(02-16-2024 12:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tomato, tomato. We are saying the exact same thing here and apparently agree.

Maybe, but maybe not. You and I may agree, but the left and right do not. You aren't one of those clamoring for $50/hr.

What I mean is that while it might be up to the government to decide that 'this' is the minimum standard of living that a person or family in this country should have... it should not be up to them to dictate that even the most menial of jobs should afford that. If the government wants people to have that standard of living, then it should provide it... and I don't think requiring that a person do SOMETHING for that standard of living is unreasonable. You should not simply be given that standard of living to sit on your butt all day... because SOMEONE is paying for you to do so.

Quote:And look, here is the detail explanation of your opinion on how to define "sufficiently" as it relates to the minimum wage. You seem to believe we disagree here when there is no disagreement about where the debate really should be when it comes to the minimum wage. It's far more about the minimum wage's purpose and standard of living it should provide, then what the actual dollar value is (though those are inherently interlinked).

I generally agree... but the Federal Poverty Level, determined by the government is set at around 15k/yr... which is less than the current minimum wage... which means that if you work 40 hours a week for minimum wage, you are not below the federal poverty level.

So although many places pay more than minimum wage and the FPL in some places is a whole lot more... why would the law require businesses to pay even more?

Quote:Holy speaking out of both sides of the mouth, Batman!

Which one is it, am I supposed to pay attention to the 49 other lines or the one line, as you just said, you were "fairly intentional" about using?

They are not in conflict.

I said people on min wage and people on fixed incomes have not seen a 20% increase in their income.... Those are not individuals I necessarily know... they are 'groups' of people.... and that I don't personally know many individuals who are doing the same job they did 4 years ago and making 20% more. None of my former doctors do... none of my former staff do... I see the job postings and know what we paid. Health insurance reimbursements for services are not generally up by 20%... so nobody whose income is tied to insurance reimbursement is doing the same job for 20% more money.

Quote:You're literally sitting on both sides of the statement above - that you were talking about minimum wage workers while simultaneously "intentionally" speaking about "many people" more broadly, like teachers and therapists.

I could very well be incorrect that, peer professionals making a salary did not obtain a 4% to 5% increase year over year.

To the last comment... the difference between 4 and 5% over 4 years is meaningful. It adds up quickly because it compounds.

To the former... It's not remotely 'both sides'... it is simply large broad categories of wage earners who have not seen 20% income increases.... and thus have lost purchasing power.... followed by personal anecdotes.

Most people who I personally know who make 20%+ more have changed jobs to do it. I know for a fact that salaries near my pay grade at my large, fortune 500 company have not seen a 20% increase since 2020. It's been closer to 12-15%.

(02-15-2024 03:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I see you concern and understand where it comes from. But when this comes up, I always think about countries with higher minimum wages and how places like McDonald's still exist.

McDonald's is of course an object, not a specific. I think we agree on this...

If you go to McDonald's in Paris, it is much more of a 'treat' than it is here where to some it is their source of meals 5+ times a week. In Paris, that (the 5x week cheap meal) is the boulangerie on the corner, not McDonald's.

(02-16-2024 12:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Glad to hear your opinion on this without you bothering to actually read the legislation.

This is always your response. I read more than enough to know that like the thousands of other attempts over at least the past 50 years and for most of recorded history, the ability of entrepeneurs to get around most legislation that BY DESIGN creates carve-outs for preferred businesses has been near 100%.

I note that you have yet to show how my example would fail under the law... without you assuming things that are in direct conflict with my proposal... and that your example where an unrelated party copies their business model somehow makes them financially liable is just ridiculous. If that is what the legislation says, it has ABSOLUTELY no chance of passing legal muster and I can't believe you disagree. More likely, your hypothetical simply misses the mark.

Quote:Many do have those outs. Yours, in this particular case -- doesnt even touch the enabling issue in the law. But please tell us what an expert you are on *this* matter in particular.

I have. Your inability or unwillingness to accept that is not my problem. Now perhaps you didn't get the MacDowell's reference... but that's you not getting the reference... and not me not touching the 'enabling issue'.

Quote:Yep, your path of 'divest into pockets of 59, and play fast and loose with similarities, but just enough to get around the legislation, but somehow doesnt screw over the national marketing or regional marketing aspects that are the strong advantage of a nationwide fast food operation, and somehow doesnt fk up your own trademark issues with intentional dilution of your own brand.'

