0
JohnnyMarko

Minimum Wage

Recommended Posts

Hi Coreece,

Quote

. . . for 9/hr, he would switch places with the old mildly educated dock worker who does . . .



This is not particularly directed at you. But just where do you guys find longshoreman who work for $9/hr?

They sure do not around here; probably about three times that wage.

:o

JerryBaumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen

Hi Coreece,

Quote

. . . for 9/hr, he would switch places with the old mildly educated dock worker who does . . .



This is not particularly directed at you. But just where do you guys find longshoreman who work for $9/hr?

They sure do not around here; probably about three times that wage.

:o

JerryBaumchen



Sorry for the confusion, I was thinking more along the lines of loading docks:
https://www.google.com/search?q=loading+dock&client=firefox-a&hs=pcl&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=I2WBU7bKJei38AGl6IH4DA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=634

...but any back breaking physical labor for peanuts+ will work in my scenario.
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coreece

Well, as I said...since the young uneducated stud was fired from Mcdonalds for not living up to their new standards of customer service/up-selling for 9/hr, he would switch places with the old mildly educated dock worker who does.

The uneducated stud that was working for Mcdonalds still gets his "raise" because of the value of his muscle at the docks, and the old mildly educated dock worker keeps his current wage by using his brain that is now valued by mcdonalds, thus saving his old breaking back.

...prior to a minimum wage hike, those dock jobs for 9/hr would've been much harder to come by. They would've already been filled, some by even old mildly educated guys willing to break their backs rather than settle for $7.25 at Mcdonalds, that is, until Mcdonalds pays 9/hr.



So... ...you feel that in general minimum wage or near-minimum wage workers do not have jobs aligned to their value potential in the economy, and you'd propose using a minimum wage hike to equalize people's pay which will shake up the snow globe and people will land in jobs more suited to their capabilities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>McDonalds is doing something wrong...In order for them to have made their
>current profit level, they have either over-worked their employees, or they have
>over-employed, thus reducing everyone's hours to shit, which is why it's
>Mcdonald's employees who are the ones complaining on TV rather than other
>minimum wage workers in the retail and accommodations industries, right?

Well, to McDonald's investors, all that means they are doing something RIGHT. Investors want to make a return on investment. (And these aren't all Warren Buffett types, either - most investors just want to send their kids to college, or be able to pay off their mortgage.) Thus if McDonald's makes decisions that reduce their profitability, then investors will go with better investments, thus penalizing McDonald's, reducing their capitalization and ultimately reducing their ability to compete - which means fewer jobs for McDonald's employees.

(And that may well be what happens; all businesses change with the times. But it's an example of why you can't just say "let's raise minimum wages and EVERYONE will be better off." You can't change just one thing in an economy; with every change you see winners and losers.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>McDonalds is doing something wrong...In order for them to have made their
>current profit level, they have either over-worked their employees, or they have
>over-employed, thus reducing everyone's hours to shit, which is why it's
>Mcdonald's employees who are the ones complaining on TV rather than other
>minimum wage workers in the retail and accommodations industries, right?

Well, to McDonald's investors, all that means they are doing something RIGHT. Investors want to make a return on investment.



Ya, so lets just capitalize our lives on the backs of the employees who support our lavish lifestyle, while calling them lazy bums when they attempt do the the same to improve their poverty stricken lifestyle....

As I said...you reap what you sow...

I prefer balance.
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnnyMarko

What is the reason for young people starting families so young in this country when they can't barely afford to live by themselves?



Evolutionary imperative. Doesn't matter if current situation isn't optimal, bodies are biologically ready (actually held back by societal pressures by several years already) so . . . MUST FUCK.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnnyMarko

What is the reason for young people starting families so young in this country when they can't barely afford to live by themselves?

..Did I just hijack my own thread?



No - but your argument involves personal responsibility. The liberals do not and cannot promote that seriously without undermining their vote getting strategy.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coreece

***>Now if they were to pay 9-10/hr, perhaps it would open the window for more
>qualified employees who take pride in their work. They'd have the skill, enthusiasm
>and pride to actually up-sell consistently and efficiently...

But unfortunately that would mean that McDonald's would have to raise their prices, which would mean fewer people going there and fewer people employed by McDonalds.



Why would they have to jack prices if efficient, higher paid employees are bringing in more profit than inefficient, lower paid employees?

Franchise Owner: "Man, I really thought that minimum wage hike to $9/hr was gonna kill us, but now we have efficient employees who can sell more and provide better service. Our profits are just as good if not better....How about we capitalize on this - lets jack the prices and blow it all to hell."


