Fight for $15. (Fast food protest)

[jimipitbull]

^All of that will still happen, progression of automotion technologies. Self serve stations need IT support and hardware technicians.

I'd prefer to pay someone $15 to make a burger, as opposed to paying a person $15 to service the machine that makes burgers.

But we do know that at least on the most basic necessities of food, fuel and rent, it appears that Australian dollar is 20% behind the American dollar in purchasing power and if you're at minimum wage, that's important, since food, fuel and rent make up the majority of your after tax spending if you aren't living at home.

GDP(PPP) per capita, expressed using colors.

 

[Omnis]

I'd prefer to pay someone $15 to make a burger, as opposed to paying a person $15 to service the machine that makes burgers.

That's not for you to decide. Economics.

GDP(PPP) per capita, expressed using colors.

That's a meaningless graphic.

 

[jimipitbull]

That's not for you to decide. Economics.

My preferences are my decisions.

That's a meaningless graphic.

It has more meaning than a comparison based only on exchange rates. That is, unless you are colour blind?

 

[Tornado]

My preferences are my decisions.

And your preferences are not particularly relevant when it comes to staffing a fast food restaurant that is faced with the prospect of paying its employees nearly double in a short period of time if the tasks they do can be automated.

 

[jimipitbull]

And your preferences are not particularly relevant when it comes to staffing a fast food restaurant that is faced with the prospect of paying its employees nearly double in a short period of time if the tasks they do can be automated.

McDonalds makes billions of dollars each year. They happily shift profits between countries to avoid paying tax. I'm sure they will find a creative solution to offset the extra staffing costs.

There are other fast food vendors. I'm prepared to pay a bit more for better food and better service. My preferences are relevant to their staffing.

 

[Tornado]

McDonalds makes billions of dollars each year.

That's fantastic for McDonald's, the international fast food corporation; and even McDonald's, the corporate or affiliate-owned local restaurant. But what does that have to do with McDonald's, the privately-owned local franchise restaurant? Since, you know, they are the ones who actually pay for the staff they hire; and they make up the overwhelming majority of McDonald's locations.

I'm sure they will find a creative way to offset the extra staffing costs.

Oh, you mean like automation of menial tasks.

There are other fast food vendors. I'm prepared to pay a bit more for better food and better service. My preferences are relevant to their staffing.

If you were particularly worried about better food and better service I imagine fast food, where both things are already secondary to speed and convenience pretty much by definition, wouldn't be high on your shortlist anyway. As a result, what you're "prepared" to do is also irrelevant unless you're assigning your preferences as being the same as a group large enough for McDonald's to take notice.

 

[wfooshee]

I simply don't get how anyone can possibly think that flipping burgers (or mopping the floor, or taking the orders at the counter, whatever) is a job you're supposed to make a living wage from..... These are jobs for kids to work part time after school or during the summer for spending money. They are jobs for people to learn about what having a job actually means, and then move on. It's not society's fault that your basketball or football scholarship didn't come through and now your life plan to get rich like Michael Jordan doesn't look like it's going to pan out.

If you want to make a living, get some skills and become employable. Get some skills and work for yourself, even. Society doesn't owe you a living. Society owes you the opportunity to provide yourself with one. Not doing anything with that opportunity makes YOU the deadbeat, not society!

 

[jimipitbull]

That's fantastic for McDonald's, the international fast food corporation; and even McDonald's, the corporate or affiliate-owned local restaurant. But what does that have to do with McDonald's, the privately-owned local franchise restaurant? Since, you know, they are the ones who actually pay for the staff they hire; and they make up the overwhelming majority of McDonald's locations.

Franchise start up cost is around $1 million. It's obviously a very profitable business model, or no franchisee would get finance.

For perspective, @ $15/hour, 40 hours per week. $1 million dollars represents approx 60 employees, for 1 year.

Oh, you mean like automation of menial tasks.

They already automate many menial tasks. I'm sure they could cut a few billion $ from their marketing budget.

If you were particularly worried about better food and better service I imagine fast food, where both things are already secondary to speed and convenience pretty much by definition, wouldn't be high on your shortlist anyway. As a result, what you're "prepared" to do is also irrelevant unless you're assigning your preferences as being the same as a group large enough for McDonald's to take notice.

Subway. More powerful than you could possibly imagine.

 

[Tornado]

Franchise start up cost is around $1 million. It's obviously a very profitable business model, or no franchisee would get finance.

