• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Might be a delay getting your Big Mac today.

If they are smart, every fast food joint impacted will have already sent out notices that failure to show for an assigned shift will result in a termination.

Places like McDonald's usually have it in their work policy that employees can't be fired without prior incidence. I'll ask one of my nephews who works there tonight. I'm almost convinced you have to miss a day without notice, they have to give you a warning and then you have to miss another day for the firing to occur.
 
Minimum wage jobs, or any entry level job for that matter, is not intended to be one's forever job as the employee does gain experience and skills to move up either with their current employer or another, but what you're advocating is forcing the market to provide an inflated wage for the work being performed relative to the available labor supply...

Which might be an argument if there were enough jobs around that paid better.

But there aren't. No matter how hard anyone works, there will always be fewer jobs than there are workers. Let alone "good" jobs.

Your fairytale universe in which everyone is paid on merit? Never existed.
 
I've had a few tech jobs repairing computers, and they currently pay around $14 p/hr for part time work. So, there is no way that flippin' burgers is worth $15 an hour. Are you going to run to McDonalds when your laptop won't boot and you need it for school/work? All the tech guys will be working there instead.
 
Ironically McDonalds workers get paid much better in many countries outside of the US and the same goes for companies like Walmart. You would think they would be looking after their own first.
 
Who says they aren't worth it?

I ate at KFC today.

Even though it was punched into the computer what drinks we wanted, 1 Pepsi, 1 7-up and 1 orange, we got 3 Pepsis.

Also I was trying to figure out how we were going to eat the mashed potatoes without any spoons.

These employees are not worth what they are gertting paid much less doublé.
 
Between McD's corporate and the franchise owners, sufficient profits exists to do just that and not raise food prices one penny. They would just be less profitable. Corporate would still be profitable to the tune of billions of dollars.



Yes. Because the employer/employee relationship is not an equal one and they lack the power to obtain a better life through negotiation.

Corporate has nothing to do with paying employees. They collect rent on the property the franchisees are using.

You still haven't told us why you think these people should get a raise but are not worth any more to their employees.

How would you fair if you demanded double your salary from your boss?
 
You didn't offer an answer. You dodged the question.

I will answer for you, then, since you gave permission. You aren't willing to say yes. You aren't willing to suggest that everybody is making precisely what they deserve.

The word deserve has no place when you are talking about wages.
 
Prices would have to increase to cover the labor costs, other businesses would have to raise their wages to attract employees, which would cause them to have to raise their prices, after all is done and the economy has corrected itself, the $15.00 / hr wage will be poverty again. The way to get out of poverty is to get out of non-skilled jobs, not to make those non-skilled jobs pay more.

But it would make a few people feel good for a while.
 
Which might be an argument if there were enough jobs around that paid better.

But there aren't. No matter how hard anyone works, there will always be fewer jobs than there are workers. Let alone "good" jobs.

Your fairytale universe in which everyone is paid on merit? Never existed.

No matter what changes happen in the job market or what kind of people apply for the entry level jobs, the job is still worth what the job is worth.

Why do you think it is worth more because of changes in the job market?
 
I've had a few tech jobs repairing computers, and they currently pay around $14 p/hr for part time work. So, there is no way that flippin' burgers is worth $15 an hour. Are you going to run to McDonalds when your laptop won't boot and you need it for school/work? All the tech guys will be working there instead.

Why didn't you demand $30.00 per hour from your boss?
 
I find this thread to be mildly amusing.

Question for those that want to get rid of welfare or make it extremely strict on getting it AND are scoffing at these people demanding $15/hr.

What is your solution?

You have people working what is deemed as entry level jobs in which crap wages are being paid. Wages that are not enough to live on even for a single person. I know you've said that they should get a better education but that is not as feasible as it sounds for many reasons ranging from the people simply not being smart enough to not having or being able to get the money to do so. Also that is not a very practicle solution either as if everyone was able to get a higher education then that would flood those markets with an over abundance of workers also which would lead to those wages getting lowered also.

For example I have noticed some people in here mention that they are computer repair techs making around 12 bucks an hour. At one point in time such a person would have made 20 or even 30 bucks an hour. Now the market is flooded with computer repair techs and they barely make above poverty wages.

So...what is your econimcal AND liveability AND social solution to this obvious problem?
 
I wonder if these people realize that if they're successful, many of them are out of jobs -- not because the chains can't afford it, but because for $15 an hour, they won't be settling for THEM anymore.
This is an excellent point.
 
This is an excellent point.

However the one's that are worth it will get paid much better, not to mention your food service will also be much better. And believe me, there are plenty of workers in restaurants who deserve $15 an hour.
 
