(05-18-2016 01:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 01:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 12:48 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 11:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Thus the 'spread' between the cost of goods at McDonald's vs 5* or Wal-Mart vs Neiman Marcus is going to shrink... In and of itself, that may or may not be meaningful, but it is still an unintended consequence that needs to be considered. That WILL impact consumers choices.

Don't kid yourself. That is EXACTLY what the progressive left wants to happen. Because nobody should be eating better food and getting better service than the poorest of the poor can afford.

Good point. The problem is that all you're doing is getting rid of 'cheap' food and making mediocre food look for other ways to cut costs. You aren't really giving people more disposable income. Certainly not in aggregate.

(05-18-2016 01:12 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  A lot of people who earn a decent livable wage on tips are going to get a severe cut in pay when the min wage goes to 15 per hour. The restaurant can combat this by making all workers tip based. Everybody shares in the tip pool. Now they all earn $2.50 pe hour plus tips. They still must make a minimum of $15 an hour, but now instead of servers earning $25 an hour and the trash folks making $7.50, they will all earn the same amount. ($15 an hour)

The restaurants food price doesnt have to go up. Customers dont pay more. The $15 minimum wage is accomplished by redistributing the servers income into those who take out the trash and text on their phone.

Well done. Its Liberal Utopia. Bernie would be proud.

Decent point. It certainly will happen in SOME places that way.

So the person who is really hurt is the person who has worked hard and worked their way up to the point where they're earning $20/hr because they've earned it.... because it has to be given to the person who hasn't.

But this happens in the real world anyway. Starting pay for entry level professionals keeps going up and the guy that's been working for the company 20 years is making only a little more than they are.

Read again and try to comprehend...

Okay, another tidbit from me. We know that order takers, cooks, and others in the fast food industries don't usually get tips as they are not expected to be given. Why not just pin the cost on the public. That is, with every order aside from charging the tax that comes with your order pin a 15% to 20% tip to the tab. I think that's fair as sometimes I even feel for these workers as they can't rely on a tip and if you do want to give one, to whom do you give it to.

This is the route fast food workers should go. Who knows maybe it will also cut down on obesity, which I doubt as we love our fast food calories but heck, I'll do my part in the tipping business.

(05-18-2016 01:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But this happens in the real world anyway. Starting pay for entry level professionals keeps going up and the guy that's been working for the company 20 years is making only a little more than they are.

It hasn't doubled in the last 5 years, has it?
Besides you're talking about professionals, not min wage workers. Entirely different.
You're missing the forest for the trees but you ARE precisely making my point on the difference between THIS rise in the Min Wage and any other previous one.

Most importantly, what you describe is a function of supply/demand. If you've been somewhere for 20 years and aren't making more than an entry level person in the same job, you either lack transportable skills or you should test the employment waters. You're not suggesting that the government mandate that someone with 20 years be ASSURED of making 150% of a 'new hire'? There will be LOTS of unemployed 45 year olds.

(05-18-2016 03:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 01:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But this happens in the real world anyway. Starting pay for entry level professionals keeps going up and the guy that's been working for the company 20 years is making only a little more than they are.

It hasn't doubled in the last 5 years, has it?
Besides you're talking about professionals, not min wage workers. Entirely different.
You're missing the forest for the trees but you ARE precisely making my point on the difference between THIS rise in the Min Wage and any other previous one.

Most importantly, what you describe is a function of supply/demand. If you've been somewhere for 20 years and aren't making more than an entry level person in the same job, you either lack transportable skills or you should test the employment waters. You're not suggesting that the government mandate that someone with 20 years be ASSURED of making 150% of a 'new hire'? There will be LOTS of unemployed 45 year olds.

I worked in a factory right out of high school for 11 years. At least twice I remember the minimum wage going up from 3.25 to 3.55 to 3.85. each time, new employees got what I was already making and I was already there for year and a half.

(05-18-2016 01:49 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Okay, another tidbit from me. We know that order takers, cooks, and others in the fast food industries don't usually get tips as they are not expected to be given. Why not just pin the cost on the public. That is, with every order aside from charging the tax that comes with your order pin a 15% to 20% tip to the tab. I think that's fair as sometimes I even feel for these workers as they can't rely on a tip and if you do want to give one, to whom do you give it to.

This is the route fast food workers should go. Who knows maybe it will also cut down on obesity, which I doubt as we love our fast food calories but heck, I'll do my part in the tipping business.

Lots of places do. McDonald's pays all its people $7.50/hr. Chili's pays its servers 2.25 or so plus tips, guaranteeing them a minimum of $7.50.... while paying the untipped people $7.50. Essentially McDonald's HAS done precisely what you suggest. As to whom do you give it to, SOME places require that 20% of a food tip go to bus boys or bartenders or others, but again, all that is is spreading the 'upside' from the mandated wage.