For perspective, @ $15/hour, 40 hours per week. $1 million dollars represents approx 60 employees, for 1 year.

So, for perspective, how does that factor in to a franchise with dramatically lower costs, like, say:

Subway.

Does that mean that an independent McDonald's franchise would be fine because somehow how much they spent to open the restaurant shows that they can afford double the payroll for nearly all of their employees, but other restaurants would be screwed? Are you suggesting that because a McDonald's franchisee needs to have somewhat considerable wealth (750,000 in liquid assets before signing) to open the restaurant, he should just pay the increased payroll out of his own pocket? If he sinks most of his savings into McDonald's to start a franchise, where is he supposed to get this money? Again, where does that leave the Subway owner, who could have needed as little as $100,000 to open a Subway restaurant and only $30,000 in liquid assets?




I'm sure if you keep shifting the goal posts around, you'll eventually hit on a point you can actually defend. Of course, to accomplish even that:

They already automate many menial tasks. I'm sure they could cut a few billion $ from their marketing budget.

First you need to actually understand the words you're saying and how they apply to the conversation. Who can cut a few billion dollars from their marketing budget? I'm assuming you are once again referring to the McDonald's corporation, as they are the ones who set the marketing budget since they are the ones who do the actual marketing. Except McDonald's in 2014 just barely crested 900 million dollars on corporate advertising, including administrative costs; and the are far beyond the extreme end of marketing dollars compared to other franchises so the argument could only apply to them. And, again, they are not the ones paying the wages of the employees in 80% of the McDonald's restaurants, so how does the corporate franchisor cutting marketing (and as a theoretical result, sales) for those franchisees help them afford their drastically increased payroll?

Since McDonald's monthly royalty of a restaurant's monthly gross income is 4%, and that percentage is what is likely used to pay for advertising costs for the entire corporation (which, again, are dramatically higher than any other restaurant franchise so it cannot be similarly done for another company), is lowering that number by even as much as half going to offset paying twice as much money on payroll when payroll already is estimated to take up anywhere from 24% to 35% of a typical franchise owned McDonald's restaurant income?

 

[jimipitbull]

I'm sure if you keep shifting the goal posts around, you'll eventually hit on a point you can actually defend. Of course, to accomplish even that:

I'm actually in support of higher minimum wages for you, your family, your friends and the rest of North America.

I'm trying to help you, man.

 

[Tornado]

I'm trying to help you, man.

No. You're trying to change the subject.


What bearing does the McDonald's corporation's yearly profits have on the payroll costs of an individual franchise restaurant? Who can cut a few billion dollars from their operating budget, and how does that actually help the franchise locations pay for a doubled payroll expense if their contributions to the marketing costs are a small fraction of their total gross income? How will lower marketing costs offset doubled payroll costs when their latter already at least 6 times larger than the former? How does the cost of opening a franchise correlate to the ability to pay for the costs of a doubled payroll expense after it is already running? How does that factor in to franchises that cost only a tenth as much to open but would have similar payroll expenses as a percentage of gross income?

 

[jimipitbull]

No. You're trying to change the subject.


What bearing does the McDonald's corporation's yearly profits have on the payroll costs of an individual franchise restaurant? Who can cut a few billion dollars from their operating budget, and how does that actually help the franchise locations pay for a doubled payroll expense if their contributions to the marketing costs are a small fraction of their total gross income and their payroll costs are already at least 6 times larger? How does the cost of opening a franchise correlate to the ability to pay for the costs of a doubled payroll expense after it is already running? How does that factor in to franchises that cost only a tenth as much to open but would have similar payroll expenses as a percentage of gross income?

McDonalds franchises in other countries with higher minimum wages are making healthy profits. I'm not privy to the finer details, but am confident US mainland stores would be able to replicate their success.

 

[Omnis]

My preferences are my decisions.

Until you're broke.

 

[Tornado]

I'm not privy to the finer details

Then don't bring up specifics if you have no clue what they are.

 

[mustafur]

My preferences are my decisions.



It has more meaning than a comparison based only on exchange rates. That is, unless you are colour blind?

Not really if you did that in early 2011, i bet Australia would of been higher then US as the dollar was worth more.

Dollar being worth more in another country doesn't have that much effect in the same country as that dollar.

 

[phillgt2002]

I mean, American fast food workers go through a ton of **** daily. Obnoxious/Abusive customers and less than ideal working environments. I think $15 is a bit much, but I can see why they'd want it.

