Fast-food minimum wage, lies and lying liars ...

[Robin Garr]

A funny, snarky takedown of the arguments against raising the fast-food minimum wage. (Warning; Adult language, appropriate to the topic.)

http://kitchenette.jezebel.com/college- ... 1633254322

I actually agree with a lot of what Stephen says, if that makes me unpopular or unfeeling then so be it. I pay between $8.00 and $10 per hour depending on experience and duties required. I am two weeks behind with payroll as I type this. due to falling sales. I am using the money in my payroll account put by for quarterly taxes which obviously has to be replaced before the end of September. I am now pulling 10 hour days all by myself in an effort to catch up. If the minimum wage was raised then I might as well shut up shop each season as soon as school starts back up because that is when my sales start a gradual decrease and unless I work 60 hours a week entirely by myself I can see no other possible way to afford my payroll.

[Robin Garr]

No criticism here, Alison. I think this issue really speaks more to larger businesses, the Yums and the Papas and all the rest whose execs take home seven-figure annual paychecks, the stockholders wallow in cash, and the employees go on food stamps.

Don't most of these regs exempt small businesses of fewer that 10 employees, though?

No criticism here, Alison. I think this issue really speaks more to larger businesses, the Yums and the Papas and all the rest whose execs take home seven-figure annual paychecks, the stockholders wallow in cash, and the employees go on food stamps.

Don't most of these regs exempt small businesses of fewer that 10 employees, though?

Yeah I hear what you're saying Robin. The minimum wage is the same for all businesses though regardless of size. I don't have to conform to Obama Care because at the height of the Season I only have 7 employees. It is just tough the way sales decrease as soon as the middle of August hits. No rhyme or reason for it as far as I can see as the weather is still good.

There's another point in the argument about raising the minimum wage that nobody seems to recognize. While raising the minimum wage will obviously help the income and spending ability of the young it will definitely hurt those on fixed incomes. Grocery and food prices will undoubtedly rise if this measure is enacted yet those on fixed incomes won't see their incomes go up because a locally raised minimum wage will not affect the national inflation index. So while it will help the young it will currently old and disabled!

First of all, I am pretty sure I read that small businesses would be exempt from the min. wage. And though my employees earn 12 to 15 per hour w/tips, I would not blame them for seeking out a higher paying job. At some point wages have to keep up with inflation and the cost of living. We have a permanent underclass, that cannot provide for families, pay rent, or save at all. Power to the people. Power to the people, even if it creates a hardship on me. We can always find excuses not to do the fair thing. At some point in the near future, we will rise up and liberate ourselves. It ain't gonna be pretty!

I always chuckle at the shortsightedness of business owners who complain about minimum wage increases or unions, but then complain about the lack of buying power in the current US economy compared to 20 years ago or more.

The US middle class was the economic engine of this country precisely because of unions and high wages, gaving them the world's most concentrated ability to buy and drive the demand for consumer products.

From 1982 to 2012 wages in the US economy in the mid 20's to mid 40's have only increased 5% over the course of 30 years. Let me say that again, a 5% pay raise in more than 30 years. Meanwhile annual inflation has been between 2-3% annually and in other areas such as education university tuition has risen 6% a year for more than 20 years running now.

Which means your actual income has FALLEN, when adjusted for inflation and the cost of living, over the past 30 years. Which means the US middle class has significantly less buying power for consumer goods or dining out.

But please tell me more about, increasing wages will "destroy business".

One last fact for everyone to understand and digest. Washington state raised their minimum wage 15 years ago. At $9.32 an hour they are currently the highest in the nation. According to doomsayers it should be killing their job growth right? Wrong.
As of last year Washington state was #1 for small business job creation (#2 overall) in the nation and Seattle was the third highest metro area in the US.

In the seven years after San Francisco increased its minimum wage in 2004, employment in the city grew by more than 5 percent while it fell in other Bay Area counties. Restaurant job growth was particularly strong, despite the strong opposition of large restaurant lobbying groups, increasing by 17.7 percent, faster than any other neighboring area.

