Ready for the $9 Big Mac, for real?

[LogGrad98]

You had better ask Log that one...

My gut feeling is they'd rather pay cash as it's the more visible pacifier for the employee to suck on, and it's calculable. Medical prices are rising faster than the rest of the economy, so it would cost much more down the line. Unless you meant some other type of benefits.

One other point to consider is the majority of teenage earnings are disposable income that gets immediately spent. A whole lot of their wage raises would go right back into the fast food industry.

Good point.

As for benefits it could be alot of things. More time off, life insurance options, increased medical coverage, paid maternity leave, education programs, management programs, daycare support...

Money talks. Benefits are nice, but not all employees take advantage of all benefits offered.

Benefits are a lot like mail in rebates for sales. You give out 5,000 MIR's and only maybe 15% get cashed in, yet you still get the benefit of issuing the MIR, which is increased sales and often improved reputation, without the direct cost. We have some great benefits where I work, not the least of which is 3 weeks paid vacation up front for every associate at every level, which is a more employee-centric benny, and maybe even better is a 15% discounted stock purchase plan with no limit, which is much more like a MIR. The purchase plan is available to everyone, yet only a relatively small percentage take advantage of it, yet we get the benefit as a company of offering it without incurring the total cost possible.

That said, if we could get away with adding another benny like the stock purchase plan instead of a wage increase it would help our bottom line and would generally be preferable to a force wage increase. But as I said at the beginning, money talks. The reason not many folks take advantage of the stock plan is that they are making lower wages that translate into a living wage (read: paycheck to paycheck), meaning not much in the way of savings available, so the stock thing is less of an option, even though people think it is cool we have it. Many I have spoken with aspire to be able to take advantage of that benefit, but likely never will. But we still reap the good will of it.

 

[Stoked]

Money talks. Benefits are nice, but not all employees take advantage of all benefits offered.

Benefits are a lot like mail in rebates for sales. You give out 5,000 MIR's and only maybe 15% get cashed in, yet you still get the benefit of issuing the MIR, which is increased sales and often improved reputation, without the direct cost. We have some great benefits where I work, not the least of which is 3 weeks paid vacation up front for every associate at every level, which is a more employee-centric benny, and maybe even better is a 15% discounted stock purchase plan with no limit, which is much more like a MIR. The purchase plan is available to everyone, yet only a relatively small percentage take advantage of it, yet we get the benefit as a company of offering it without incurring the total cost possible.

That said, if we could get away with adding another benny like the stock purchase plan instead of a wage increase it would help our bottom line and would generally be preferable to a force wage increase. But as I said at the beginning, money talks. The reason not many folks take advantage of the stock plan is that they are making lower wages that translate into a living wage (read: paycheck to paycheck), meaning not much in the way of savings available, so the stock thing is less of an option, even though people think it is cool we have it. Many I have spoken with aspire to be able to take advantage of that benefit, but likely never will. But we still reap the good will of it.

How likely do you think a combo package is?

Say $11 an hour along with life insurance, daycare assistance and from 4 to 6 hours paid leave per pay period instead of instead of $15 an hour.

Helps the worker and reduces the hit on employers bottom line.

Lol I'm sure there are probably a half dozen problems with that that come to mind while to me it sounds great.

Edit: For those in favor of a minimum wage increase is there a figure you have in mind? If so why?

 

[gregbroncs]

Rich people are the people are the upper level management of McDonalds. They are the ones who will lose money because they won't be able to rise prices that high and retain their sales.

Increase minimum wage. That will increase the wages of just about everybody in the country in the long run. It will increase the money able to be spent. Making it likely the prices rise as well. It also means that raising minimum wage did nothing but decrease the value of the dollar world wide.
.
You don't have to be an economics major to see this. It's basic math and human nature.
.
Minimum wage jobs are not intended to be careers. They are intended for untrained people until they can get the training by going to college or moving on with their lives by finding a job that is a career. In a lot of cases they may be jobs with advancement opportunities but starting at the bottom.
.
If minimum wage jumps like this everybody is going to want and probably get a raise. Don't pretend that skilled and trained labor is going to accept getting paid the same as untrained labor.

 

[gregbroncs]

Keep following that thought..

Which people now have money to cover... which leads to more jobs.

The conclusion to this is that the price of stuff goes up to the point that people that have minimum wage jobs start bitching again in a few years because they can no longer afford it.

 

[gregbroncs]

1. Why would raising the wage of a "small" subset of people raise all prices by the same amount? It's far more reasonable to believe that other prices will rise, on average, by less than the increase in the minimum wage, effectively giving those making the minimum wage more purchasing power.