Not that I have pity for food workers, but I tend to give a nice tip every time. I usually do a flat rate of $5.

 

[Swagger897]

I'm sorry, but I've looked at this for the past four years and still can't believe it...

If they do get anywhere near $15, or even $12, that'll be ridiculous. If so, they'll be making more (marginally) than entry regional pilots do. So lets get this straight. One guy has to clean a floor with a five dollar mop, and flip a frozen meat patty. The other has to fly a multi-million dollar aircraft with 20-90 lives behind them.

Training for such jobs:
McDonalds: Be able to breath and have some sort of vision
Pilot: Excellent vision, multi-tasking skills, oh yeah, and leave college with around $100,000 dollars or so of debt... And that's only going to grow I imagine.

Simple facts to prove a simple point... And honestly, when I look at pictures and videos of the ones in Washington (or wherever it was) who were protesting I am quite amused to be honest. The people I look at I expect to have gone to college or done something useful already. But I guess you can't judge a book by its cover. No, these are the people who drool at home whenever they hear of an advert for something that will cost them a fortune, and do absolutely no research into things. The money goes out as easily as it comes in, and yet they seem like it's being stolen from them.

 

[Danoff]

I'd prefer to pay someone $15 to make a burger, as opposed to paying a person $15 to service the machine that makes burgers.

My preferences are my decisions.

This thread isn't about whether you'd like to pay someone extra for their time. You're free to do that right this second. This thread is about the use of force to prevent those people from getting a job unless they can actually earn that much money.

Here is what minimum wage is... ready?

"You can't legally have a job unless you can earn X dollars per hour".

That's minimum wage. The guy making $8/hr right now is choosing to make $8/hr rather than be unemployed. Minimum wage says he should be unemployed by force. An employer like McDonalds or Safeway doesn't run a charity. They don't hire people that cost them money, that's charity. Here's the super simple calculation of whether or not to hire another employee...

"Will this person make me more money than they cost?"

That's employment in a nutshell. If the answer is no, there's no employee.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm sorry, but I've looked at this for the past four years and still can't believe it...

If they do get anywhere near $15, or even $12, that'll be ridiculous. If so, they'll be making more (marginally) than entry regional pilots do. So lets get this straight. One guy has to clean a floor with a five dollar mop, and flip a frozen meat patty. The other has to fly a multi-million dollar aircraft with 20-90 lives behind them.

Training for such jobs:
McDonalds: Be able to breath and have some sort of vision
Pilot: Excellent vision, multi-tasking skills, oh yeah, and leave college with around $100,000 dollars or so of debt... And that's only going to grow I imagine.

Simple facts to prove a simple point... And honestly, when I look at pictures and videos of the ones in Washington (or wherever it was) who were protesting I am quite amused to be honest. The people I look at I expect to have gone to college or done something useful already. But I guess you can't judge a book by its cover. No, these are the people who drool at home whenever they hear of an advert for something that will cost them a fortune, and do absolutely no research into things. The money goes out as easily as it comes in, and yet they seem like it's being stolen from them.

The high minimum wage advocate would just say that it means your pilot should make more money too. Everyone should make more money. Except for rich people and highly skilled people, they already make enough, they should pay more taxes so the minimum wagers can have more stuff.

 

[Danoff]

The high minimum wage advocate would just say that it means your pilot should make more money too.

It's an interesting point. I wonder what makes them think that there is any upward economic pressure on any other salary.

Everyone should make more money. Except for rich people and highly skilled people, they already make enough, they should pay more taxes so the minimum wagers can have more stuff.

Actually, ironically, if you raise the minimum wage high enough, they pay more tax because the tax brackets are all based on a time when the dollar was worth a lot more. Inflation is a tax on all dollars in and of itself, but it also results in another hidden tax increase because it pushes everyone upward in the tax code. (That last sentence was in reference to the phrase "when the dollar was worth more", not in reference to minimum wage in general)

 

[Swagger897]

The high minimum wage advocate would just say that it means your pilot should make more money too. Everyone should make more money. Except for rich people and highly skilled people, they already make enough, they should pay more taxes so the minimum wagers can have more stuff.

No. Not at all.

The pay they get should result upon the work they are required to do. Flipping patties is not that hard. A twelve year old boy scout can do the same. Hard to say a 12 year old can fly the same aircraft that requires at least a four year degree, along with thousands of hours of training...