A perfect example of you making ridiculous assertions that ignore what I actually said.

Let's start with this, since this is where you started with me.

The legislation doesn't care about national marketing campaigns nor brand dilution... so why do you bring it up here?? Apparently just to have something to argue about. It is inherent in ANY such evaluation that the cost of avoidance must be greater than the cost of compliance.... and you don't have the foggiest idea of any of those numbers... nor do I... so this is just you talking out of your ass. Of course regional advertising would easily continue, since you now have 59 MacDowell's, all in one state (because nobody else has such a stupid proposal) who could engage in joint advertising and branding. Would it be 'the same"?? Probably not. Would it be worth it to avoid having to pay $50/hr? The inherent presumption in taking this step is 'yes'.

As I said... They may also decide instead to automate and reduce jobs... or just shut the doors... but the odds that they simply 'pay the price' because the legislation is written in such a way that they have no choice is just stupid.

Honestly, it's the franchisee's who would be clamoring for McDonald's to do this. McDonald's probably doesn't care WHAT they have to pay for labor... Despite being aware of this, you apparently never thought about that.

Quote:Actually the only thing that they need to avoid is the 'trap mechanism' of the legislation. But considering you havent bothered to even read it, thanks for your insights into the expertise in the a one stop solution for the issue.

Oh piss off you arrogant prick. I've read enough to know that there ARE ways to avoid the 'trap mechanism'... and that is precisely what I meant when I used MacDowell's.

I think it laughable that you admonish me for not bothering to delve into the 'details' of this 'proposal' that hasn't even remotely come close to passing and becoming law... much less the corporate governance and legal structures for California franchisee's of McDonald's.... yet you want to gloss over the fact that you... an attorney... don't seem to understand that companies aren't legally liable for actions taken by companies who copy their business plan. They are (if anything) the injured party... not the responsible party.

Quote:Funny, again -- I suggest you actually read the legislation in question. In short order, while I disagree with the focus of the bill -- the bill is quite ingeniously crafted. You are correct that Cali isnt going to focus on the 'lone copier'. They will focus on the dudes who package together 59 'Farbucks' and 59 'Starlucks' (no matter the form of ownership) to try and edge away the criteria.

So you admit that your example was categorically wrong in all respects... yet you still feel qualified to pass judgement on mine??

Okay Chief... I'll play.

Quote:That is if Starbucks is stupid enough to **** on its own trademarks by intentionally self-diluting them, and stupid enough to **** on their own national marketing efforts.

I started with MacDowell's from the movie... which if you will recall... precisely avoided this very scenario that you're jerking off to. Now perhaps Starlucks or Farbucks doesn't pass muster... and I chose not to get that deep into 'exactly' what it would take to pass muster... because that isn't spelled out in this legislation... and I KNOW it isn't without reading it.... and you don't know either exactly 'how' different it must be.... so why argue about things that NOBODY knows? Oh yeah... because you like to argue.

Quote:

Quote: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.

Actually you stated just the opposite. Actual ownership would change in a roll-up, or in a roll out.

And here you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the process AND your lack of reading comprehension of what I wrote here.

MOST of the 'ownership' of Newco would remain with the large money houses like Blackrock, Pimco and others that already own LegacyCo. Yes, some ownership would change hands, and it might go from Pimco Large Cap to Pimco Small Cap, but it would STILL remain with Pimco. I went in to fairly specific detail on this... I'm surprised you still don't understand.

Just to return your advice, Maybe you should get a better understanding of finance before telling me I'm wrong?

Quote:Again -- 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.

Great... so define 'similar'. THAT is what I meant by 'loose' language. All you have to do is locate that line and be one step on the correct side of it. You act like this is impossible and demand that I 'read the legislation' to define where that is... when all I said was... where ever that line is, be 'just' on the other side of it. That is EXACTLY what my MacDowell's example was all about... your complaints notwithstanding.

but I can GUARANTEE you that your example where somebody... WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT... copies their business model and THEY are somehow held financially liable for it is just nits.

Besides... It should be obvious that was the MINIMUM they had to do.

Quote:

Quote: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.

The franchisees absolutely do care. I'd be pissed if I had to change my (national brand, national standards) McDonalds into a McDowells that will be utterly confused with the other kissing cousins of your setup.