Would it be 'right' for a server working for $2.25 plus tips (or whatever that wage is) with a minimum of $7.50 to HAVE to tip out a bus boy who doesn't get tips but is paid $8?

(05-18-2016 03:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 03:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 01:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But this happens in the real world anyway. Starting pay for entry level professionals keeps going up and the guy that's been working for the company 20 years is making only a little more than they are.

It hasn't doubled in the last 5 years, has it?
Besides you're talking about professionals, not min wage workers. Entirely different.
You're missing the forest for the trees but you ARE precisely making my point on the difference between THIS rise in the Min Wage and any other previous one.

Most importantly, what you describe is a function of supply/demand. If you've been somewhere for 20 years and aren't making more than an entry level person in the same job, you either lack transportable skills or you should test the employment waters. You're not suggesting that the government mandate that someone with 20 years be ASSURED of making 150% of a 'new hire'? There will be LOTS of unemployed 45 year olds.

I worked in a factory right out of high school for 11 years. At least twice I remember the minimum wage going up from 3.25 to 3.55 to 3.85. each time, new employees got what I was already making and I was already there for year and a half.

11 years and you were still making minimum wage? The new guys werent making what you were making because minimum wage went up. The new guys were making as much or more than you were making because you werent worth more money.

(05-18-2016 03:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 03:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 01:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But this happens in the real world anyway. Starting pay for entry level professionals keeps going up and the guy that's been working for the company 20 years is making only a little more than they are.

It hasn't doubled in the last 5 years, has it?
Besides you're talking about professionals, not min wage workers. Entirely different.
You're missing the forest for the trees but you ARE precisely making my point on the difference between THIS rise in the Min Wage and any other previous one.

Most importantly, what you describe is a function of supply/demand. If you've been somewhere for 20 years and aren't making more than an entry level person in the same job, you either lack transportable skills or you should test the employment waters. You're not suggesting that the government mandate that someone with 20 years be ASSURED of making 150% of a 'new hire'? There will be LOTS of unemployed 45 year olds.

I worked in a factory right out of high school for 11 years. At least twice I remember the minimum wage going up from 3.25 to 3.55 to 3.85. each time, new employees got what I was already making and I was already there for year and a half.

Lmfao. This doesnt shock me one bit.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(05-18-2016 03:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 03:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 01:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But this happens in the real world anyway. Starting pay for entry level professionals keeps going up and the guy that's been working for the company 20 years is making only a little more than they are.

It hasn't doubled in the last 5 years, has it?
Besides you're talking about professionals, not min wage workers. Entirely different.
You're missing the forest for the trees but you ARE precisely making my point on the difference between THIS rise in the Min Wage and any other previous one.

Most importantly, what you describe is a function of supply/demand. If you've been somewhere for 20 years and aren't making more than an entry level person in the same job, you either lack transportable skills or you should test the employment waters. You're not suggesting that the government mandate that someone with 20 years be ASSURED of making 150% of a 'new hire'? There will be LOTS of unemployed 45 year olds.

I worked in a factory right out of high school for 11 years. At least twice I remember the minimum wage going up from 3.25 to 3.55 to 3.85. each time, new employees got what I was already making and I was already there for year and a half.

Same when I was working pizza delivery.

Its funny that people blame evil corporations...until this sort of deal....then they blame the people who this happens to for not being "worth it" to the employer.

The guys who didn't work hard and get raises....deserve a raise! Poor guys. Can't feed a family...blah..blah.

The guys who did work hard and got a raise...well....they must not have been worth much if their employer didn't give them a second raise! Slackers!

What a twisted logic world.

The two times I wasn't happy with what I was making at a job I found another job that paid more. But I guess that would take effort and personal responsibility and we can't have that if the desired goal is a nanny state.

(05-18-2016 08:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  The two times I wasn't happy with what I was making at a job I found another job that paid more. But I guess that would take effort and personal responsibility and we can't have that if the desired goal is a nanny state.

Hey, if you are outside protesting that means you don't have to work. They see that as an added bonus.

(05-19-2016 07:44 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 08:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  The two times I wasn't happy with what I was making at a job I found another job that paid more. But I guess that would take effort and personal responsibility and we can't have that if the desired goal is a nanny state.

Hey, if you are outside protesting that means you don't have to work. They see that as an added bonus.

So in your world people never get days off, and the poor shouldn't be allowed to protest...typical conservative attitude.