And along with @Danoff 's point, yeah, they will be bumped up, but if the math I'm doing right now in accounting isn't correct, they wouldn't experience anything more than 15... or another hour's worth per week..

 

[Johnnypenso]

No. Not at all.

The pay they get should result upon the work they are required to do. Flipping patties is not that hard. A twelve year old boy scout can do the same. Hard to say a 12 year old can fly the same aircraft that requires at least a four year degree, along with thousands of hours of training...

And along with @Danoff 's point, yeah, they will be bumped up, but if the math I'm doing right now in accounting isn't correct, they wouldn't experience anything more than 15... or another hour's worth per week..

I agree, but high minimum wage advocates care more about what they "deserve" and what's "fair" and "right" rather than economics. Because everything is solved just by giving people more money and this can happen with no consequences to anyone else. Yes, that's sarcasm

 

[Swagger897]

I agree, but high minimum wage advocates care more about what they "deserve" and what's "fair" and "right" rather than economics. Because everything is solved just by giving people more money and this can happen with no consequences to anyone else. Yes, that's sarcasm

oh, I thought you were with.... them...

 

[Danoff]

And along with @Danoff 's point, yeah, they will be bumped up, but if the math I'm doing right now in accounting isn't correct, they wouldn't experience anything more than 15... or another hour's worth per week..

Right now people who make less than $40k or so don't pay any tax at all. In fact most of them actually turn a profit on filing taxes. The new minimum wage isn't up to $40k, so they're still on the negative side of that boundary, but the fact that they're moving up the slope reduces the amount of profit they can turn off the tax code, which effectively saves some tax dollars (unless they lose their job and start claiming unemployment or welfare etc.).

But here's the point I was trying to make:

In 1980 the minimum wage was $3. So if Los Angeles wants it to be $15, that's 5x what it was 35 years ago. The tax code has not also adjusted the brackets to be 5 times as high as they were 35 years ago, so over time the minimum wage actually is a steady tax increase on minimum wage earners.

 

[Swagger897]

Taxes are still deducted weekly/bi-weekly, or however often you are paid. Now, you seem to be talking about taxes during April, which yeah, a lot of people who make over 40K still get some back..

 

[Danoff]

Taxes are still deducted weekly/bi-weekly, or however often you are paid. Now, you seem to be talking about taxes during April, witch yeah, a lot of people who make over 40K still get some back..

Let's not confuse withholding and refunds with tax. Neither of those is really tax. An employee can (and should) adjust their withholding such that they owe nothing in April*. Someone making below $40k can, in theory, adjust their withholding to $0 per week and still get a refund in April.



* Actually the financially optimal thing to do is to owe so much that you almost, but not quite, hit a penalty

 

[Swagger897]

uh... what's being withheld is still the tax. Now how it all goes into a refund or you owing... I haven't gotten that far.

 

[Danoff]

uh... what's being withheld is still the tax. Now how it all goes into a refund or you owing... I haven't gotten that far.

Nope.

What's being withheld is not necessarily tax. What's being withheld is what you ask to be withheld.

 

[Swagger897]

The % that you are taxed is what is withheld... The withheld amount on the right of the card you fill out (whatever box it is) is the percent off of taxable income. Be it social security, medicare, whatever. That's till a tax, not a charitable donation.

Anyways, that's a different thread.

 

[Danoff]

The % that you are taxed is what is withheld...

Nope. It's what you tell them to withhold that is being withheld. When you fill out your W4 you tell them what to withhold. You hope that at the end of the year it lines up with what you actually get taxed. Your employer doesn't know, and doesn't want to know, what deductions you plan to take. Maybe you lot of home mortgage interest or student loan interest to deduct. Maybe you donate all of your money to charity. Maybe you have no kids, no mortgage, and get taxed like crazy. You communicate that to your employer by adjusting your W4 to change how much they withhold. Over time you hone in your W4 allocations to approximate what you'll actually owe in tax for the year.

I think that the tax implications of minimum wage belong in this thread, as does an understanding of what tax actually is.

I harp on this point because it's a crux of misunderstanding. Many minimum wage workers think that they pay tax because they see something deducted from their paycheck every couple of weeks. In actuality, they get more refunded in April than came out of their paychecks in total throughout the year. They might get a $7k refund having only paid in $5k total in tax for the year. The result is that they paid less than $0 in tax for the year. They're mistaking witholding for tax, which is absolutely an error.