Lol.... I'm just literally laughing my ass off that this ultimately boils down to this (what was your word? Ingenious?) bit of legislation that does absolutely NOTHING to harm McDonald's... but only some poor schmuck who made the mistake of buying a franchise in California... and perhaps only one of them.

Yes... I'd be pissed too that California enacted such a stupid bit of legislation... but not at McDonald's. They didn't do ANYTHING to you.

The key that we don't know, which is part of what makes your argument about these details so stupid) is what the 'going wage' would be for anyone not subject to this legislation. If it's $15-20, then I can all but assure you that they're more pissed about that than the franchise... They can remain a McDonald's franchise and pay $50/hr. Becoming a MacDowell's is just a way to get around the rules, if you (the franchisee) can't survive at that wage.

Quote:Yep, if you dont care about the national presence advantage, wish to replace your consumers confidence in a strong brand, decor, marketing, packaging, products, and services, and replace them with a hodge podge of 59 confusingly similar outlets. That cuts completely against the inherent strengths of a, say, national branded Starbucks, national franchise Mickey Ds --- but hey, replace them all with a smorgasbord of confusing flotsam cousins -- perfect solution.

[quote]By the way -- nice touch on the "ABSOLUTELY . MATTERS . WITH . REGARDS . TO . THE . BILL " when you havent evern read the damn thing...... lol.

I've read enough to know that I'm not wrong... but keep jousting at this.

Quote:In terms of "[someone not] know[ing] what the **** you're talking about" where do *you* rank your *own* not even having read the bill or legislation in that spectrum Ham? Please do tell.

Again, I'm demonstrably not wrong... and you demonstrably are.

All these bills work the same way. EVERY SINGLE TIME.... They have carve outs meaning they have what I think you called a trigger point... what I described as being 'just different enough' to avoid that point. It's EXACTLY the same concept... and pretty obviously, since you somehow got 'a brother in law opening their own shop without their knowledge or consent somehow makes THEM liable' from it, I'd say your reading didn't help you.

I'm sorry I assumed you understood basic financial terms like divestiture and what it means to be 'just different enough'.

Quote:Only matched by your ability to be a know it all expert on an issue without bothering to read the legislation, and propose a whole slew of steps that have zero issue on the matter to get to a number, that, you are misapplying how the number is used.

Lol... and yet somehow, I'm demonstrably correct. Funny that.

My solution... divesting 59 former McDonald's into a new company 'just different enough' to not be subject to the law works perfectly... 100% of the time. Now it may or may not be financially 'worth it'... but that has nothing to do with how the legislation is written... and NONE OF US have the information necessary to make that determination... All I said was that if they wanted to get around this legislation, they could... and this is (in simplest terms) how... and I am 100% correct.

That's how carve-outs work.... Every... Single... Time.

No, I don't know how this legislation defines 'just different enough' nor do I at this point care... because of all the other things we don't know... which wouldn't be in the legislation.

Again, you read it and made a company legally responsible for someone stealing their business model... lol.

(02-15-2024 03:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2024 02:18 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  If minimum-skill labor were worth $50 an hour, it would already be paid that.

To this point and the larger discussion. To me, I see the driver of these discussions being less about the value of labor, and much more about the minimum standard of living that we, as a country, should effectively provide someone who is working a full time job.

I think it would be just corking if each person's earnings were based on the standard of living that I (and people who agree with me) think they should have.

Any objections to that arrangement?

(02-16-2024 05:05 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-15-2024 03:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2024 02:18 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  If minimum-skill labor were worth $50 an hour, it would already be paid that.

To this point and the larger discussion. To me, I see the driver of these discussions being less about the value of labor, and much more about the minimum standard of living that we, as a country, should effectively provide someone who is working a full time job.

I think it would be just corking if each person's earnings were based on the standard of living that I (and people who agree with me) think they should have.

Any objections to that arrangement?

I’m not sure what corking means exactly, so it’s hard for me to respond.

But the idea you posit is appreciably different than what I’ve said. Yours suggests that each person’s earnings are based on a scaling standard of living. The idea I posit, which has been supported by most of the western industrial world for some time now, is that if you are willing to work an honest week of work, you should be paid, at a minimum, a wage that can afford a certain minimum standard of living.

This seems to me that the concept, but not necessarily the execution, should be uncontroversial, especially in a society that values people working.

