After Winning a $15 Minimum Wage, Fast Food Workers Now Battle Unfair Firings

[jimbo]

Free market isn't reliable to determine all wages. A complete free market wants completely free labor and the power to push up is nowhere near the power to push down.

Start jailing employers who hire illegals working under the table and the problem goes away rather quickly.

Free market is absolutely reliable in determining cost of anything, including labor. Seller needs a job, buyer needs a job done. An agreement is reached.

I agree with the illegals. But both sides of government are unwilling to address the issue. Business wants cheap labor. The left needs voters for the free stuff party.

 

[Bodi]

I prefer the tax structure implemented in the country of Patagonia.

They have a pretty similar structure with the country of Transvaal, right?

 

[jimbo]

How much do the CEOs who brought the recent recession worth?
We saw incompetent and greedy CEOs bailing out with golden parachutes earning millions of dollars in bonuses after they bankrupted their companies.

I don't think CEO's brought the recession. But I don't think it's the government's business. That's between the CEO and the shareholders. I'm an investor, and I avoid companies with weak management which are not doing well. If management changes, I may change my mind.

Sears is a recent example. Bonuses in failing companies should take 3rd or 4th position behind secured investors, labor agreements, stockholders and other unsecured investors. Government intervened and said bonuses first.

 

[PirateMk1]

That's all great but doesn't address my post. It was a simple question. Why won't you answer it?

I did, you didnt read it. Most dont last long enough to move up in the company.

 

[pamak]

I don't think CEO's brought the recession. But I don't think it's the government's business. That's between the CEO and the shareholders. I'm an investor, and I avoid companies with weak management which are not doing well. If management changes, I may change my mind.

Sears is a recent example. Bonuses in failing companies should take 3rd or 4th position behind secured investors, labor agreements, stockholders and other unsecured investors. Government intervened and said bonuses first.

Ohh, when there are profits, it is their accomplishment but when there are losses it is somebody's else fault...Selective "personal responsibility"

Got it!

And speaking about shareholders, do you know that the majority of the stocks are actually controlled by a very small minority? In essence, the very rich decide how much they should pay themselves.

This is not "free market" at work. This is a government decision regarding how corporations (which is a legal entity created by the government) should function. In the US a minority of stockholders has complete control of the Board of Directors. By contrast, in Germany, the labor unions control about half of the board of directors in big corporations.

Codetermination in Germany - Wikipedia

There is a reason why the compensation of German CEOs is much closer to the wage of the German worker compared to the gap between the American CEOs and workers

Why do American CEOs make twice as much as German CEOs? | Fortune

 

[poweRob]

Free market is absolutely reliable in determining cost of anything, including labor. Seller needs a job, buyer needs a job done. An agreement is reached.

I agree with the illegals. But both sides of government are unwilling to address the issue. Business wants cheap labor. The left needs voters for the free stuff party.

The left doesn't need them. That is bullcrap. They don't even vote except in the conspiracy ladened minds of the looney trumpanzees.

 

[poweRob]

They have a pretty similar structure with the country of Transvaal, right?

Yup. 97.2% tax rate at the bottom end going up to 97.5%.

 

[Anthony60]

This isn't all that difficult to understand.

Labor is a commodity. It has a minimal inherent cost. Workers have to pay to live. If workers don't receive enough compensation to live then by definition they can not work. If companies aren't paying at least the minimum cost for their workers to live, then they are forcing taxpayers to make up that difference in the form of government assistance.

Okay, you didn't explain your statement. You are saying that workers will die if they take those jobs and are better off not taking them? That can't happen, because if all the workers died or didn't take the jobs, the wages for those jobs would increase due to lack of workers.

Whether or not they receive enough to "live", has nothing to do with what they are getting paid. You get paid whatever the job is worth, with some variation.

You may not be a taxpayer and hence don't care, but those of us who pay taxes shouldn't be expected to subsidize companies that don't pay their workers a living wage. And if those companies can't afford to pay fair market value for labor then their business model is flawed and they should either change it or go out of business.

I don't see how that would be a subsidy to a company. They just pay what the job is worth, they don't owe any more than that. If society decides to subsidize people's lives that don't make enough to "live", that's another thing. I'd like to know who and how many people are not making enough to "live" on a full time job.

 

[ludin]

Where I went to college, they taught us how to spell, use punctuation, use proper grammar, and use capital letters. Where did you get a loan for - Trump University?

