Listen to The Perfect Scam Podcast and Nominate It for a People’s Choice Podcast Award! Find Out More

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Minimum Wage vs Living wage

329 Views
Message 1 of 51
Rich posted..


Re: Minimum Wage vs Living wage [ New ]
Options
Message 1 of 50 (23 Views)
‎06-26-2017 11:33 PM

KidBoy2 wrote:

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

And that does not show the number of small business that have closed because of the wage increase

You are still advocating we use government welfare programs to support these businesses? Even us Liberals think that is a lousy idea.

=======================================================

There you go again posting thing I never said. Why?

The people that will lose their jobs are some that will be on welfare thanks to a higher min wage. You like?

I care about small businesses...do you?

Again...you posted "The studies so far indicate the increase in Seattle to $15/hour (in steps) is greatly improving the lot of the working poor. "

Not so!

The truth...

A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news for liberals

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum...

When Seattle officials voted three years ago to incrementally boost the city's minimum wage up to $15 an hour, they'd hoped to improve the lives of low-income workers. Yet according to a major new study that could force economists to reassess past research on the issue, the hike has had the opposite effect.

The city is gradually increasing the hourly minimum to $15 over several years. Already, though, some employers have not been able to afford the increased minimums. They've cut their payrolls, putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go, the study found.

The costs to low-wage workers in Seattle outweighed the benefits by a ratio of three to one, according to the study, conducted by a group of economists at the University of Washington who were commissioned by the city. The study, published as a working paper Monday by the National Bureau of Economic Research, has not yet been peer reviewed.

On the whole, the study estimates, the average low-wage worker in the city lost $125 a month because of the hike in the minimum.
Report Inappropriate Content
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: Minimum Wage vs Living wage

354 Views
Message 2 of 51

KidBoy2 wrote:

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

And that does not show the number of small business that have closed because of the wage increase.

You are still advocating we use government welfare programs to support these businesses? Even us Liberals think that is a lousy idea. 

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Minimum Wage vs Living wage

364 Views
Message 3 of 51

rk9152 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:


Nice try. Lame, but nice. It is discriminatory to use 'needs' as a reason to pay different wages to employees doing the same work. It is not discriminatory to use 'needs' as one of the many reasons to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. But of course you knew that, at least I would hope so.


Cool - you got your insult in but you missed the fact that some call for a "livable" wage. That would vary by individual. if you are not in favor of that, why not just let those in favor of it deal with that portion of the discussion.


Livable is figured by an average.  Gee, try and focus.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Minimum Wage vs Living wage

379 Views
Message 4 of 51
Rich posted..

The studies so far indicate the increase in Seattle to $15/hour (in steps) is greatly improving the lot of the working poor.

========================================================

No, it's not FYI...one of many links about how it's hurting the low income workers.


A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news for liberals

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum...

When Seattle officials voted three years ago to incrementally boost the city's minimum wage up to $15 an hour, they'd hoped to improve the lives of low-income workers. Yet according to a major new study that could force economists to reassess past research on the issue, the hike has had the opposite effect.

The city is gradually increasing the hourly minimum to $15 over several years. Already, though, some employers have not been able to afford the increased minimums. They've cut their payrolls, putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go, the study found.

The costs to low-wage workers in Seattle outweighed the benefits by a ratio of three to one, according to the study, conducted by a group of economists at the University of Washington who were commissioned by the city. The study, published as a working paper Monday by the National Bureau of Economic Research, has not yet been peer reviewed.

On the whole, the study estimates, the average low-wage worker in the city lost $125 a month because of the hike in the minimum.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

And that does not show the number of small business that have closed because of the wage increase.
Report Inappropriate Content
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: Minimum Wage vs Living wage

386 Views
Message 5 of 51

rk9152 wrote:

Olderscout66 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

Olderscout66 wrote:

Republicans argue against a living wage because they claim many workers are not worth what it would take to sustain them in the society.

 

But as a society we do not allow those folks to starve and die like Republicans seem to think would be appropriate - we use tax dollars to keep them from starvation and death.

 

If the one hiring the worker does not think his/her effort is worth a "living wage", then they won't hire the person. But if they don't hire the person and the work HAS to be done, then either they'll add the duties to other workers, who will demand more money, or do it themselves, which is contrary to their Drone-like nature.

 

If the minimum wage in 1960 had kept pace with simple income inflation (CPI-I) the minimum wage would be $10.52/hour TODAY.  If a business could operate with $1.00/hr minimum in 1960, it can operate with a $10.52/hr minimum in 2017, but the Drones running the business today are drones while their counterpart in 1960 was the hardest worker in the place.

