• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

California burger flippers are soon to be making 20 bucks an hour under minimum wage law.

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The problem with such legislation is that lawmakers
take this same view, ie, that it's a simplistic philosophical
argument. It imagines the desired consequences, but it
it's not based upon analysis of the range of real world
consequences.
- How many jobs will be replaced due to increased
pressure to automate?
- How much will prices rise?
- What will be the effect of higher prices?
- Will the market contract, leading to job loss.

I don't think it would necessarily affect automation, as that seems a reality which will be more and more prevalent in the coming years. My main point here is that, if it's a job which requires a human being to do it, then that human being has rights (other than the right to simply quit). Regardless of how menial or lowly the job might be, if it needs to get done by a human, then that human must be treated with respect, dignity, and with scrupulous regard to their human rights (which would include fair compensation).

Automation will certainly make a difference, and there may be job loss and price adjustments. But it may lead to a larger percentage of idle people, as there simply won't be enough work to go around for everyone. But presumably, all the necessary work to keep society functioning will still get done. What will happen to all these extra, superfluous people?
 

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
There are answers to these questions, which are probably more complicated than what would seem on the surface.
I knew that coming in, which is why I wanted to be clear that I wasn't expecting the hypothetical to be extended in any particular direction. Bring out the complications!
However, the fact is, a lot of people actually do improve their own situation and move up to better paying jobs. But it's also the case that society needs someone to do these jobs,
I don't know that it is a fact that many low-wage jobs are needed. Such is a function of free exchange. Human beings have obvious needs, but in a free market what is really being determined is what is wanted. When governments manipulate the market with forced pay increases, governmentnot the market—is declaring for society that the jobs in question are wanted. That actually perpetuates the plight of low-wage earners, because they stay in jobs they should be leaving (because the market can't support them; ie, the consumers don't want the products or services (at the going rates)).

Of course, as you pointed out above, the real-life situations of many people are more complicated than this, so we should be empathetic to anyone who feels trapped in low-wage jobs. At the same time, if we care, we'll do what is within our power to inspire upward movement in persons in such situations.
and they're still human beings and deserve proper compensation for their labor.
And what is "proper" compensation? Who gets to determine that? What, for example, IS the right wage for a fast-food employee? In a free-exchange market, it is whatever the employer and employee negotiate—nothing more, nothing less. Government should not interfere.

Again, I understand that complexities in human life and society put pressure on persons facing these questions. Certain laws need to change to make the playing field equal for all persons. That is clear. And because the playing field is made "not equal" by government, many problems result, and government is turned to for solutions to the problems it created (an irony that is not lost on the fact that government then only makes the problem worse with its "solutions").

That is where we are today. Yes, we should turn to government—to right the laws and then butt out entirely, except to administer justice to those who cheat or injure.

So while certain, sensible principles should always be looked to when answering these questions, compassion should be given to those in difficult situations because government is not providing equal protection under the laws.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I don't think it would necessarily affect automation......
It necessarily will. Labor & automation each have
costs. The relatively lower one tends to prevail.
There are other factors, eg, quality control, capital
availability, labor availability, tech availability.
But they only influence the fundamental desire
to cut costs.
Automation has already entered Italy's fast food,
eg, pizza machines that accept payment, & cook
from scratch with no humans involved (other
than refilling ingredients).
What will happen to all these extra, superfluous people?
This is something that advocates don't address.
They just tout workers earning a higher wage.
 
Last edited:

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It necessarily will. Labor & automation each have
costs. The relatively lower one tends to prevail.
There are other factors, eg, quality control, capital
availability, labor availability, tech availability.
But they only influence the fundamental desire
to cut costs.
Automation has already enter fast food, eg, pizza
machines that accept payment, & cook from scratch
with no humans involved (other than refilling
ingredients).

Yes, although my point was that automation is a reality regardless of what anyone does regarding wages. Automation will tend to be cheaper, but the technology isn't quite there yet to completely replace people. The first thing we should do is replace all the lawyers with robots, and then go from there.

This is something that advocates don't address.
They just tout workers earning a higher wage.