(02-16-2024 02:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-16-2024 01:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2024 12:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-16-2024 12:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-16-2024 06:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That’s the same freaking thing. What you quoted literally says it was to address wages that “did not allow workers to afford the necessaries of life.”

Can you articulate the difference between a floor and a standard of living?

As I said, the question is about where that floor/standard of living is set.

Once you get it into your head that it is about a standard of living, it will be hard to get it out.

But originally, it wasn't.

Rich men who ran the main business in a town could dictate substandard wages. The workers ended up working for nothing. The MW was meant to stop that.

Here is a song about one such worker who "owes his soul to the company store".

Whiney blue teamers are - apparently successfully - trying to make this about a minimum standard of living. The goal now is to make that fast food job a kid gets at 16 last his whole life, send his kids to college, etc. We will now have working the drive-thru become a career choice.

But you asked why did they enact MW in the first place. It wasn't to insure that the poorest people in America had two cars in their two car garage. It was to insure that people in the Depression who were lucky enough to find a job had enough money to eat.

I used to work for minimum wage. Been there, done that. But I had ambition to do better than that. So I went to school, got better jobs, made more than MW. Why should I have done that if sliding sandwiches gave me all I ever wanted?

Now the whiney liberals want to take away that ambition by making a person's first, entry level job adequate to propel them through 50 years without change.

The necessities of life is a standard that few people aspire to. It is the minimum - the floor. It isn't a comfortable middle class house.

But the point I have been trying to make - and falling upon deaf, stubborn ears - is that raising the MW has only a temporary effect. I raises the whole occupational pyramid, but a workers relative place within the pyramid doesn't change. Your 5% pay raise is not a promotion, and when everybody gets a pay raise, all that is raised in the end is the cost of living. Are you going to be happy with your 5% if the workers you supervise get 20% more?

Raising the wages of the bottom tier raises everybody, eventually - and that is inflation. It doesn't materially change the standard of living of the bottom tier. The poor are still the poor. But some dumb ass politician in the not so distant future - you know which kind - will run in the platform of a $300 minimum wage on the basis of the Federal Poverty level being so high. And you will approve of that.

Maybe after you have seen another 30 years of this rinse and repeat it will finally dawn on you.

There are still people doing the work I did for MW in 1965 today, except now they are doing it for $18/hr instead of $1.25/hr. They still live in crappy housing and drive old junkers, and their kids still wear hand-me-downs. All that changed was the rates they received and the rate they paid, not their place in the pyramid. Their standard of living sure as hell didn't change.

Once you get it in your mind that you have to disagree with someone, you won't be able to see when you agree.

You and I are saying the same thing - the minimum wage is meant to, as you say, make sure the workers weren't working for nothing. The debate happening is, as you also correctly point out, where the "minimum" should get people (aka, what their standard of ******* living should be).

It's wild how much you seem to want to fight over a broad concept that we agree upon.

Where disagreement might come in is where that floor, minimum, standard of living should be. But instead you're trying to parse the difference between "minimum" and "standard" as if that is a meaningful thing to parse.

It should not be a "living wage". That is not the purpose of a "minimum". We want teenagers to earn some money, we don't want them doing the same job for the next 50 years. Once we start dictating that every worker should have a minimum standard of living, we are on the same road Soviet Russia went down.

We have gone far afield from my original premise, which is that increasing the minimum wage is both inflationary and useless. It doesn't change ones position in the social hierarchy, because in 2-3 years, costs will have gone up. But you asked why we had MW.

Wish I could talk to you again in 40 years. It would be interesting to what your opinions change. I expect the MW then will be much higher, and we will still have poor people living in substandard housing and barely able, if that, to make ends meet.

I prefer to let the open market set prices for various kinds of labor, with a MW setting a floor. Here in beautiful Texas, the MW is still $7.75, but the free market has dictated pay in the $14-16 range. Of course, that is the same market that has resulted in 15-20% increases in the cost of the fast foods I live off. A #! has gone from about $8 to about $11. Rents are up. The standard of living has not changed, just the cost.

The MW floor - how is it set in your mind? As in, what factors should be considered when determining that the minimum wage should be $XX?

From what I can tell, it would be labor market-dictated and have nothing to do with cost of living.

The floor should be set somewhat below the market, but not so low that it it is ridiculously low.