 

Republicans have taught employers to view themselves as "special" for the last 30 years, and their lie is now held as Gospel by the drones.

 

Time to STOP subsidizing greedy drones and demand they pay the fair price for their workers. No one putting in 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year should ever need Government assistance to support their family.


With all the rhetoric you omitted three key points:

With all the dogma, you missunderstand three key points:

1) If it cost more than it produces, how is increasing salaries or hiring employees possible; "IF", but the reality is IT COSTS LESS. First, the "cost" of replacing a burger-flipper is $4700, so if you just cut turnover from 6 times a year to 3, you pay for the hike to $15/hour and second you get a more productive worker.

 

2) If you raise the cost of a product by salaries, prices go up. How does that benefit the poor; The increase in prices are a tiny fraction of the increase in wages. Going to $15/hr would add about 16 cents to a Big Mack, and since EVERYBODY at the bottom is now getting the $15/hr, you'll sell a lot more product. Henry Ford did NOT double his workers pay so they could buy his cars. He did it because every month he had to replace 60% of his assembly line workers, and after the raise the number dropped below 10%. The car sales boomed because ol' Henry was poaching all the best workers, so very quickly EVERYBODY raised wages to $5/day and cut the day from 9 to 8 hours, so EVERYBODY could afford a Ford. Raising the minimum wage raises wages for all those workers, and they're the customers who can now afford more of you product.

3) If one person's needs are greater than another - do you pay the second one more? Silly question - But the $15/hr would cover just about EVERYBODY (who now makes $7.25/hr) needs and some would actually be able to save some of their pay.

 

Try to temporarily forget the greedy drones, the Republicans and the 1960s and try to deal with the logic of the situation as stated above.Try to perminently check the actual facts instead of spouting ancient Republican dogma that has NEVER been true and does not improve with age.

 


 


As always many words, personal insults, and little meaning but this caught my eye - "The increase in prices are a tiny fraction of the increase in wages." Then where does the rest of money come from??


The studies so far indicate the increase in Seattle to $15/hour (in steps) is greatly improving the lot of the working poor. There is one study trying to eliminate the "noise" of the general success of the Seattle economy that does not look as good but we shall see. Data is a good thing regardless of the outcome. 

 

I was struck by one post about how Wendys had raised wages to $9.65/hour and he was complaining that his wife's meal had increased to $10.....The employee has to work a full hour for that burger and fries. 

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Minimum Wage vs Living wage

402 Views
Message 6 of 51

Olderscout66 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

Olderscout66 wrote:

Republicans argue against a living wage because they claim many workers are not worth what it would take to sustain them in the society.

 

But as a society we do not allow those folks to starve and die like Republicans seem to think would be appropriate - we use tax dollars to keep them from starvation and death.

 

If the one hiring the worker does not think his/her effort is worth a "living wage", then they won't hire the person. But if they don't hire the person and the work HAS to be done, then either they'll add the duties to other workers, who will demand more money, or do it themselves, which is contrary to their Drone-like nature.

 

If the minimum wage in 1960 had kept pace with simple income inflation (CPI-I) the minimum wage would be $10.52/hour TODAY.  If a business could operate with $1.00/hr minimum in 1960, it can operate with a $10.52/hr minimum in 2017, but the Drones running the business today are drones while their counterpart in 1960 was the hardest worker in the place.

 

Republicans have taught employers to view themselves as "special" for the last 30 years, and their lie is now held as Gospel by the drones.

 

Time to STOP subsidizing greedy drones and demand they pay the fair price for their workers. No one putting in 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year should ever need Government assistance to support their family.


With all the rhetoric you omitted three key points:

With all the dogma, you missunderstand three key points:

1) If it cost more than it produces, how is increasing salaries or hiring employees possible; "IF", but the reality is IT COSTS LESS. First, the "cost" of replacing a burger-flipper is $4700, so if you just cut turnover from 6 times a year to 3, you pay for the hike to $15/hour and second you get a more productive worker.

 

2) If you raise the cost of a product by salaries, prices go up. How does that benefit the poor; The increase in prices are a tiny fraction of the increase in wages. Going to $15/hr would add about 16 cents to a Big Mack, and since EVERYBODY at the bottom is now getting the $15/hr, you'll sell a lot more product. Henry Ford did NOT double his workers pay so they could buy his cars. He did it because every month he had to replace 60% of his assembly line workers, and after the raise the number dropped below 10%. The car sales boomed because ol' Henry was poaching all the best workers, so very quickly EVERYBODY raised wages to $5/day and cut the day from 9 to 8 hours, so EVERYBODY could afford a Ford. Raising the minimum wage raises wages for all those workers, and they're the customers who can now afford more of you product.

