(02-15-2024 09:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Great. That still ahs zero to do with the specific bill, and the specific language in the bill. Glad you have done roll ups and the like for 25 years. It is immaterial to the specific issue.
It is absolutely material. I know how to get around legislation like this. That is directly material.
There are dozens of ways around bills like these.... I went 12 inches into a few of them. You chose to go 20 feet deep into just one of them and are still incorrect that McDonald's can't divest itself of 59 California McDonald's to an effectively commonly owned MacDowell's operation that would run things highly similarly to McDonald's, even perhaps sharing some vendors... whatever it takes to avoid your loose definition of 'similar'. MOST fast food burger joints are 'similar'. Some more similar than others.
A perfect example is the McDonald's in Moscow... Opened I think in 1990 or so, closed in 2021 or 2022... opened again under a new name and new owned with few changes, but much like MacDowell's in the movie, one can easily see the similarities. Obviously they went just far enough to get around trademark laws etc.
Quote:If there is *an* outlet in CA, and that outlet has 60 or more across the nation, and they share common, standardized, or similar decor, marketing, packaging, products, and services --- it kicks in. Period.
No ****. Good thing nobody described that.... but your language here is loose.... and that is where I lived when I did this.
YOU used the example of someone who, without the knowledge or consent or involvement of this outlet opening a similar operation... somehow making this outlet responsible for those actions.... and that is ridiculous and you know it. They copied your business. NO (valid) legislation would make you legally or financially responsible for someone copying your business without your knowledge or consent.
Quote:Doesnt matter if any are commonly owned. Or all separately owned. Ownership is simply immaterial in the context of the bill.
Ownership is immaterial to the bill... I never implied otherwise. My point was that ownership of MOST things in this nation are pretty common... so 'ownership' doesn't need for these companies to be rolled up... they just need them to make money. If you understand how Warren Buffet made his fortune then you understand how regulation and taxation can cause changes in business structures without having material impact on the front end. I noted that the ownership didn't change... in an effort to point out that the people REALLY in charge of these businesses would still be in charge of them.
The entities who own McDonald's are by and large the same entities who own Pizza Hut and Burger King and Wendy's.... so they don't care if thisMcDonald's is one company or 12. They just care about the bottom line. The franchise owners probably care, but they probably care even more about paying $50/hr when they're currently paying closer to $10.
Quote:Notwithstanding all the additional issues you go down the path of. No need to argue distinctions in my hypos, the. ones. you. go. off. on. simply. dont. matter. with. regards. to. the. bill.
Lol... They details in the hypo YOU GAVE don't matter.... because you assumed same name and same operating agreement. I agree, those don't matter... which is why I never assumed such things.
An unrelated company (though with similar ownership) that follows similar protocols... but 'just enough' to avoid your concerns... like MacDowell's in the Movie or The old McDonald's in Russia... ABSOLUTELY . MATTERS . WITH . REGARDS . TO . THE . BILL (lol) hence it was my hypo.
Quote:Your gyrations of roll ups, roll outs, how long you did them, etc etc etc simply dont matter.
No... what matters is that you don't know what the **** you're talking about and I do. THAT is what matters.
Quote:And no, I did not "miss where I said the ownership really doesn't change under my proposal... because it is owned by shareholders??" It is immaterial.
Wow.... your inability to follow simple words is truly astounding.
The whole point of my example was that ownership was immaterial to being able to get around this legislation. Since you made a comment about 'ownership being immaterial', I assumed you missed where I said this as well.
I assumed that you'd understand that 'divesting themselves' of a group of outlets would include ALL connections to those outlets.... including but not remotely limited to the operating agreement... otherwise it isn't a divestiture.
(02-15-2024 10:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: It is the definition of sufficiently that is debated and discussed. But why else would a minimum wage have been established in the first place if not to provide some standard of living?
I think it is the definition of 'minimum' that should be discussed.
The left on this issue seems to want to describe a 'minimum' standard of living that of someone being able to support a family of 4. While that is certainly the case for some people, that is not the minimum.
The minimum wage should be designed to provide a MINIMUM standard of living.... so any such calculation should not involve what it takes for someone to be 'comfortable'... or 'support a family'... but what it takes for them to 'minimally get by'. Plenty of other social safety nets also contribute to this. Most of us on the right think that the minimum wage should reflect the minimal situation... which is not an independent person... much less a family... it seems appropriate to me that should a family of 4 be forced to live off of this for a period that in addition to other sacrifices (like perhaps the spouse having to work at least some) that the GOVERNMENT and/or charity organizations would also help provide support... and not the employer.
THAT'S the big thing to me. We are transferring primary responsibility for a person's well being from that person... bypassing the government and putting it on the employer, who of course then passes a lot of that back on to the consumers, exacerbating the problem that it purports to be solving.
The FPL for a single person is something like 15k... 15k for 52 weeks at 40 hours is $7.21. That is the MINIMUM someone should be paid.... and the reality is that most MW jobs SHOULD be the sort of job that someone gets while they're in school part time or a second part time job or what have you.... or the sort of FIRST job that an unskilled high school graduate gets.