(05-18-2016 08:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  The two times I wasn't happy with what I was making at a job I found another job that paid more. But I guess that would take effort and personal responsibility and we can't have that if the desired goal is a nanny state.

WGAS?

You do this a lot...nobody wants to hear a 'back in my day' story except other angry, and cranky conservatives.

(05-19-2016 08:05 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 07:44 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 08:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  The two times I wasn't happy with what I was making at a job I found another job that paid more. But I guess that would take effort and personal responsibility and we can't have that if the desired goal is a nanny state.

Hey, if you are outside protesting that means you don't have to work. They see that as an added bonus.

So in your world people never get days off, and the poor shouldn't be allowed to protest...typical conservative attitude.

Not at all, but you know that. Folks are allowed to protest, and other folks are allowed to call them idiots. Works both ways.

(05-19-2016 08:07 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 08:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  The two times I wasn't happy with what I was making at a job I found another job that paid more. But I guess that would take effort and personal responsibility and we can't have that if the desired goal is a nanny state.

WGAS?

You do this a lot...nobody wants to hear a 'back in my day' story except other angry, and cranky conservatives.

Sounds like someone didnt get lube last night.

(05-19-2016 09:39 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 08:07 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 08:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  The two times I wasn't happy with what I was making at a job I found another job that paid more. But I guess that would take effort and personal responsibility and we can't have that if the desired goal is a nanny state.

WGAS?

You do this a lot...nobody wants to hear a 'back in my day' story except other angry, and cranky conservatives.

Sounds like someone didnt get lube last night.

There's no need for that kind of imagery.

Come on man.

(05-19-2016 09:39 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 08:07 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 08:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  The two times I wasn't happy with what I was making at a job I found another job that paid more. But I guess that would take effort and personal responsibility and we can't have that if the desired goal is a nanny state.

WGAS?

You do this a lot...nobody wants to hear a 'back in my day' story except other angry, and cranky conservatives.

Sounds like someone didnt get lube last night.

I got a full synthetic lube for my VW yesterday...it had been 6 months, so it was time for a good engine lube.

(05-19-2016 08:25 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 08:05 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 07:44 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 08:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  The two times I wasn't happy with what I was making at a job I found another job that paid more. But I guess that would take effort and personal responsibility and we can't have that if the desired goal is a nanny state.

Hey, if you are outside protesting that means you don't have to work. They see that as an added bonus.

So in your world people never get days off, and the poor shouldn't be allowed to protest...typical conservative attitude.

Not at all, but you know that. Folks are allowed to protest, and other folks are allowed to call them idiots. Works both ways.

An aspect of 21st century freedom of speech in a nutshell.


By the way, be interesting to see if Wendys goes belly up now that it's done something no conservative thinks will work, i.e., pay workers a good wage.

(05-19-2016 09:54 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 08:25 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 08:05 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 07:44 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 08:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  The two times I wasn't happy with what I was making at a job I found another job that paid more. But I guess that would take effort and personal responsibility and we can't have that if the desired goal is a nanny state.

Hey, if you are outside protesting that means you don't have to work. They see that as an added bonus.

So in your world people never get days off, and the poor shouldn't be allowed to protest...typical conservative attitude.

Not at all, but you know that. Folks are allowed to protest, and other folks are allowed to call them idiots. Works both ways.

An aspect of 21st century freedom of speech in a nutshell.


By the way, be interesting to see if Wendys goes belly up now that it's done something no conservative thinks will work, i.e., pay workers a good wage.

they aren't raising anything (unless the state requires it)...they're installing kiosks...the OP was trying to equate the MW to these kiosks.

they have been coming for over a decade ever since supermarkets got the 'u-scan' lanes...it was inevitable as technology only gets cheaper

It's kind of a win-win for Wendy's. They get to cut labor costs by firing a bunch of people, and then claim that they are doing good by their employees with the raise to $15 for those who are left.

(05-19-2016 09:57 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 09:54 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 08:25 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 08:05 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 07:44 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Hey, if you are outside protesting that means you don't have to work. They see that as an added bonus.

So in your world people never get days off, and the poor shouldn't be allowed to protest...typical conservative attitude.

Not at all, but you know that. Folks are allowed to protest, and other folks are allowed to call them idiots. Works both ways.

An aspect of 21st century freedom of speech in a nutshell.


By the way, be interesting to see if Wendys goes belly up now that it's done something no conservative thinks will work, i.e., pay workers a good wage.

they aren't raising anything...they're installing kiosks...the OP was trying to equate the MW to these kiosks.

they have been coming for over a decade ever since supermarkets got the 'u-scan' lanes...it was inevitable as technology only gets cheaper

Totally clueless.