Pizza hut lays off all its drivers just because minimum wage was increased.

[Twilight Hue]

OK. Interesting answer. So you consider Pizza Hut's response extreme? Pizza Hut's response is basic capitalism - to make changes to improve the bottom line without regard for the community or workers. Businesses that do more than that for their customers or employees do so for other reasons, and those are generally going to be smaller businesses - the kind where owners have to look such people in the face, or where they take pride in the product and service they offer.

Well it's likely best to ask these workers what they think.

Pizza Hut did hire them, and just to let them go arbitrarily just because of a wage increase is very fishy. If they really wanted to let go of people properly, then they would have done it through attrition.

Either way Pizza Hut deserves to have their image tarnished as an employer not friendly nor supportive to its employees.

 

[Revoltingest]

The mysteries of this religion called Unbridled Capitalism.

You wouldn't know it from your distant backward
country, but capitalism here is quite bridled.

 

[Revoltingest]

I mean you could make the same argument against any minimum wage laws. Are you against such?

My view is that no one deserves to lose
their business or job because of market
conditions. "Deserve" is the wrong word.

I oppose minimum wages because the
costs are higher than the benefits.
Here, wages are much higher than the
minimum. Where the min wage is above
what's paid, it will change the market to
curb labor, causing there to be fewer
jobs than there'd otherwise be.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lots of them it's probably not the best for them but what they can get.

Is this another way of saying they took
what they thought was the best job?
If so, then their employer "deserving" to
go out of business would have the
consequence of their losing the best
job available to them.
I say that's a bad thing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's not how businesses work. You may be confusing shareholders with the board of directors. The only voice shareholders really have is buying or selling their stock. The are not active in making company decisions. That's the job of the board of directors.

Is that why I was invited to vote on Microsoft's last board decision thingy? (truly, I'm in stocks for the money and nothing else. Microsoft especially makes crap products but this capitalist voodoo called dividends puts money in my account).
Is that why when Dollar Tree raised their prices pressure from shareholders was widely emphasised as one of the reasons?
Shareholders aren't gods and making money just by having money is just not good for an economyas long as the money is left to perpetually float upwards for no other reason than money acting like a money magnet.

Good for you! I hope it's a success. Not a topic for this thread, but I'd like to know more about it whenever you feel like sharing.

Thanks. The main idea is electronics repair, the other is selling art supplies, both drop shipping and in ways to my absolute best knowledge amd research no one else does.

 

[Estro Felino]

You wouldn't know it from your distant backward
country, but capitalism here is quite bridled.

In Europe people are not considered slaves to squeeze as lemons and then to throw in the trashcan.
Or at least...this was the sacred principle ...before some overseas godless élites came to impose that demonic thing on us. Neo-liberism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is this another way of saying they took
what they thought was the best job?
If so, then their employer "deserving" to
go out of business would have the
consequence of their losing the best
job available to them.
I say that's a bad thing.

No, it's a way of saying some of us get left scrapping the botton of the barrel. Like people who have been to jail, those with certain mental illnesses or physical handicaps, those who need a job but cannot get one elsewhere (I really got lucky this time). Like when I did inventory, most of my coworkers had either been to jail or had no marketable skills to speak of. But they still need a job because everyone needs money.

 

[Revoltingest]

In Europe people are not considered slaves to squeeze as lemons and then throwing them in the trashcan.
Or at least...this was the sacred principle ...before some overseas godless élites came to impose that demonic thing on us. Neo-liberism.

To dream of a goal doesn't mean the goal is realized.

Infographic: How Many People Are at Risk of Poverty in Europe?

This chart shows the share of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2023.

www.statista.com

Your country is notorious for people
who survive by pickpocketing.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, it's a way of saying some of us get left scrapping the botton of the barrel. Like people who have been to jail, those with certain mental illnesses or physical handicaps, those who need a job but cannot get one elsewhere (I really got lucky this time).

Businesses aren't welfare offices.
We hire people for their productivity,
not because we want to support them.
Support only happens because they
provide value in exchange for pay.

Like when I did inventory, most of my coworkers had either been to jail or had no marketable skills to speak of. But they still need a job because everyone needs money.

I hired people, & gave them marketable
skills to go get better jobs than I had.
It wasn't my intention. But it's how I got
good people....& some bad apples too.
One takes one's chances.

Tip in case you ever become an employer....
Have someone you want to fire, but don't
want to risk having to pay them unemployment
insurance?
Advance them some money.
You'll never see them again.
It really works.

 

[Heyo]

My view is that no one deserves to lose
their business or job because of market
conditions. "Deserve" is the wrong word.

I oppose minimum wages because the
costs are higher than the benefits.
Here, wages are much higher than the
minimum. Where the min wage is above
what's paid, it will change the market to
curb labor, causing there to be fewer
jobs than there'd otherwise be.

In a functioning economy, even a capitalist one, minimum wages shouldn't be needed.
And in Europe minimum wage was never such a topic as it is in the US. In fact, one of the most "socialist" countries didn't have one until recently. But then again, we have unions and laws that protect unionists.
So why do we have minimum wage now? 1. To balance some economically distorted industries and 2. to protect our social security system.
#1: some sectors of the economy are historically underpriced. Fast food was way too cheap to make any economic sense. That was only possible because wages were too low for regular workers. Introduction of a minimum wage helped the industry to become viable. It wouldn't have worked with "market self regulation" as someone wouldn't have always tried to undercut the competition and it wouldn't have changed on its own. Now consumers pay reasonable prices and the fast food industry can pay reasonable wages.
#2: paying less than a livable wage is parasitery capitalism. The costs of business get loaded off to the community as workers need additional assistance to get by. Minimum wage is self defence of the community.
Before the social security system lack of the opportunity to work for a living wage was offset by people having to resort to pick-pocketing and muggings. We found that to be a less desirable outcome than having a minimum wage.