That way, it serves as a floor. A stop loss. As it should.

It should only be raised as a response to a rising labor market. Not used as a driver of artificial economic equality.

Do you disagree with my assertion that raising the MW has no lasting effect on socioeconomic standards, that poor remain the poor, using their increased incomes to pay increased costs? If so, what is the point of raising the MW. Nobody benefits, except maybe a few political candidates. Many of us lose, because even if the increased wages can buy the same amount of goods as before, we have less take home due to the rising income tax rake.

Who wins? HS juniors?

Just went thru one of drive-thrus, and guess what? Price up 5%. Since my income hasn't risen, that means my standard of living (everybody's standard of living) has dropped. What is the government going to do to maintain the SOL they have chosen for me (and everybody else)? Raise taxes and mail checks?

(02-16-2024 07:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-16-2024 05:05 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-15-2024 03:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2024 02:18 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  If minimum-skill labor were worth $50 an hour, it would already be paid that.

To this point and the larger discussion. To me, I see the driver of these discussions being less about the value of labor, and much more about the minimum standard of living that we, as a country, should effectively provide someone who is working a full time job.

I think it would be just corking if each person's earnings were based on the standard of living that I (and people who agree with me) think they should have.

Any objections to that arrangement?

I’m not sure what corking means exactly, so it’s hard for me to respond.

But the idea you posit is appreciably different than what I’ve said. Yours suggests that each person’s earnings are based on a scaling standard of living. The idea I posit, which has been supported by most of the western industrial world for some time now, is that if you are willing to work an honest week of work, you should be paid, at a minimum, a wage that can afford a certain minimum standard of living.

This seems to me that the concept, but not necessarily the execution, should be uncontroversial, especially in a society that values people working.

Zoom! :)

(02-16-2024 07:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The idea I posit, which has been supported by most of the western industrial world for some time now, is that if you are willing to work an honest week of work, you should be paid, at a minimum, a wage that can afford a certain minimum standard of living.

If by "some time", you mean the last 10 years or so, and if by "most of the western world", you mean the far left of the Democrat party, probably so.

(02-16-2024 07:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The idea I posit, which has been supported by most of the western industrial world for some time now, is that if you are willing to work an honest week of work, you should be paid, at a minimum, a wage that can afford a certain minimum standard of living.

And how do you square that with the fact that such a wage in many cases is far greater than the person's ability to produce value. Screw the employers? Or what?

(02-20-2024 11:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2024 07:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The idea I posit, which has been supported by most of the western industrial world for some time now, is that if you are willing to work an honest week of work, you should be paid, at a minimum, a wage that can afford a certain minimum standard of living.

And how do you square that with the fact that such a wage in many cases is far greater than the person's ability to produce value. Screw the employers? Or what?

One could potentially argue that the value generated in your scenario is not accurate, likely by a company pricing their products such that they don't represent the true cost of their production.

I really like the quote in your post signature, that inherently supports this general concept: People who work should live better than people who don't.

(02-20-2024 12:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-20-2024 11:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2024 07:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The idea I posit, which has been supported by most of the western industrial world for some time now, is that if you are willing to work an honest week of work, you should be paid, at a minimum, a wage that can afford a certain minimum standard of living.

And how do you square that with the fact that such a wage in many cases is far greater than the person's ability to produce value. Screw the employers? Or what?

One could potentially argue that the value generated in your scenario is not accurate, likely by a company pricing their products such that they don't represent the true cost of their production.

I really like the quote in your post signature, that inherently supports this general concept: People who work should live better than people who don't.

Companies price their products according to what the market will bear. If people would pay $100 for a Big Mac in quantities enough to justify raising the price, then McDonald's would charge $100. If the market price can't cover the cost of labor, then the company has to either find cheaper labor, reduce labor expenses through automation, or exit the market.

(02-20-2024 01:15 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-20-2024 12:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-20-2024 11:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2024 07:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The idea I posit, which has been supported by most of the western industrial world for some time now, is that if you are willing to work an honest week of work, you should be paid, at a minimum, a wage that can afford a certain minimum standard of living.

And how do you square that with the fact that such a wage in many cases is far greater than the person's ability to produce value. Screw the employers? Or what?

One could potentially argue that the value generated in your scenario is not accurate, likely by a company pricing their products such that they don't represent the true cost of their production.