2. How does this devalue the dollar worldwide?

Because it won't raise the wage of a small subset of people. It will raise the wage of most people. It will raise the cost of employing people across the board. We are talking about a raise in minimum wage. It increases the price of things everybody buys making people no longer able to buy the things they are used to at their wage. To compensate for this they will want more money.
.
A company will need to raise the wage of everybody who works for them. A manager is not going to accept making what the people working under them make. They are generally more experienced and more trained why should they accept less. Also other companies will need to raise their pay to get employees to stay or come to work for them.
.
It effects the world value of the dollar because you are jump starting inflation in this country and lower the value of the dollar in our own country and world wide. A dollar will buy you less here so it's worth less.

 

[Hantlers]

Two questions:

Will we see a maximum wage set in our lifetime?

Would you be in favor of it?

 

[Stoked]

Two questions:

Will we see a maximum wage set in our lifetime?

Would you be in favor of it?

In America? No and no.

 

[8]

How likely do you think a combo package is?

Say $11 an hour along with life insurance, daycare assistance and from 4 to 6 hours paid leave per pay period instead of instead of $15 an hour.

Helps the worker and reduces the hit on employers bottom line.

Lol I'm sure there are probably a half dozen problems with that that come to mind while to me it sounds great.

Edit: For those in favor of a minimum wage increase is there a figure you have in mind? If so why?

Companies paying for benefits ultimately leading to the over-consumption of such services just relocates some of the problem, making the costs harder to find and determine. Nevertheless, a fine "solution" by modern-day legislative practices

 

[GVC]

Because it won't raise the wage of a small subset of people. It will raise the wage of most people. It will raise the cost of employing people across the board. We are talking about a raise in minimum wage. It increases the price of things everybody buys making people no longer able to buy the things they are used to at their wage. To compensate for this they will want more money.
.
A company will need to raise the wage of everybody who works for them. A manager is not going to accept making what the people working under them make. They are generally more experienced and more trained why should they accept less. Also other companies will need to raise their pay to get employees to stay or come to work for them.

Not buying it. Again, all prices would have to increase by the same amount for there to be absolutely no redistribution. There are many companies/industries who don't employ anyone at minimum wage, so by your mechanism there's little reason for them to demand a similar increase in pay for example. Further, as mentioned by others, labor costs are not the only costs in production; in some industries they represent a very small percentage of total cost. Increasing the minimum wage will redistribute income. It may not be the best, or even a particular good way to do so.

 

[gregbroncs]

Not buying it. Again, all prices would have to increase by the same amount for there to be absolutely no redistribution. There are many companies/industries who don't employ anyone at minimum wage, so by your mechanism there's little reason for them to demand a similar increase in pay for example. Further, as mentioned by others, labor costs are not the only costs in production; in some industries they represent a very small percentage of total cost. Increasing the minimum wage will redistribute income. It may not be the best, or even a particular good way to do so.

So why would a worker accept a pay cut because other people in the work force are getting raises? If prices for products rise and your pay doesn't then you have effectively received a pay cut.
.
In those industries that don't employ minimum wage employees they will still have employees making close to the new minimum wage. If you are a trained and skilled employee that currently makes well over double minimum wage, why would you accept now barely making more than minimum wage? The wages for these employees would go up in the long run. They would have to just to get people to have any interest in becoming skilled at them. It may not happen right away but it would happen and fairly rapidly.
.
This goes for all companies in every industry. Even if a company does not employ minimum wage people does not mean that the people supplying them with their supplies does not. If they do the cost of their supplies go up. Or that the guys trained in that industry will accept making the same as before even though a major portion of the work force is making far more.
.
I'm in an industry that does not pay very many people minimum wage. We don't because it's hard work and almost nobody will work for minimum wage. However if minimum wage raises the rates, my industry will also have to rise dramatically because we won't be able to replenish the work force any other way. If we have to pay employees more then the price of the product will also rise. In my industry labor is 30-45% of the price. The other option is that the industry I'm in will grind to a halt. No willing new employees to train , current employees leaving the field because they can make close to the same at a far easier job.
.
So it is my opinion that raising the minimum wage (especially as much as being talked about) would increase the wages for most labor across the board. Which would increase (in varying degrees) the price of all products across the board. So as I said before raising minimum wage is a band aid on a much larger problem.
.
If you want to redistribute the wealth their has to be a much more effective means than this.
.
Tax a company based on income not profit (this takes the money away from the owners and richest people in a company). Too many loopholes in a profit version. But that's a different topic I'm not willing to go into.

 

[GVC]

If you want to redistribute the wealth their has to be a much more effective means than this.