From 1982 to 2012 wages in the US economy in the mid 20's to mid 40's have only increased 5% over the course of 30 years. Let me say that again, a 5% pay raise in more than 30 years.

I would certainly like to see the facts supporting this. While I certainly agree that it may not have overcome the rate of inflation it was certainly much more than 5% for the 30 years in question.

[Robin Garr]

While I certainly agree that it may not have overcome the rate of inflation it was certainly much more than 5% for the 30 years in question.

Umm ... if wages don't overcome the rate of inflation, then the true wage goes down. When the true wage goes down for the 90 percent (or the 99 percent), then you get rising income inequality. Which is what we are getting.

I would certainly like to see the facts supporting this. While I certainly agree that it may not have overcome the rate of inflation it was certainly much more than 5% for the 30 years in question.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 1983 and 2013 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.

In 2012 dollars (meaning they are NOT accounting for inflation) median household income rose in the following age brackets between 1982 and 2012:
25 to 34 years- +5.7%
35 to 44 years- +5.6%
45 to 54- +3.9%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 1983 and 2013 Annual Social and EconomicSupplements. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see <www.census.gov/prod/techdoc/cps/cpsmar13.pdf>.

In 2012 dollars, the median household income for 35 to 44 age group in 1982 was $60,244. In 2012 itself the median household income was $63,629, an increase of 5.6%. Of course we all know that since they adjusted the 1982 income to 2012 dollars rather than the reverse which would have accounted for inflation, there was really an incredible net less not a gain of 5.6%.

In general, the states and locales that have implemented the most Democratic/liberal/progressive polices have the highest income inequities. The current Democratic party can best be understand as a coalition between the government dependent poor and the government crony ultra rich against the middle class. Everywhere their policies are ascendant the middle class contracts. Prime examples of this are New York City and San Francisco.

The minimum wage is just another one of these misguided policies that mostly hurts the groups that it claims to be helping, forcing even more people into dependence upon government aid. It would be justifiable to assume that this is the actual the goal, and not the often stated 'living wage' reasoning.

In general, the states and locales that have implemented the most Democratic/liberal/progressive polices have the highest income inequities. The current Democratic party can best be understand as a coalition between the government dependent poor and the government crony ultra rich against the middle class. Everywhere their policies are ascendant the middle class contracts. Prime examples of this are New York City and San Francisco.

The minimum wage is just another one of these misguided policies that mostly hurts the groups that it claims to be helping, forcing even more people into dependence upon government aid. It would be justifiable to assume that this is the actual the goal, and not the often stated 'living wage' reasoning.

You must not have read my post, at all. Specifically the part addressing San Francisco...

In the seven years after San Francisco increased its minimum wage in 2004, employment in the city grew by more than 5 percent while it fell in other Bay Area counties. Restaurant job growth was particularly strong, despite the strong opposition of large restaurant lobbying groups, increasing by 17.7 percent, faster than any other neighboring area.

Please provide sources for your assertions. Especially this one:

The minimum wage is just another one of these misguided policies that mostly hurts the groups that it claims to be helping, forcing even more people into dependence upon government aid.

Because I can find sources from university studies, to economic impact studies, to articles in The Economist who will give you the actual data to show you are wrong.

Of course there are also multiple university sociology and psychology studies which show that the more facts I show you, to show how wrong you are, the more you will double down on your beliefs and opinions in light of all the evidence to the contrary like its some religion or something.

New research suggests that misinformed people rarely change their minds when presented with the facts — and often become even more attached to their beliefs. The finding raises questions about a key principle of a strong democracy: that a well-informed electorate is best.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =128490874

http://theconversation.com/why-facts-al ... ates-25094

"In general, the states and locales that have implemented the most Democratic/liberal/progressive polices have the highest income inequities."