I really like the quote in your post signature, that inherently supports this general concept: People who work should live better than people who don't.

Companies price their products according to what the market will bear. If people would pay $100 for a Big Mac in quantities enough to justify raising the price, then McDonald's would charge $100. If the market price can't cover the cost of labor, then the company has to either find cheaper labor, reduce labor expenses through automation, or exit the market.

There's more to pricing than just what the market will bear... but yes, I do understand the general principles of economics. This goes to another comment of mine, earlier in the thread:

But when this comes up, I always think about countries with higher minimum wages and how places like McDonald's still exist.

In those instances, you typically see higher prices, but not so much higher that the business model is forced to change. You probably see automation at a rate similar to what you see in the US. And you certainly don't see an absence in the market.

(02-20-2024 01:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-20-2024 01:15 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-20-2024 12:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-20-2024 11:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2024 07:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The idea I posit, which has been supported by most of the western industrial world for some time now, is that if you are willing to work an honest week of work, you should be paid, at a minimum, a wage that can afford a certain minimum standard of living.

And how do you square that with the fact that such a wage in many cases is far greater than the person's ability to produce value. Screw the employers? Or what?

One could potentially argue that the value generated in your scenario is not accurate, likely by a company pricing their products such that they don't represent the true cost of their production.

I really like the quote in your post signature, that inherently supports this general concept: People who work should live better than people who don't.

Companies price their products according to what the market will bear. If people would pay $100 for a Big Mac in quantities enough to justify raising the price, then McDonald's would charge $100. If the market price can't cover the cost of labor, then the company has to either find cheaper labor, reduce labor expenses through automation, or exit the market.

There's more to pricing than just what the market will bear... but yes, I do understand the general principles of economics. This goes to another comment of mine, earlier in the thread:

But when this comes up, I always think about countries with higher minimum wages and how places like McDonald's still exist.

In those instances, you typically see higher prices, but not so much higher that the business model is forced to change. You probably see automation at a rate similar to what you see in the US. And you certainly don't see an absence in the market.

Which countries?

The minimum wage in Germany is 12.41 Euro per hour, which is about $13.40/hr. Germany's minimum wage law has lots of pro-business exemptions, which is why a German McDonald's crew member can actually be making less than minimum wage. Pay ranges 7 to 11 Euros per hour.

The United States has a lower national minimum wage, but very few McDonald's actually pay that low. According to payscale.com, a McDonald's worker in the U.S. averages about $11/hour, so not that much different than Germany.

Japan does not have a national minimum wage, but the average minimum wage in 2023 was 1002 yen/hr, which is about $6.70/hr.

Great Britain's nameplate minimum wage will increase to 11.44 pounds/hour (about $14.41/hour) in April of this year, but this is not indicative of reality for contract employees, part-time workers and youth. McDonald's actually pays far less than this on average in Britain.

(02-20-2024 02:36 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  The minimum wage in Germany is 12.41 Euro per hour, which is about $13.40/hr. Germany's minimum wage law has lots of pro-business exemptions, which is why a German McDonald's crew member can actually be making less than minimum wage. Pay ranges 7 to 11 Euros per hour.

The United States has a lower national minimum wage, but very few McDonald's actually pay that low. According to payscale.com, a McDonald's worker in the U.S. averages about $11/hour, so not that much different than Germany.

Japan does not have a national minimum wage, but the average minimum wage in 2023 was 1002 yen/hr, which is about $6.70/hr.

Great Britain's nameplate minimum wage will increase to 11.44 pounds/hour (about $14.41/hour) in April of this year, but this is not indicative of reality for contract employees, part-time workers and youth. McDonald's actually pays far less than this on average in Britain.

A good example of the challenge of assuming that 'wages' mean the same things across borders or even across industries.

The reality reflected above is that if the wages conflict with the ability to turn a profit/sell the product, that companies will do what they can to either lower costs or increase prices... like reducing quality or charging for cheese or increasing the cost of drinks to insane levels or reducing the size of the portions or cutting employees or moving from full-time to part time or cutting whatever corners they can.... or avoiding what regulation they can... as in finding ways to fit in to those 'pro business exemptions'.

Your comment about 'what the market will bear' is truly a key comment.... especially in this conversation.

