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

[JudoThrowFiasco]

So long as it doesn't increase end user cost, meh. Issue franchises face is employee retention of staff already making 20 an hr.

 

[Sinister]

Clarence Thomas whined to a Congressman that $300k per year plus a pension isnt enough money for a guy with one adopted child. Just some perspective for those who sh*t on the working class for understanding their value.

 

[Jack V Savage]

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 with that often have 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.

I get the sense that there's something deeper going on with some of these arguments. People are offended by low-skill workers getting raises, and rather than simply express that as an emotional thing, they're making wildly implausible claims about concrete harm that can be done by it.

The idea that MW can be too high isn't particularly controversial, but the main concern is an increase in unemployment among MW workers. But if you look at IGM surveys on the issue, there is a lot of uncertainty expressed, in large part because studies of MW increases don't really show the kinds of effects that a lot of people expected. Could a higher MW for fast-food workers drive up fast-food costs? Sure. But remember that labor costs are about a third of total expenses, and lower-paid workers (obviously) make up a disproportionately low share of that. So let's say that a 30% increase in the lowest-paid workers salary causes a 10% increase in total labor costs. That's a 3.3% increase in total costs. Let's unrealistically (but charitably) say that they can pass on 100% of that additional impact. That doesn't even come close to offsetting the gains for the workers, and it's a very small burden for customers. More likely, it would lead to a combination of: 1. Some restaurants trying to get by with fewer employees--either through technological development or just accepting being a little short-handed, 2. Lower profits for owners, 3. Slower wage gains for higher-paid workers, and 4. Higher prices. I suspect that the change being absorbed by those different ways (plus more) is why we don't generally observe any impact (that is, there is some, but it's too small to measure in any particular area).

 

[shunyata]

I get the sense that there's something deeper going on with some of these arguments. People are offended by low-skill workers getting raises, and rather than simply express that as an emotional thing, they're making wildly implausible claims about concrete harm that can be done by it.

The idea that MW can be too high isn't particularly controversial, but the main concern is an increase in unemployment among MW workers. But if you look at IGM surveys on the issue, there is a lot of uncertainty expressed, in large part because studies of MW increases don't really show the kinds of effects that a lot of people expected. Could a higher MW for fast-food workers drive up fast-food costs? Sure. But remember that labor costs are about a third of total expenses, and lower-paid workers (obviously) make up a disproportionately low share of that. So let's say that a 30% increase in the lowest-paid workers salary causes a 10% increase in total labor costs. That's a 3.3% increase in total costs. Let's unrealistically (but charitably) say that they can pass on 100% of that additional impact. That doesn't even come close to offsetting the gains for the workers, and it's a very small burden for customers. More likely, it would lead to a combination of: 1. Some restaurants trying to get by with fewer employees--either through technological development or just accepting being a little short-handed, 2. Lower profits for owners, 3. Slower wage gains for higher-paid workers, and 4. Higher prices. I suspect that the change being absorbed by those different ways (plus more) is why we don't generally observe any impact (that is, there is some, but it's too small to measure in any particular area).

I live in an area that raised minimum wage to $15 an hour years ago. Our economy is booming. We're building infrastructure like crazy. Fast food jobs have already been offering $20 an hour even in the suburbs.

The running joke is that the state bird is the crane (construction crane).

The armchair economists are simping for big business when they complain about paying workers.

 

[Poatan Power]

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.

Oh, I don't disagree. These people spend 100% of their money, too, so it's great economy stimulation. But their lives don't seem to improve much and small percentages of cost increase affect them disproportionately.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Oh, I don't disagree. These people spend 100% of their money, too, so it's great economy stimulation. But their lives don't seem to improve much and small percentages of cost increase affect them disproportionately.

I think that last sentence is a bit of a misconception. Poorer workers disproportionately benefit from raises, and at least during the most recent period of high cost increases, they saw big relative gains on everyone else (because wage gains more than offset cost increases). In fact, I think that is part of the story of the divergence between perception and reality with regard to the economy (that is, middle-earners have seen gains, but lower earners have gained on them, which makes them feel less well off).