If you want to have a stay-at-home spouse, not ride a bike or the bus to work and have some kids, you need to earn more... you need to develop/acquire skills and experience that pay more. You should not be able to support a family of 4 on one, MINIMUM wage job.
Not that you would do this, but as soon as some on the left accept this, they then go immediately into some analysis that starts with someone living independently. No. You have a room mate or you rent a 'room' in someone's house... not a 'bachelor pad' 1br apartment.
PART of the reason so many people from central America come here is that they will live 4 men in a 2br apartment... paying $400 or less each.... and yet when we look at what we want for a single minimum wage American... we take that 1600mo 2br divided by 4 people with no car and turn it into a 1200/mo 1br with someone alone with a car. If you don't want Americans living that way, I totally get it... and a big part of getting there would be to stem the flow of people for whom having only 4 people in a 2br apartment is not palatable.
(02-16-2024 08:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: That is not quite what you said, and why I specified professionals. Your words were far broader (see below).
You took one line out of probably 50. No, I didn't say it in THAT line, but I did say it.
I don't know what you make or what many of my friends earn or how much more they make in 2020 than they did in 2024. I DO know that everyone on minimum wage and social security haven't had a 20% pay increase. I also know that my son, a teacher hasn't had a 20% increase... nor has my daughter... a therapist... nor have my doctors reimbursements gone up by 20%. Mine's been more than that, but I've changed jobs and gotten merit increases and bonuses.
I don't think 'my current job title' has seen a 5% increase per year. I think (based on old pay scale information) it's seen more like a 3-3.5% increase per year... which over 4 years isn't 20%, but is more like 12-15, resulting in a meaningful drop in buying power.
So yes it's true... while I don't know or pay attention to a lot of other people's salaries...
"
I don't know of many people who earn 20% more in 2024 than in 2020 for doing the same job... "
The choice of words was at least fairly intentional. I don't doubt that many people HAVE seen such increases, but for those in the same capacity as 4 years ago, I am not aware of many who have seen such an increase.
(02-15-2024 03:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: It can be debated what a minimum wage job should or shouldn't cover. Getting into that for just a moment, I agree that it shouldn't be designed to cover student loans plus living expenses for a 1 BR. But I don't see a strong argument for why it shouldn't cover living expenses for a 1 BR.
Our housing is generally built around the idea that a 1br is the most expensive unit per sq ft... and that a 2br is less than double the cost of a 1br... and a 3br less than triple because of the many shared facilities.
While not directly related, this is among the ways that we have destroyed the nuclear family... especially in the black community... where you get more money by living alone than you would if you lived together.... as in you get $1200/2 for housing as opposed to $1600 for a 2br. Again, not directly related, but the same sort of 'math'.
Also I'd say that if you lack any marketable skills such that the only job you can get is a minimum wage one, you probably shouldn't be living independently. We're not talking about periods of weak economy or temporary layoffs, but literally the 'baseline' for your existence.
If the government wants to help you live alone, that's one thing. But we're demanding that CONSUMERS subsidize minimum wage workers... and most minimum wage jobs are not at 'luxury' outlets, but at ones that generally provide goods and services for low income people... so we're making poor people subsidize other poor people??
The other issue for those seeking these larger hikes in minimum wage is that they are effectively turning all sorts of jobs that DO require some skills into (at least close to) minimum wage jobs.... because of wage compression. I mean, I don't see many lower wage, openly posted jobs in Houston that don't pay $10+ (Gas stations, fast food places with signs on their doors) so a move to 8.50 or whatever probably doesn't impact many people... and of course, $15-20 in San Fran is probably similar... but a national move to 15, much less 50 is just a disaster waiting to happen... and much like St Louis University being asked for $74byn in 'reparations' (when their endowment is 1.4 or something) with the comment that 'this is a starting point for a conversation'... it is so high as to be ludicrous. Without getting too deep into it, anything over the value of the entire University is a non-starter... and anything that puts the University our of business is not something ANYONE would simply 'agree' to.
This is obviously a very different scale, but the conversation is still the same. Anything that puts the existence of the job in doubt, whether it be through automation or simple cessation of business is a non-starter... and $50/hr to serve cheap hamburgers is just insane.
Quote:I also wonder if we should move the route of some European countries that have a tiered wage system for younger workers to manage one of the issues you discussed.
Sure. I don't have a general problem with this.... but I think the left may as 'younger workers' might not even get $7.25 as they generally don't need to pay rent or often even food. Many European countries have 'tracks' for their students that involve job training etc... so a student learning to be an electrician can get a low wage job as an apprentice that is also part of their training. Them working at McDonald's doesn't really help with that.
So I think the differences may be more complex than they may appear... and again, I am more in favor of the government rather than employers making up the differences for people's individual situations.
What we don't want to do is what we're doing now... where we're being told that illegal immigrants are 'doing the jobs American's don't want'... when the reality is more that they are doing those jobs for WAGES that we won't accept. If you want higher wages, especially during periods of high growth or low numbers of new workers... then you need to keep people willing to work for $8/hr to a minimum... as opposed to making MORE of them.
Number's prebate/prefund is a much better way to increase wages.
/
$50 minimum wage