3) If one person's needs are greater than another - do you pay the second one more? Silly question - But the $15/hr would cover just about EVERYBODY (who now makes $7.25/hr) needs and some would actually be able to save some of their pay.

 

Try to temporarily forget the greedy drones, the Republicans and the 1960s and try to deal with the logic of the situation as stated above.Try to perminently check the actual facts instead of spouting ancient Republican dogma that has NEVER been true and does not improve with age.

 


 


As always many words, personal insults, and little meaning but this caught my eye - "The increase in prices are a tiny fraction of the increase in wages." Then where does the rest of money come from??

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Minimum Wage vs Living wage

406 Views
Message 7 of 51

NerdyMom wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

pc6063 wrote:

 It has always been my understanding that living wages are tied to poverty levels, which are figured by cost of living in any given area, number of people in the family, and income.  Those who have the ability to see the big picture should realize that by increasing living wages, there are some who could escape poverty.

What would this mean??  Fewer people on food stamps, medicare, and needing subsidized housing.  Horrible idea, isn't it??

Saying that people should be paid according to the home situation is ludicrous, as in a blink of an eye, that could change, NOT TO MENTION IT IS ILLEGAL AND HIGHLY DISCRIMINATORY.  I find it very disturbing that people in this country are so selfish, shortsighted, and so lacking in insight that the idea of allowing people to earn a living wage is repugnant to them. SHAMEFUL!

 


I agree with your comments about the home situation. However, how do you define "a living wage" without considering such circumstances? They go a long way towards determing "need".


Governments, employers, and policy makers use what is called the self-sufficiency standard.  It's a survey of area costs, including housing, transportation, child care, and other necessities.  It looks at the number and ages of persons in a household.   This is different than looking at individual circumstances when employing someone.  

 

http://www.selfsufficiencystandard.org/

 

One such use of it may include policy makers who are studying whether to tear down old post-WWII apartments in favor of newer, high-end apartments, as part of their development plans.   How will that change rent composition and opportunities for lower-income people to find housing without governmental assistance?   

 

Another use may be when local economic development boards court certain businesses to locate in their state/county.   One of the discussion points could be average salaries and benefits provided to employees.  Knowing what your citizens need is an important part of successfully increasing business.

 

New businesses would use it to determine what wage point to start offering.   

 

All of these are macro decisions, though.  They don't look at the individual.   You can't offer less money to a woman because her husband has a good job.  

 

 Agreed, I think. Regional determinations vs individual determinations.

 

It seems that our fan of "livable wage" has dropped out leaving the rest of us to figure out what he meant.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Minimum Wage vs Living wage

406 Views
Message 8 of 51

ChasKy53 wrote:


Nice try. Lame, but nice. It is discriminatory to use 'needs' as a reason to pay different wages to employees doing the same work. It is not discriminatory to use 'needs' as one of the many reasons to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. But of course you knew that, at least I would hope so.


Cool - you got your insult in but you missed the fact that some call for a "livable" wage. That would vary by individual. if you are not in favor of that, why not just let those in favor of it deal with that portion of the discussion.

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: Minimum Wage vs Living wage

412 Views
Message 9 of 51

NerdyMom wrote:



Why are they so heavily in debt?  Sounds like a poor business model to me. 

 

 


It is a business model repeated over and over in the restaurant business, especially fast food, but not exclusively.  It is call a Franchise.

 

Franchise fee which is time specified + application fee + background check fee + start up cost + royalty fee (% of NET sales) + a % of net sales to the advertizing arm of the mother ship + another % of net sales for local advertizing as a commitment.  Some of the restaurants have lease agreements on the land.  If buying an existing location - the remodeling is a commitment to the mother ship.

 

According to Wendy's: https://www.wendys.com/en-us/about-wendys/franchising-faqs

What are the initial investments to develop a new Wendy’s restaurant?

There are many factors that influence the development costs for a new restaurant including, but not limited to:  the cost of real estate, building size and design features, local labor and building supplies, permitting, etc.  The estimated total investment required to begin operation of a new restaurant normally ranges from $2,000,000 to $3,500,000.

Report Inappropriate Content
Respected Social Butterfly

Re: Minimum Wage vs Living wage

419 Views
Message 10 of 51

easyed598 wrote:

Apparently you haven`t been to a McDonalds or Wendy`s for awhile .The trend is already there. Why  are  these chains  experimenting with automated servers? The franchise owners of these chains aren`t willing to use their profit to  pay high wages. Most of them are heavy in debt and have to compete with other chains to draw customers in with  competitive prices. Chuckle away but facts are facts.


Why are they so heavily in debt?  Sounds like a poor business model to me. 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content