 

[no fat chicks]

Good, they should get paid even more. Fuck ever working at a fast food joint and fuck eating fast food.

 

[blackheart]

• In April, California fast-food workers are set to get a nearly 30% pay bump to $20 an hour.
• Fast-food chains such as Chipotle say they'll raise prices to offset the state's higher labor costs.
• Two Pizza Hut franchisees are laying off more than 1,200 delivery drivers in California.

I’m all for people making more money, but food prices in Cali are about to skyrocket! It’s already bad as it is, but can you imagine paying $30 for a combo at a fast-food joint?

Here is the executive compensation of the company that owns Pizza Hut in 2022:
Chief Executive Officer of YUM - $16,303,664
Chief Operating Officer and Chief People Officer of YUM - $5,028,926
Chief Financial Officer of YUM - $4,835,941
Chief Executive Officer of Taco Bell Division - $5,366,959
Chief Executive Officer of Pizza Hut Division - $4,704,483

Here is the executive compensation of Chipotle in 2022:
Chief Financial and Administrative Officer - $5,838,893
Chief Technology Officer - $5,520,205
Chief Restaurant Officer - $4,781,076
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer - $17,186,154
Chief Marketing Officer - $5,042,902
Former Chief Diversity, Inclusion and People Officer - $11,321,094

Just these 11 executives pocketed $85,930,297 in 2022 alone

But you're right man, fast food workers making $20 an hour are the real problem.

I swear to fucking god Americans are the most cucked people on planet earth

 

[emefer]

We can just pay them less and then subsidize the corporations paying low wages by using our tax dollars to provide government assistance to their low wage employees.

Some of the United States’ largest corporations, including McDonald’s and Walmart, employ thousands of workers who receive aid from federal assistance programs such as food stamps and Medicaid, according to the findings of a U.S. Government Accountability Office report commissioned by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

The nonpartisan watchdog agency’s analysis of data from the Census Bureau, as well as 15 state agencies across 11 states, found that “millions” of full-time workers rely on government assistance to make ends meet. The report focused on Medicaid benefits as well as recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

Walmart, McDonald's among largest employers of SNAP, Medicaid recipients: Report | Fox Business

Sen. Bernie Sanders reacted to the GAO report’s findings in a scathing tweet accusing firms of paying "starvation wages."

www.foxbusiness.com

 

[DiddlyDoodly]

It's all good. When their sink is leaking and they call a plumber, he'll charge them $100 an hour to fix it.

$20 an hour for a job requiring no skill is insane.

How would you like to be the guy working at a restaurant for 20 years that worked his way up to $20 an hour only to now have to train new people who make the same as he does. Talk about motivation.

 

[DiddlyDoodly]

Here is the executive compensation of the company that owns Pizza Hut in 2022:
Chief Executive Officer of YUM - $16,303,664
Chief Operating Officer and Chief People Officer of YUM - $5,028,926
Chief Financial Officer of YUM - $4,835,941
Chief Executive Officer of Taco Bell Division - $5,366,959
Chief Executive Officer of Pizza Hut Division - $4,704,483

Here is the executive compensation of Chipotle in 2022:
Chief Financial and Administrative Officer - $5,838,893
Chief Technology Officer - $5,520,205
Chief Restaurant Officer - $4,781,076
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer - $17,186,154
Chief Marketing Officer - $5,042,902
Former Chief Diversity, Inclusion and People Officer - $11,321,094

Just these 11 executives pocketed $85,930,297 in 2022 alone

But you're right man, fast food workers making $20 an hour are the real problem.

I swear to fucking god Americans are the most cucked people on planet earth

Clueless post.

If you are paying idiots $20 an hour to make cheeseburgers, how much do you pay electricians? Or anyone else with a skilled job? You realize this will all come full circle, right?