It's been about 10 years since I've experienced a touch screen ordering machine in a fast food restaurant, and my memory of them is not favorable. Even the simplest deviation from standard, such as "no lettuce", was more of a pain in the arse than it needed to be.

Maybe they've improved since then. :shrug:
 
However the one's that are worth it will get paid much better, not to mention your food service will also be much better. And believe me, there are plenty of workers in restaurants who deserve $15 an hour.
The good ones will remain, yes, but I don't think that was Maggie's point. I think her point was that many of the people who are agitating for the $15/hr now are NOT the ones who are good enough to remain and are actually, albeit unknowingly, agitating for their own elimination.
 
My mistake, that number was 45 years, not 40. (in 1968 the minimum wage was also $1.60)

Funny how the minimum wage was increased in 1968 and the unemployment rate has never been that low again.
 
Last edited:
I will say it again:

Revenue – Costs = Profit/ Loss

You almost never get something for nothing in business.

If these people get what they want, then the burgers they flip will go up in price AND the companies they work for will sell less burgers AND they will make less profit AND they will have to layoff more people to make up the difference.


I am not against what these people are doing at all - it is many times better, IMO, then raising the national minimum wage to $15.

But I just hope they realize that no company can just absorb a 100% rise in workers pay without having to cut costs and/or raise prices to compensate.

Many of them WILL be laid off if they get their wish...guaranteed.

But if they fully understand that...power to 'em.
 
I will say it again:

Revenue – Costs = Profit/ Loss

You almost never get something for nothing in business.

If these people get what they want, then the burgers they flip will go up in price AND the companies they work for will sell less burgers AND they will make less profit AND they will have to layoff more people to make up the difference.


I am not against what these people are doing at all - it is many times better, IMO, then raising the national minimum wage to $15.

But I just hope they realize that no company can just absorb a 100% rise in workers pay without having to cut costs and/or raise prices to compensate.

Many of them WILL be laid off if they get their wish...guaranteed.

But if they fully understand that...power to 'em.

McDonald's actually could absorb that without raising prices one penny.
 
Funny how the minimum wage was increased in 1968 and the unemployment rate has never been that low again.

Funny how in adjusted dollars the minimum wage is actually lower now than it was then.

So I think we can toss the notion that minimum wage has a major influence on unemployment.

edit: Or maybe it does have an effect, just opposite of what you think. When the working poor have more money, they buy more stuff. This creates more economic activity and therefore more jobs. Sure, a wealthy person having more money might buy more, but doubling the pay of a millionaire doesn't double the amount of cars or houses or televisions they buy. Double the pay of five hundred wage workers instead, and you've got a different picture.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you understand how the franchise system works. The huge corporation of Mc Donalds does not pay the wages, the mom and pop franchise operators do.

That's already been discussed and yes I'm aware. Next.
 
McDonald's actually could absorb that without raising prices one penny.

Could?

Well of course they could.

And GM could sell Corvette's for $1 (I'll take a black ZO6 please).

They would lose a pile...but they could do it.


The question is, could Mcdonald's do it without cutting into the profit margin for the goods they sell?

And the answer to that is...no.

Revenue – Costs = Profit/ Loss

You cannot raise costs without raising revenue and still maintain previous profits...not possible.


And if you think McDonald's can cut profits, then you know little of stocks.

If McDonald's starts cutting it's profits quarter after quarter, it's stock will plummet.
 
Last edited:
Funny how in adjusted dollars the minimum wage is actually lower now than it was then.

When you force an increase in the cost per employees you get fewer employees. The decisions on staffing are not made based on 40 years of inflation.

What we are seeing is something that is a lot like the elevator operator jobs of the early 1900s, when they went on strike suddenly their employers found the magic of automated elevators. When you force a new minimum wage you force companies to lay off people or slow hiring. The learn to make do with fewer employees. If 40 years later you raise the minimum wage again they will cut workers and/or hiring again because that is the budget.

Likewise take note that your example is correct at 45 years but not at 40 years. Why is it that $1.60 was worth so much less in 1973 than it was in 1968, just 5 years later? That is because inflation shot up in 1968. All the minimum wage increases of 1968 did was lead to more unemployed and higher costs for goods. Within 5 years the imaginary gains even for those who were still employed at minimum wage had been erased and the buying power of all Americans was diminished.

So I think we can toss the notion that minimum wage has a major influence on unemployment.

Nope, you employ static reasoning liberally and therefor miss the obvious give and take of an organic economy.
 
Back
Top Bottom