In general, this is far from the case. The very bottom is a few red states and the top is a few blue. But, the vast majority of states in between the extremes are pretty much ideology blind. I even read one article that congratulated Mississippi as making the most progress against $$ inequality. Have you been to Mississippi lately? Mississippi exists so people in Alabama can feel better about themselves.

Seriously, although I have not dug into the numbers deeply, it is interesting that some of the states with the least inequality also seem to be among the least diverse...hmmm. I may be onto something there.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U. ... oefficient

You must not have read my post, at all. Specifically the part addressing San Francisco...

In the seven years after San Francisco increased its minimum wage in 2004, employment in the city grew by more than 5 percent while it fell in other Bay Area counties. Restaurant job growth was particularly strong, despite the strong opposition of large restaurant lobbying groups, increasing by 17.7 percent, faster than any other neighboring area.

So, if $10 is a good minimum wage, why not $15? Why not make the minimum wage $50? Then every one could make six figures. Why are we holding back on setting the minimum wage higher?

And if inequity is what is troubling you, why not set a single wage for everyone? Don't you want everyone in San Francisco to earn six figures? One wage for all! $50 per hour. It's the only fair thing to do!

UPDATE: I hope you don't mind if I add something to my response here.

The study that you cited notes that the minimum wage was increased in 2004. This was in the during the economic bubble caused by the whole "mortgage secured security" fiasco. As you'll recall, employment was close to an all time high then and wages had out stripped the minimal wage. So, raising it to reflect economic reality would not have had a negative effected on employment. The negative effects only occur when the minimum wage is set above the market clearing level.

Please provide sources for your assertions. Especially this one:

The minimum wage is just another one of these misguided policies that mostly hurts the groups that it claims to be helping, forcing even more people into dependence upon government aid.

Because I can find sources from university studies, to economic impact studies, to articles in The Economist who will give you the actual data to show you are wrong.

You can start here and here. Or closer to home for this forum, look here.

Of course there are also multiple university sociology and psychology studies which show that the more facts I show you, to show how wrong you are, the more you will double down on your beliefs and opinions in light of all the evidence to the contrary like its some religion or something.

New research suggests that misinformed people rarely change their minds when presented with the facts — and often become even more attached to their beliefs. The finding raises questions about a key principle of a strong democracy: that a well-informed electorate is best.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =128490874

http://theconversation.com/why-facts-al ... ates-25094

There other "sociology and psychology studies" that discuss and research the concept of 'psychological projection'. You should probably check out of some those.


So typical. Your basic assumption is that anyone who disagrees with you is uninformed. Granted, that's an improvement for the Hotbytes forum standard that any one who disagrees with the group-think is racist, homophobic, and evil. This is also an improvement over the assumptions built into this thread title. So, thanks for that small charity at least.

"In general, the states and locales that have implemented the most Democratic/liberal/progressive polices have the highest income inequities."

In general, this is far from the case. The very bottom is a few red states and the top is a few blue. But, the vast majority of states in between the extremes are pretty much ideology blind. I even read one article that congratulated Mississippi as making the most progress against $$ inequality. Have you been to Mississippi lately? Mississippi exists so people in Alabama can feel better about themselves.

Seriously, although I have not dug into the numbers deeply, it is interesting that some of the states with the least inequality also seem to be among the least diverse...hmmm. I may be onto something there.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U. ... oefficient

Thanks for that link!

I hadn't really thought about inequity tracking with cultural diversity before, but it seems to make some rough sense. That is an interesting angle to look into.

But clearly, as you have so capably shown, I have misstated my point. Income inequity has historically been greater in the southern states vs. the northern states since way before the great progressive experiment even began. So, it's not really a question about the current absolute level of inequity.

Let's say we look into the relative changes in inequity since, say, 1960? And then maybe contrast the changes in inequity between areas that have had nominally progressive vs. economically conservative/libertarian policies since then? That sounds like a fair test to me. What do you think?