It's a valid question which will have to be looked at.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yes, although my point was that automation is a reality regardless of what anyone does regarding wages.
Of course it's a reality that looms large.
But that ignores the consequences of
increasing the price of labor. It will
have an incremental effect
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
So then it is not a raise of the State Minimum Wage...
No, it's a way to bypass Unions, and all of the mess that happens when some locations unionize and others don't. The Fast Food Committee has corporate reps, franchisee reps, employee reps, employee advocates, as well as a member from the public. The committee takes over the negotiations that normally take place between the corporations and the unions, without employees having to pay union dues or giving the unions the political sway that they have.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No, it's a way to bypass Unions, and all of the mess that happens when some locations unionize and others don't. The Fast Food Committee has corporate reps, franchisee reps, employee reps, employee advocates, as well as a member from the public. The committee takes over the negotiations that normally take place between the corporations and the unions, without employees having to pay union dues or giving the unions the political sway that they have.
A return to guilds perhaps?
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
A return to guilds perhaps?
Guild members were self-employed. This includes not only the self-employed, but also the corporations and the employees. Guilds were large. The Fast Food Committee only has 9 members.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The article's author doesn't know what "comprise" means.

Anyway, if the law affects only fast food workers,
will they have separate legislation for the same or
a different min wage for clerks, for waiters, for
groundskeepers, for trash collectors, for.....etc.
That'll be a whole lotta bills.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The article's author doesn't know what "comprise" means.

Anyway, if the law affects only fast food workers,
will they have separate legislation for the same or
a different min wage for clerks, for waiters, for
groundskeepers, for trash collectors, for.....etc.
That'll be a whole lotta bills.
Welcome to California. Never ending bills and propositions in the name of employee rights.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!

Sounds good but......

Thousands already have lost their fast food jobs ahead of the increase.




It's a cruel twist of fate and what do you think is going to happen to the state economy when fast food prices are increased even more than it already has?

Will the struggle between having a living wage and price increases kill the whole purpose of having a livable wage in the first place?

What's the point if the extra money made just gets eaten up when things get even more expensive than ever , bringing things back around to square one , and people can't afford anything because of lost jobs and even new higher prices making the extra difference useless.

It's like giving a raise but higher prices will just eat up the extra income literally. A vicious cycle.

It's a catch 22. Damned if you do, dammed if you don't.

Thoughts?
Do they really believe they can just raise the minimum wage this much without consequences?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Do they really believe they can just raise the minimum wage this much without consequences?
It smaks of favoritism. Notice it isn't for the entire state, but involves the fast food industry exclusively , and even less so for the CEO of Panera Bread who is one of the governor's largest campaign donors who miracles of miracles was conveniently exempted from this.




 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
It smaks of favoritism. Notice it isn't for the entire state, but involves the fast food industry exclusively , and even less so for the CEO of Panera Bread who is one of the governor's largest campaign donors who miracles of miracles was conveniently exempted from this.




This makes it look even more like a union-busting move.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
This makes it look even more like a union-busting move.
I'd agree if it wasn’t for the fact that these bills were union backed.


I see it as a move to eliminate small businesses in favor of behemoth fortune 500 conglomerates with the goal of cornering the market and eliminating a vast swath of their less wealthy mom and pop competitors.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
I'd agree if it wasn’t for the fact that these bills were union backed.


I see it as a move to eliminate small businesses in favor of behemoth fortune 500 conglomerates with the goal of cornering the market and eliminating a vast swath of their less wealthy mom and pop competitors.
Interesting!

Keith Miller owns three Subway sandwich shops in Northern California and is spokesperson for the American Association of Franchisees & Dealers, which opposed the fast-food worker legislation. The law passed with support from major fast-food chains, which gained assurances that unions would drop an initiative that would have made the chains liable for their franchises’ labor violations.

Under the law, Miller said, franchisors like McDonald’s or Subway avoid responsibility but franchisees like him will bear the costs of paying higher wages.
Now, I don't see how the corporations would be avoiding responsibility. If a corporate store is violating labor laws, then corporate would be responsible. If a franchisee is violating labor laws, then one would think that the franchisee would bear responsibility, not the corporation.
 

Wirey

Fartist

Sounds good but......

Thousands already have lost their fast food jobs ahead of the increase.




It's a cruel twist of fate and what do you think is going to happen to the state economy when fast food prices are increased even more than it already has?

Will the struggle between having a living wage and price increases kill the whole purpose of having a livable wage in the first place?

What's the point if the extra money made just gets eaten up when things get even more expensive than ever , bringing things back around to square one , and people can't afford anything because of lost jobs and even new higher prices making the extra difference useless.