Minimum wage will be no longer necessary when we have a universal basic income high enough to get by without any additional work. Then people simply wouldn't work if the pay isn't worth it. And I'd suppose that the UBI should be financed by taxes on corporations who are trying to be free loaders.

 

[Revoltingest]

In a functioning economy, even a capitalist one, minimum wages shouldn't be needed.

I agree.

#2: paying less than a livable wage is parasitery capitalism.

This is a political view, & not an economic one.
Some people aren't productive enuf to justify
what they need as a living wage.
In such a case, it's the responsibility of government
or a charity, not a business to support an indigent.

Minimum wage will be no longer necessary when we have a universal basic income....

That is the better solution than to expect individual
businesses to act as parents who subsidize the
unproductive.

 

[Brickjectivity]

---

It definitely is. Excessive loans means the company is over expanding and some CEOs are actually in the business of making profits at any and all costs. Then they run the company right into the ground after making a mint for shareholders and themselves, and then run away with the golden parachute to go and do the same exact things to another company.

Nortel Networks is a classic example. Kmart is another. Nortel hired a head cutter to pretend that firing lots of people would propel the company forward when in fact it ruined that company which today is rarely heard of. It was almost a household name at one time. Kmart was driven into the ground by a vulture capital venture, so its assets could be sold and its losses used as tax writeoffs. For years people watched as it was skillfully driven into the ground with bad buying decisions and absurdly high prices that could not be justified with its inconvenient locations and services. As part of the process Kmart crazily acquired Sears Roebuck, so that too could be ruined and assets liquidated. Loans unpayable, yet profits made in bankruptcy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Businesses aren't welfare offices.
We hire people for their productivity,
not because we want to support them.
Support only happens because they
provide value in exchange for pay.

Businesses tend to hire based on first impressions. This is why it took me over a year to get any sort of job, and it took that lomg despite me having skills and being such an excellent worker I'm being showered with praise and compliments and more hours and days than any other non-supervisor there.
And I know others who are fine, excellent workers but they don't get to chose their employer, they get stuck with what they get stuck with (what still happened to me but this time the employer isn't **** like I normally get stuck in).
This while employment thing just doesn't work in practice like it's supposed to on paper. If it did then you'd see more autistics dominanting the work world rather than making up a huge chunk of the under and unemployed (my job also made me a minority within a minority being autistic and being gainfully employed).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

#2: paying less than a livable wage is parasitery capitalism. The costs of business get loaded off to the community as workers need additional assistance to get by. Minimum wage is self defence of the community.

In America it's largely been some LWers who point this out. There is absolutely no reason at all the community should be subsidizing business costs because businesses are so cheap they pay so little that their employees still qualify for welfare benefits.
If you work your company should be giving you enough money for groceries, not we the tax payers.

 

[Revoltingest]

Businesses tend to hire based on first impressions.

That's not been my experience.
But impressions are a factor.

This is why it took me over a year to get any sort of job, and it took that lomg despite me having skills and being such an excellent worker I'm being showered with praise and compliments and more hours and days than any other non-supervisor there.
And I know others who are fine, excellent workers but they don't get to chose their employer, they get stuck with what they get stuck with (what still happened to me but this time the employer isn't **** like I normally get stuck in).
This while employment thing just doesn't work in practice like it's supposed to on paper. If it did then you'd see more autistics dominanting the work world rather than making up a huge chunk of the under and unemployed (my job also made me a minority within a minority being autistic and being gainfully employed).

If you think business is bad at hiring, you
should see what it's like in government.

If there's discrimination against hiring people
who are better workers than the initial impression
they make, then this presents an opportunity.
My company had a reputation for hiring "fat girls".
Why?
For a given wage level, they tended to be more
qualified because of (IMO) rejection by others.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's not been my experience.
But impressions are a factor.

Not your experience, but common enough that trends revealed in research have prompted some companies to utilize skill assessment in addition to interviews.
And that is has been shown to be a better way if doing than traditional interviews, where turning up the charm has a problem of getting inferior candidates hired over better ones. And because it gives employers a look at the skills of the applicant it's also been shown to help get autistic people employed in suitable fields (another big win-win as austic folk are often very skilled and good at what they do but chronically and severely under and unemployed).

If you think business is bad at hiring, you
should see what it's like in government.

These problems exist there as well. I can end up looking like that episode of the Office where Michael gets promoted up through the ranks just because the higher ups like him.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My company had a reputation for hiring "fat girls".

That IT serial killer of yours, did he happen to carry around unusual amounts of lotion?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

For a given wage level, they tended to be more
qualified because of (IMO) rejection by others.

Could you elaborate on what this means?
(treat the last three posts as one since I can't merge them if I mess up)

 

[Revoltingest]

Not your experience, but common enough that trends revealed in research have prompted some companies to utilize skill assessment in addition to interviews.
And that is has been shown to be a better way if doing than traditional interviews, where turning up the charm has a problem of getting inferior candidates hired over better ones. And because it gives employers a look at the skills of the applicant it's also been shown to help get autistic people employed in suitable fields (another big win-win as austic folk are often very skilled and good at what they do but chronically and severely under and unemployed).

These problems exist there as well. I can end up looking like that episode of the Office where Michael gets promoted up through the ranks just because the higher ups like him.

You have complaints about employers.
OK.
They need to stay profitable, so if government
changes the environment, they'll respond
accordingly.
It can be difficult to pay enuf to attract workers
who perform well enuf to be profitable.
Ya canna just retain people who cost more than
they're economic value. That's not sustainable.

 

[Revoltingest]

That IT serial killer of yours, did he happen to carry around unusual amounts of lotion?

He wasn't making a woman suit.
He stole identities, not skin.