Woman says legacy restaurants are closing because nobody will work for them

[Watchmen]

Nope. I wasn't saying two different things.

I stand by people who want a living wage, but point out the issues when the minimum wages is brought to speed.

That should settle it.

I want a living wage!
Your increased minimum wage sucks!

That’s what I got from you.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It may also be the case that the owners/managers of legacy restaurants may be unable or unwilling to make changes to their business in order to deal with changes in their business environment. If the nature of the community has changed, say, incomes having gone up or down, or populations dynamics have changed since it was originally founded...not to mention changes in technology and the availability of foodstuffs and supplies...it might take an adaptation to those changed conditions to continue on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree with the purpose of working. But how is that the employers responsibility?

If an employer pays so little that their employees are forced to use some form of social assistance, then the business is effectively receiving a government subsidy. Every taxpayer is entitled to a say about whether that subsidy is money well-spent.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I used to envy my sister when she worked as a waitress. She would literally bring home a grocery bag full of money and counted it on the table of tips she made for the evening she then used that money to put herself through college.

She made more money waitressing than I did trucking , but truth be told it depends upon where you work where tips may be good or tips may be lousy , so I'm an advocate for paying people who do that kind of work a proper living wage because tips won't always get them through if they don't work in a place that is ideal for making a lot of money via tipping.

It's also stressful when you depend on tips. They don't always happen. When I did rideshare I could make double what I do now as a phlebotomist. But if the tips weren't good that day I may have made hardly anything after gas.
But often times I'd stuff my hiding places for cash tips, people who promised to tip were big wieners if they didn't tip at least $20 and I myself ate at Red Lobster every week and tipped 20s. And it sucks knowing your income is actually depending on the generosity of others who are customers who have already paid and are expected to pay even more.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

If you want someone to work for you it is your responsibility to pay them enough so they can live while working for you.

No, it is the employers responsibility to pay them what both agreed to and keep the terms of any agreements made.

Would you want someone working full time for you living on the streets because they can't afford rent? Or would you want them suffering from malnutrition because they can't afford food?

No.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Won't be in business for long if people can't make a living to go in your store and buy stuff.

Ok, but that is the decision of the business owner.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it is the employers responsibility to pay them what both agreed to and keep the terms of any agreements made.

It's both parties' responsibility to behave ethically. Taking advantage of a coercive situation (e.g. that the employee will lose their home if they don't have this job) is unethical.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

If an employer pays so little that their employees are forced to use some form of social assistance, then the business is effectively receiving a government subsidy. Every taxpayer is entitled to a say about whether that subsidy is money well-spent.

No it is not receiving anything. Aren't businesses taxed? I think a minimum wage should be calculated based on how it best benefits everyone. I think the current minimum wage should be increased but $15 - $20 is probably too much and results in net negative results such as higher unemployment, more automation etc.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It's both parties' responsibility to behave ethically. Taking advantage of a coercive situation (e.g. that the employee will lose their home if they don't have this job) is unethical.

I agree all parties need to operate ethically within the law. How is it unethical for a business to say I have a job that pays this much and it adheres to all laws and we are offering it to you. Would you like the job?

Why does a business have to pay a worker enough to cover whatever they ask for?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No it is not receiving anything.

Of course it is. It's receiving an employee that can afford to work for them at poverty wages. It gets it because the government tops up the employee's wages to get them above the poverty line.

Aren't businesses taxed?

Generally they are, but is the level of taxation sufficient? The fact that a company pays some tax doesn't automatically mean that the company benefits society more than it leeches off society.

I think a minimum wage should be calculated based on how it best benefits everyone. I think the current minimum wage should be increased but $15 - $20 is probably too much and results in net negative results such as higher unemployment, more automation etc.

How did you decide that $15-$20 is "too much"? Too much for what?

And can you point to any job that's at risk from automation at $20/h but is safe from automation at, say, $2/h?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree all parties need to operate ethically within the law. How is it unethical for a business to say I have a job that pays this much and it adheres to all laws and we are offering it to you. Would you like the job?

Do you think that "if this offer were any worse, it would be illegal" necessarily implies "this offer is ethical"?

Do you think that an employer would be justified in firing an employee who only ever did the exact bare minimum the law requires?

Why does a business have to pay a worker enough to cover whatever they ask for?

I didn't say that they did. I said that a business shouldn't take advantage of coercive situations. The objective should be a wage that would be willingly agreed to by two parties of roughly equal-strength bargaining positions. A rough estimate would be the wage level a decent union could get through collective bargaining in a similar situation.

... which could actually mean paying a coerced, uninformed employee far higher than what they're asking for.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Of course it is. It's receiving an employee that can afford to work for them at poverty wages. It gets it because the government tops up the employee's wages to get them above the poverty line.

Then they employee should not work for that employer. There are many companies that have increased their minimum wages voluntarily to attract workers. This is not a problem with the employer that is following the laws, it is a problem with the politicians that make the laws it seems.

Generally they are, but is the level of taxation sufficient? The fact that a company pays some tax doesn't automatically mean that the company benefits society more than it leeches off society.