It's like giving a raise but higher prices will just eat up the extra income literally. A vicious cycle.

It's a catch 22. Damned if you do, dammed if you don't.

Thoughts?
Are we really discussing what will happen to the economy if we pay someone a living wage?

Here's how I would try to explain this. There's a mega-corporation (we'll call them Micdonalds). Micdonalds pays their employees less than it costs to eat and have shelter and to live every day, and by hiring lots of people instead of just a few, and giving them short work weeks, they can call them "part time" and pays no benefits. The people, who either need to come up with $90k a year to further their education, or join the army and get their legs blown off overseas, don't really have other employment options so they have to take a job with this behemoth. As Micdonalds controls the politicians through graft, nothing is done to change it. As a result, Micdonalds gets very, very rich with the money they save not allowing their employees to, you know, live.

Micdonalds employees remain human. They require food, housing, and medical care, no matter how much we try to ignore them. Being broke all the time, they eat garbage like Micdonalds. Working 70 hours a week because they can't afford food, housing, or medical care if they don't, their physical and medical health gets worse. The government, in order to avoid the collapse of society, is forced to fund programs to keep them alive with my tax money. In essence, my tax dollars are used to fund Micdonalds' business, which sends all the money it makes to the buttheads who bought the politicians in the first place. Every single taxpayer donates their taxes to Micdonalds because Micdonalds has rigged the system against the average citizen.

I own a business, and I pay my employees fairly well. They aren't starving, or working two jobs. I am a competent business owner, and don't need to ruin people's lives and collect "business welfare". If my business is going to fail because my employees deserve to live, my business deserves to fail. And save taxpayer dollars. I have been around long enough to have heard the same lamentations every time the minimum wage has gone up, and yet, the Micdonalds of the world just keep right on rolling. There's no shortage of hairdressers, nail salons, used car dealerships, tire rotation shops, or terrible fast-food dumps so far. If a $20 minimum wage is so onerous that it will destroy the economy, what does that say about the economy?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Are we really discussing what will happen to the economy if we pay someone a living wage?

Here's how I would try to explain this. There's a mega-corporation (we'll call them Micdonalds). Micdonalds pays their employees less than it costs to eat and have shelter and to live every day, and by hiring lots of people instead of just a few, and giving them short work weeks, they can call them "part time" and pays no benefits. The people, who either need to come up with $90k a year to further their education, or join the army and get their legs blown off overseas, don't really have other employment options so they have to take a job with this behemoth. As Micdonalds controls the politicians through graft, nothing is done to change it. As a result, Micdonalds gets very, very rich with the money they save not allowing their employees to, you know, live.

Micdonalds employees remain human. They require food, housing, and medical care, no matter how much we try to ignore them. Being broke all the time, they eat garbage like Micdonalds. Working 70 hours a week because they can't afford food, housing, or medical care if they don't, their physical and medical health gets worse. The government, in order to avoid the collapse of society, is forced to fund programs to keep them alive with my tax money. In essence, my tax dollars are used to fund Micdonalds' business, which sends all the money it makes to the buttheads who bought the politicians in the first place. Every single taxpayer donates their taxes to Micdonalds because Micdonalds has rigged the system against the average citizen.

I own a business, and I pay my employees fairly well. They aren't starving, or working two jobs. I am a competent business owner, and don't need to ruin people's lives and collect "business welfare". If my business is going to fail because my employees deserve to live, my business deserves to fail. And save taxpayer dollars. I have been around long enough to have heard the same lamentations every time the minimum wage has gone up, and yet, the Micdonalds of the world just keep right on rolling. There's no shortage of hairdressers, nail salons, used car dealerships, tire rotation shops, or terrible fast-food dumps so far. If a $20 minimum wage is so onerous that it will destroy the economy, what does that say about the economy?
Post #96
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I don't think it would necessarily affect automation, as that seems a reality which will be more and more prevalent in the coming years.
Indeed.

If there's a job where the break-even point for automating it today is at labour costs of $20/h plus benefits, wait a year and the break-even point will be $10/h. A year after that and it'll be $5/h, then $2.50/h, then $1.25/h, etc., etc.

Any job that would be lost to automation because of a minimum wage increase is a job that's set to be eliminated in a few months anyhow.
 
Top