If these companies were making egregious profits by exploiting workers, it seems obvious that there would be room for competition to fill that void. A new burger joint could pay more and thus get better employees... have a better environment... and still charge the same for a burger... Or, they could provide a better quality burger for the same price while also still paying more... Or they could offer an even less expensive burger and steal market share.

Like most industries, hamburger joints have a fair amount of fixed costs and thus it is potentially highly meaningful if they lose 10% of their market share... which a single, small burger joint... even a food truck could easily do. A joint can go from highly profitable to losing their shirt with relatively small changes in volumes.... generic drugs or other ways around patents are great examples of this in pharma.

Especially in a place like SF (or at the airport), if a McDonald's franchise could demand $18 for a big mac, they'd do it. Now perhaps they wouldn't squeeze every dime they possible could... Laffer curve (seeing wages as a 'tax') and all... and Joe's burger barn could hire their best employees (if they wanted them) and have a cleaner store and sell a better burger for $14 and STILL make a good profit.

(02-20-2024 01:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do understand the general principles of economics.

I beg to differ.

standing her ground

(02-20-2024 04:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If these companies were making egregious profits by exploiting workers, it seems obvious that there would be room for competition to fill that void. A new burger joint could pay more and thus get better employees... have a better environment... and still charge the same for a burger... Or, they could provide a better quality burger for the same price while also still paying more... Or they could offer an even less expensive burger and steal market share.

Unfortunately, "progressives" neither understand markets nor believe (fundamentally) in their existence. Rather, they tend to think of the world as a zero-sum universe in which the only way to offset a perceived misallocation is by directed planning. They do not believe that individual actors have either the perspicacity or the ability to respond to opportunities; rather, they tend to see all individuals (other than themselves) as either dumb, stolid lumpenproletarians (who need to be managed for their own good) or evil, grasping oligopolists (who need to be managed for everyone's else).

(02-20-2024 04:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If these companies were making egregious profits by exploiting workers, it seems obvious that there would be room for competition to fill that void. A new burger joint could pay more and thus get better employees... have a better environment... and still charge the same for a burger... Or, they could provide a better quality burger for the same price while also still paying more... Or they could offer an even less expensive burger and steal market share.

Unfortunately, "progressives" neither understand markets nor believe (fundamentally) in their existence. Rather, they tend to think of the world as a zero-sum universe in which the only way to offset a perceived misallocation is by directed planning. They do not believe that individual actors have either the perspicacity or the ability to respond to opportunities; rather, they tend to see all individuals (other than themselves) as either dumb, stolid lumpenproletarians (who need to be managed for their own good) or evil, grasping oligopolists (who need to be managed for everyone's else).

(02-22-2024 11:28 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-20-2024 04:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If these companies were making egregious profits by exploiting workers, it seems obvious that there would be room for competition to fill that void. A new burger joint could pay more and thus get better employees... have a better environment... and still charge the same for a burger... Or, they could provide a better quality burger for the same price while also still paying more... Or they could offer an even less expensive burger and steal market share.

Unfortunately, "progressives" neither understand markets nor believe (fundamentally) in their existence. Rather, they tend to think of the world as a zero-sum universe in which the only way to offset a perceived misallocation is by directed planning. They do not believe that individual actors have either the perspicacity or the ability to respond to opportunities; rather, they tend to see all individuals (other than themselves) as either dumb, stolid lumpenproletarians (who need to be managed for their own good) or evil, grasping oligopolists (who need to be managed for everyone's else).

Just for clarity... although I tend to agree about the 'whole' of progressives, I would not assign that to each and every one of them. I think Lad calls himself 'progressive', and I know he understands it at least on some level far above the average for that cohort.

By and large, I think they tend to see the latter (oligopolists) and they ignore how many progressive or progressive 'friendly' entrepreneurs there are... See 'whole foods' or Trader Joe's who while everyone else is clamoring to challenge WalMart, for low cost, they somewhat eschew cost in favor of virtue. There are so many examples of this... stealing market share through virtue.... I can't believe their concerns are valid... as opposed to simply making sense to the troglodytes.

(02-22-2024 01:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Just for clarity... although I tend to agree about the 'whole' of progressives, I would not assign that to each and every one of them. I think Lad calls himself 'progressive', and I know he understands it at least on some level far above the average for that cohort.

Lad is much more of a liberal than a "progressive", regardless of what he calls himself.

But yes, a general characterization is never true in every single case. Never!