I'm not following. Increasing the minimum wage does not increase the value of minimum wage labor. It increases the cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iago

There are 'socially responsible' investment funds that do just that- invest in companies that don't put profits above all else.

They perform pretty close to the other managed funds.



Can you quantify "pretty close?" The only data I've seen as come from those pedaling the product. I've seen better better supporting investing in sin.

And of course the term "socially responsible" is a rather vague term. anyway. Clearly the energy sector is eliminated, but what is good pharma versus bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

I'm a married man for christs sake!




Very, very nice.


Thank you.

:D:D:D



I thought Angelina Jolie was going to make an appearance on that list.

Oh wait.:)
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


What is the reason for young people starting families so young in this country...



Where my parents grew up, families were started by 20. But, those folks were in marriages that lasted for the rest of the lives as a general rule. These days, a large fraction of children are born out of wedlock. IIRC, if you eliminate single mother hood families, you eliminate a lot of what is defined as poverty. The one effect of LBJ's "Great Society" has been the destruction of the nuclear family in certain cultures. Liberals think that's a good thing... :S
We are all engines of karma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StreetScooby

Quote


What is the reason for young people starting families so young in this country...



Where my parents grew up, families were started by 20. But, those folks were in marriages that lasted for the rest of the lives as a general rule. These days, a large fraction of children are born out of wedlock. IIRC, if you eliminate single mother hood families, you eliminate a lot of what is defined as poverty. The one effect of LBJ's "Great Society" has been the destruction of the nuclear family in certain cultures. Liberals think that's a good thing... :S



I see what you did there.[:/]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rehmwa

****** - it's lip service the fact that many think that people don't have the stones to ask for what they think they are worth



or maybe they just don't have the negotiating skills...

Same thing conceptually, I have a higher opinion of people being able to develop the skills to live their lives without big brother spoon feeding them against their will

Ok...

Let's say Mcdonald's managers ($45k/yr) start training/motivating their workers to perform better, and/or the workers collectively agree to work harder and show the company what they're made of...

Let's say that this hard work has earned the company an extra 150-300k per franchise. Something tells me that those workers aren't gonna see a penny of that in increased wages...

...so you get what we had here last week, which is the way you want it (people striking and protesting in demand of increased wages) Well, they don't get. I don't like it any more than you men.

So now that they've proven they actually do have the stones to ask what they're worth and didn't get it, what next? Labor Unions?

Perhaps labor unions have better negotiating skills than big brother?

Would you be in favor of big brother regulating labor unions so they don't bankrupt a company?
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Ya, so lets just capitalize our lives on the backs of the employees who support
>our lavish lifestyle, while calling them lazy bums when they attempt do the the
>same to improve their poverty stricken lifestyle....

I don't think anyone refers to most McDonald's employees as "lazy bums" - although some of them certainly are. And to claim that a modern McDonald's worker lives a "poverty stricken lifestyle" because he cannot afford a 42" flatscreen TV or a new car is really abusing the concept of "poverty."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hofstar

******>Now if they were to pay 9-10/hr, perhaps it would open the window for more
>qualified employees who take pride in their work. They'd have the skill, enthusiasm
>and pride to actually up-sell consistently and efficiently...

But unfortunately that would mean that McDonald's would have to raise their prices, which would mean fewer people going there and fewer people employed by McDonalds.



Why would they have to jack prices if efficient, higher paid employees are bringing in more profit than inefficient, lower paid employees?

Franchise Owner: "Man, I really thought that minimum wage hike to $9/hr was gonna kill us, but now we have efficient employees who can sell more and provide better service. Our profits are just as good if not better....How about we capitalize on this - lets jack the prices and blow it all to hell."


I'm not following. Increasing the minimum wage does not increase the value of minimum wage labor. It increases the cost.

To recap:

-The idea was that the increased minimum wage would attract more valuable workers who can at least offset the companies losses with more efficient performance...

-Bilvon and rehmwa said that this is assuming Mcdonalds didn't already do the cost/benefit analysis of entering the "better service" food industry and decided to opt out.

-Rehmwa is appalled by the the idea of Mcdonalds being forced into the "better service" food industry "for their own good."

-Billvon said that this minimum wage increase (or even a voluntary wage increase, for that matter) would lead to increased unemployment for uneducated, less efficient workers.

Personally, the one I have the most trouble with is the idea that higher wages lead to increased unemployment. It all sounds logical, especially with regard to the to uneducated, less efficient workers, but there are so many variables and things aren't always as the seem. There are so many studies, and they all draw different conclusions...which leads us back to the other idea expressed in this thread that people are just going to align themselves with whatever studies that support their personal ideologies best...

