone cost $83.2k for 2 persons in lost wages, and that would take 39.6 years for the college degree or trade pursuit (at the median) to catch-up BEFORE whatever time and expense they incurred ... and this completely ignores investment potential of income over those 40 years. College would, literally, never be worth the investment for over 99% of the nation.

This entire bill is nonsense. You can no more generate wealth for the lower quintiles via legislation than you can increase national wealth via legislation. It doesn't work that way, or everyone everywhere would do it and everyone everywhere would be wealthy.

So you're saying with a guaranteed value of 2 fulltime workers in a household, their household income would be higher than median household income which includes a large number of households often having only one full time worker averaged in (it would include households with 2 but also 1 and 0 full time workers).

This isn't the flex you think it is.