I don't doubt it. I was disagreeing with your initial point that increasing the minimum wage does nothing since all prices will rise. It only does nothing if all prices increase by the same (relative) amount, which doesn't make any sense.

 

[Harambe]

As to your reputation, ElRoach -- everyone knows redistribution in one form or another is absolutely necessary.

I'm not so convinced everyone does know that...

 

[gregbroncs]

I don't doubt it. I was disagreeing with your initial point that increasing the minimum wage does nothing since all prices will rise. It only does nothing if all prices increase by the same (relative) amount, which doesn't make any sense.

It may not increase by the same amount. But it's likely going to raise the price of virtually everything to a degree. And I personally believe it will raise the price of everything significantly. Say greater than 20% on the lower costs to begin with. In the long run I believe it accomplishes nothing.

 

[franklin]

Two questions:

Will we see a maximum wage set in our lifetime?

Would you be in favor of it?

Possibly, but maximum lifetime accumulation absolutely not. There's nothing wrong with the basic premise of the Protestant Work Ethic theory as long as profits are being reinvested into new production. The issue that comes up is when profits are hoarded, thus choking off the economy for the rich and poor alike. This is why many prominent Founding Fathers were for high death taxes, the end of primogeniture and entail, etc.

Capitalism fails when advancements are not shared with the population. It's basically a mathematical issue of how money is created and destroyed.

I'm not so convinced everyone does know that...

Sure, but it is the basis of capitalism whether the Laissez-faire preachers understand what they're saying or not. The entire idea of capitalism is that re-investing profits will pump money back into the economy and spur innovation, thus increased living standards for all. The problem comes when there are no checks and balances when the inevitable hoarding comes, and the system devolves into a modern version of feudalism (capital will always have power over those trying to not starve). We saw this in the late 1800's with the Robber Barons, which is the reason we invented anti-trust laws etc., and eventually a Federal Reserve system.

Our billionaires are by-and-large in favor of higher wealth taxes for a reason: it's great for capitalism, their businesses, and advancement of society. Being in favor of wealth re-distribution in a way that tries to minimize moral hazard is being pro-capitalism. It's hard to convey this message that very wealthy business owners are trying to convey to the [dumb] masses.

 

[moevillini]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/takingnote/2014/07/29/higher-minimum-wage-faster-job-creation/

just thought I'd throw this out there...

Higher Minimum Wage, Faster Job Creation
By TERESA TRITCH
JULY 29, 2014
The standard argument against a higher minimum wage is that it will lead to job loss as employers, unable to pay more, lay off current workers or don’t hire new ones.

It’s important to state up front that research and experience don’t bear that out. The minimum wage has been raised many times without hurting employment. Rather than cut jobs, employers have offset the cost of higher minimums through reduced labor turnover. Employers also cope with a higher minimum by giving lower raises further up the wage scale, raising prices modestly or other adjustments.

Bolstering what we already know, new evidence shows that job creation is faster in states that have raised their minimum wages. The Center for Economic and Policy Research used federal labor data to tally job growth in 13 states* that raised their minimums in 2014. In all but one, New Jersey, employment was higher in the first five months of 2014 (after the wage increase) than it was in the last five months of 2013 (before the wage increase). In nine of the 12 states with faster growth, employment gains were above the national median.

That doesn’t mean that a higher minimum wage caused the job growth, a point clearly stated by the researchers at CEPR. But it indicates that raising the minimum didn’t hurt job growth, as opponents claim ad nauseam.

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/takingnote/2014/07/29/higher-minimum-wage-faster-job-creation/

just thought I'd throw this out there...

This isn't raising minimum wage. It's nearly doubling it.

 

[moevillini]

part of the strategy is that they are overshooting their target

I think something like $10.10 is the actual goal and some within the leadership think that's even a bit unrealistic

 

[One Brow]

IIRC correctly, the unemployment rate for the poorest populous increased by over 10% shortly after the minimum wage increase back in 2004.

You do not recall correctly. For one thing, there was no increase in minimum wage between 1997 and 2007 (link below). Now, unemployment did rise sharply shortly after the increase in 2007, in fact, it was in 2008. Only the most rabid partisans would say the minimum wage hike was responsible.

So far, pretty much every post you have contributed has been historically inaccurate. There is no reason to think any of it is true.

https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm

 

[One Brow]

The conclusion to this is that the price of stuff goes up to the point that people that have minimum wage jobs start bitching again in a few years because they can no longer afford it.

That's called inflation, and it happens regardless of whether the minimum increases or not.

 

[Stoked]

That's called inflation, and it happens regardless of whether the minimum increases or not.

lol yes it does. But his point is that the rise in the minimum wage will excelerate inflation.