SC has once again failed to solve the worlds problems...I award us no points, and may God have mercy on our souls.
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coreece


Let's say Mcdonald's managers ($45k/yr) start training/motivating their workers to perform better, and/or the workers collectively agree to work harder and show the company what they're made of...

Let's say that this hard work has earned the company an extra 150-300k per franchise. Something tells me that those workers aren't gonna see a penny of that in increased wages...



Most (80%) are owned by franchises, so they can do what they believe to be right. Smart ones will ID the talent and pay accordingly, though it's a general truth that the best people will move on to bigger and better things. You can only promote so many to manager positions, and this work is only worth so much.

Those who pay the minimum and not a penny more will more quickly lose the good talent, and be left with the ones who can't be troubled to even look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Let's say Mcdonald's managers ($45k/yr) start training/motivating their workers
>to perform better, and/or the workers collectively agree to work harder and show >the company what they're made of...

Excellent idea! Let's say those managers (making $45k/yr) start training their workers better. They perform better, customers like the result and they come more often. The manager can now up the salary of the workers. This attracts better talent, and thus they become the best performing McDonald's around. The managers get awards and promotions ($55k/yr!) people there are happy and everyone wins.

Well, except the managers at nearby McDonald's. They try to do the same thing, but it's harder to attract the best talent since they are being hired by the better McDonald's. Some try by belittling and punishing their employees and threatening their jobs. They don't do well and eventually the franchise closes. Some try outright fraud. They are eventually caught and they close. Some hire their friends for minimum wage, assuming that since they are his friends they will do a good job. The friends get unhappy with the pay, do a lousy job and customers complain. A few manage to emulate the original and succeed brilliantly.

Now a social engineer comes along and says "I see the problem here! You know all those stores where the employees are friends of the managers, or the managers are incompetent, or outright criminal? Let's give them all raises so all employees are making the same!"

What do you think that will do to the quality of the best McDonald's?

>Let's say that this hard work has earned the company an extra 150-300k per
>franchise. Something tells me that those workers aren't gonna see a penny of
>that in increased wages..

From the McDonald's employment website:

====================
Base Pay

Base pay is the fixed amount of cash compensation you receive for your work at McDonald's. It is determined by looking at what employees in a similar type of job are paid at other companies, what other employees in the same or a similar job at McDonald's are paid, and how well you perform the job, your skills, experience and contributions, and your performance over time.

Short Term Incentives

Unlike base pay, which is the fixed amout of pay for the job you do, short term incentives are the variable, at-risk portion of cash compensation you may earn each year. Rewards are based on annual performance -- both business and individual -- with measures tied directly to the McDonald's business strategy, and payouts are aligned to the annual performance of the part of the business you support.

Long Term Incentives

McDonald's grants LTI stock awards to eligible employees to create a link between the future performance of McDonald's business and the rewards for individuals who are currently at or may grow into a level that can influence long term business results.
==========================

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

Short Term Incentives

Unlike base pay, which is the fixed amout of pay for the job you do, short term incentives are the variable, at-risk portion of cash compensation you may earn each year. Rewards are based on annual performance -- both business and individual -- with measures tied directly to the McDonald's business strategy, and payouts are aligned to the annual performance of the part of the business you support.

Long Term Incentives

McDonald's grants LTI stock awards to eligible employees to create a link between the future performance of McDonald's business and the rewards for individuals who are currently at or may grow into a level that can influence long term business results.



Note the language. It's a typical carrot on a stick. Nothing in the language says ALL donkeys will ever be able to actually eat the carrot even if they deserve it.

I used to work in at a company that offered similar incentives. The department head I worked for -never- gave out the short term rewards for doing things above and beyond. His (rather fucked up in my opinion) reasoning was that it would only hurt the moral of people who didn't get them. It also didn't hurt his bottom line figures at the end of the year and he used the rewards line item as a sort of slush fund for other things.

Yeah, yeah, YMMV.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quade


I used to work in at a company that offered similar incentives. The department head I worked for -never- gave out the short term rewards for doing things above and beyond. His (rather fucked up in my opinion) reasoning was that it would only hurt the moral of people who didn't get them. It also didn't hurt his bottom line figures at the end of the year and he used the rewards line item as a sort of slush fund for other things.

Yeah, yeah, YMMV.



If you only measure a program by the results of those who least effectively implement it, nothing will ever look good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0