Again how is this the companies problem? They are obeying all the laws and getting taxed at the rate the law says.

How did you decide that $15-$20 is "too much"? Too much for what?

Wasn't there a thread here where pizza hut in California was cutting workers because of the new $20 minimum wage? You do agree that there is a limit to how high the minimum wage can be?

And can you point to any job that's at risk from automation at $20/h but is safe from automation at, say, $2/h?

That is a calculation that is up to the businesses. If an automated process can be used instead of human labor then at some point the cost benefit makes sense. That is different for each business. If the cost of labor goes up the benefit for automation increases.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Do you think that "if this offer were any worse, it would be illegal" necessarily implies "this offer is ethical"?

Yes, that is ethical. You cannot force a company to pay someone whatever you think is right.

Do you think that an employer would be justified in firing an employee who only ever did the exact bare minimum the law requires?

If the employee is meeting the terms of their employment then they should not be fired just for that.

I didn't say that they did. I said that a business shouldn't take advantage of coercive situations. The objective should be a wage that would be willingly agreed to by two parties of roughly equal-strength bargaining positions. A rough estimate would be the wage level a decent union could get through collective bargaining in a similar situation.
... which could actually mean paying a coerced, uninformed employee far higher than what they're asking for.

Then the employee should look for that situation. No employer is required to hire anyone, but if they decide to hire someone they need to follow the laws and treat them with respect to those laws. It sounds like you don't like the current laws and that is not the employers problem. Challenge the politicians to change the laws. California is changing laws and companies are required to follow them. We will see if they work.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then they employee should not work for that employer. There are many companies that have increased their minimum wages voluntarily to attract workers.

There are plenty of places where there are no other employers hiring.

And if you're unemployed and looking for low-wage work, odds are you don't have enough money in your chequing account to cover first and last month at a new place along with moving expenses in order to be somewhere where the job market is better.

This is not a problem with the employer that is following the laws, it is a problem with the politicians that make the laws it seems.

Again: it's unethical to take advantage of someone's coerced position. Not all unethical things are illegal.

Again how is this the companies problem? They are obeying all the laws and getting taxed at the rate the law says.

In your mind, does "barely meets the minimum the law requires" imply "ethical"? That's what we're talking about here.

Wasn't there a thread here where pizza hut in California was cutting workers because of the new $20 minimum wage?

You misunderstand what happened in California.

Those Pizza Huts decided to get rid of their staff drivers (at $20/h) to replace them with app-based services. The drivers for those app-based services have a minimum wage of $26/h while driving. Pizza Hut would have had to pay minimum wage for their drivers' standby time, but app-based services get to pay $0/h for driver standby time.

... so the California thing isn't about where the minimum wage should be; it's about the situations when employers are allowed to pay workers nothing at all.

You do agree that there is a limit to how high the minimum wage can be?

So when you said "too much," it wasn't like you had a particular level of poverty that you think a minimum wage worker ought to live in?

That is a calculation that is up to the businesses. If an automated process can be used instead of human labor then at some point the cost benefit makes sense. That is different for each business. If the cost of labor goes up the benefit for automation increases.

Interesting way to dance around my question.

Automation technology gets cheaper all the time. If the break-even point for some system is $20/h today, it's going to be $10/h in 6 months, and $5/h 6 months after that, then $2.50/h, then $1.25/h, etc.

A job that's vulnerable to automation will get automated no matter what the wage is. Arguing that we shouldn't increase the minimum wage because of automation risks shows a misunderstanding of reality.

 

[crossfire]

No it is not receiving anything. Aren't businesses taxed? I think a minimum wage should be calculated based on how it best benefits everyone. I think the current minimum wage should be increased but $15 - $20 is probably too much and results in net negative results such as higher unemployment, more automation etc.

The areas in my state with the highest minimum wages ($19.71/hr-20.28/hr) has lower unemployment rates than areas in my state with the State minimum wage ($16.28/hr.)

 

[metis]

Do any others here observe that the staunch MAGA supporters tend to not give a damn about lower-income employees?

 

[Pogo]

Do any others here observe that the staunch MAGA supporters tend to not give a damn about lower-income employees?

I don't see that they care about anybody but themselves and how they are getting screwed by perceived others that they conveniently don't interact with. It is the weird metastasis of the me too generation philosophy with the remnants of laissez faire 80's horses**t economics. Let's destroy the government while blaming it for my problems at the same time.

 

[Pogo]

The areas in my state with the highest minimum wages ($19.71/hr-20.28/hr) has lower unemployment rates than areas in my state with the State minimum wage ($16.28/hr.)

Pretty much true of the whole country, and guess who pays the federal taxes to support the low income states?

 

[metis]

I don't see that they care about anybody but themselves and how they are getting screwed by perceived others that they conveniently don't interact with. It is the weird metastasis of the me too generation philosophy with the remnants of laissez faire 80's horses**t economics. Let's destroy the government while blaming it for my problems at the same time.

Exactly, and when a significant portion of the population feels disenfranchised, watch out.

 

[Pogo]

Exactly, and when a significant portion of the population feels disenfranchised, watch out.

Yeah, recovering from all the shot feet may bring us all down.