 

[DiddlyDoodly]

I live in an area that raised minimum wage to $15 an hour years ago. Our economy is booming. We're building infrastructure like crazy. Fast food jobs have already been offering $20 an hour even in the suburbs.

The running joke is that the state bird is the crane (construction crane).

The armchair economists are simping for big business when they complain about paying workers.

I guess is everyone is making at least $50,000 a year, then it's no big deal to pay $15 for a Big Mac, Fries, and a drink.

It's culture shock for anyone from out of town though.

 

[DiddlyDoodly]

From a guy who worked at and managed a restaurant chain from 1991 to 2007, this is how it works:

Instead of 7 workers playing grab-ass on a Friday Night at McDonalds, it will now be 4 workers busting their ass on Friday night at McDonalds.

McDonalds will raise their prices and cut people's hours so they won't have to pay them benefits.

 

[blackheart]

Clueless post.

If you are paying idiots $20 an hour to make cheeseburgers, how much do you pay electricians? Or anyone else with a skilled job? You realize this will all come full circle, right?

This is a classic brainlet take from rightists. For some reason you guys always seem to think that because some people are getting more, it automatically must come at the expense of yourself or another social class.

WTF do the wages of fast food workers have to do with the wages of electricians or other skilled workers? Those wage markets have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

Most skilled tradesman are making high 5 figures (80k, 90k) to 6 figures, some are even millionaires.

Is the suggestion here that fast food workers making $20 an hour is going to result in skilled trades making less? How the hell does that happen/work? What exactly is your point here?

"you realize this will all come full circle right?"

No I don't. What is "full circle?" What is the point that you are even making here?

 

[Two Crows]

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

Believe it or not, that is very close the same argument Milton Friedman made 50 years ago, and many Chicago school economists agree with this in large part. Governmental interference is nearly always harmful to free markets, regardless if it occurs at the bottom or the top of the income scale.

To clarify: he did not argue the wealthy, per se, received more beneficial distortions, but he did argue licensing, such as medical and legal, drove up market prices and we would be better served without them being mandatory.

 

[Two Crows]

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.

No, I'm stating the impact on Labor Supply is obvious and evident.

You also are comparing people with fully developed careers to "day 1" at the bottom rung with zero experience and no skills or education. It literally becomes a floor.

Would you prefer if were framed more complex, by accounting for these factors? If I do the work and present the data, Could it sway you or your view of the issue in any fashion? If so, I'm absolutely willing to jump in.

I had to peak, just out of curiosity, and I can tell you the group I used as an example, as an individual rather than a couple, is making ~$31k at entry level right now (at least, as of 2022 in the USA) in ALL fields, not just restaurants. If nothing else, before we take this even 1 step further, do we agree $40k day 1 looks significantly better than $31k day 1, and that pay influences workers job decisions? We agree that most rational actors would take the higher paying job, barring excessive factors like personal safety?

 

[Mike]

I guess is everyone is making at least $50,000 a year, then it's no big deal to pay $15 for a Big Mac, Fries, and a drink.

It's culture shock for anyone from out of town though.

It's not the 90s anymore though. People making 50k are living in one bedroom apartments, not houses.

 

[Larzon]

Anyone of you Americans who can afford to move to Europe or Australia/NZ should.

 

[Mike]

Anyone of you Americans who can afford to move to Europe or Australia/NZ should.

For the broke here it's hard to raise enough money to move states. Once your stuck living paycheck to paycheck it's really hard to get out of it. I was fortunate to be able to move where I am now, much better blue collar labor market than other states I've lived in.

 

[Larzon]

For the broke here it's hard to raise enough money to move states. Once your stuck living paycheck to paycheck it's really hard to get out of it. I was fortunate to be able to move where I am now, much better blue collar labor market than other states I've lived in.

99% of most Americans from BOTH sides of your political system are cool people but wow your nation would be scary to live in.