Yes, burger flippers can get a loan. No kidding.

No, picking a "good major" doesn't guarantee you a job, either. Stop talking about what you don't know about.

As usual when it come to actually addressing arguements you fail.
like i knew you would.

trump lives in your head i didn't even mention trump.
yet here you are. Trump trump trump TDS to the max.

Actually it does. If you get a degree in STEM your earning potential dramatically increases vs a non-STEM degree.
STEM college majors tend to earn more than non-STEM college majors | Pew Research Center

so yes you need to stop talking about things that you don't know about.

 

[tres borrachos]

As usual when it come to actually addressing arguements you fail.
like i knew you would.

trump lives in your head i didn't even mention trump.
yet here you are. Trump trump trump TDS to the max.

Actually it does. If you get a degree in STEM your earning potential dramatically increases vs a non-STEM degree.
STEM college majors tend to earn more than non-STEM college majors | Pew Research Center

so yes you need to stop talking about things that you don't know about.

I didn't mention Trump either. I mentioned the name of Trump University. If I said Carnegie Mellon, I wouldn't be talking about Andrew Carnegie, you know.

Trump doesn't live in my head. He's the President of the United States. This board is called "Debate Politics", not "Debate The Bachelor". He lives in your head since you just desperately wanted to talk about him when I didn't mention him.

Trump Trump Trump to the max? Sounds like a fan club meeting cheer.

 

[Hedgology]

Do me a favor and learn first how to read the charts you choose to post.
This is the chart you posted

According to the legend, the shaded area between 2008 and (almost) 2010 shows the last recession. Within this shaded area you see a drop of more than 1.5 million It is almost 2 million jobs.
Notice again that these 2 million jobs is about 30% of the 6 millions jobs you said in a previous post that we lost during the last 15 years. Even with your low (and wrong) number of 1.5 millions, you can see that 1.5 million jobs are still 25% of the total 6 millions jobs we lost during the last 15 years. And 8 years after the end of the recession, we still have not fully gained back what we lost during the last recession as you also admit.

If you don't know the numbers, don't guess...

Recession Job Lost:

Dec 2007: 13,746

Jun 2008: 11,726

Difference: -2,020

Recovery:

Apr 2008: 11,453

Dec 2012: 12,822

Difference: 1,375

69% of the jobs lost from the recession were recovered. These are just basic numbers.[/quote]

Who mentioned that they were coming back from China?

You tried to refute a previous poster who tried to claim that manufacturing jobs are not coming back. And such expression is linked to the attempt to being jobs back from countries to which they were outsourced (and I am perfectly fine with it, IF it can be accomplished, but I doubt it is feasible by a trade war which we can "easily" win)

Irrelevant, and has little to do with me.

You're mistaken. Relative performance isn't necessary show the amount of jobs gained or lost over a certain time period

Actually you are mistaken when you compare absolute numbers of manufacturing jobs within populations of different sizes.

[/QUOTE]

That wasn't what I was doing... I only posted the number of manufacturing jobs gained over time. There is nothing to compare.

 

[phattonez]

Er Mah Gerds! If Only Someone Could Have Seen This Coming!




It's almost as if.... when you artificially raise the cost of low-skill labor.... you reduce the incentive to keep it..... :thinking

Kind of like how in the 40's our auto workers demand higher wages and then were able to secure a good living for their families, and then they were undercut by foreign competitors and our government, instead of raising tariffs and preventing our auto workers from offshoring, just let those jobs disappear so that our auto industry could be depleted while people overseas make peanuts. It's been so GRAND! Right?

 

[phattonez]

Whether or not they receive enough to "live", has nothing to do with what they are getting paid. You get paid whatever the job is worth, with some variation.
I don't see how that would be a subsidy to a company. They just pay what the job is worth, they don't owe any more than that. If society decides to subsidize people's lives that don't make enough to "live", that's another thing. I'd like to know who and how many people are not making enough to "live" on a full time job.

So then wages ought to keep up with productivity. They haven't.

 

[jimbo]

The left doesn't need them. That is bullcrap. They don't even vote except in the conspiracy ladened minds of the looney trumpanzees.

Nonsense. If the left didn't or want them they wouldn't work so hard to get and keep them here.

 

[poweRob]

Nonsense. If the left didn't or want them they wouldn't work so hard to get and keep them here.

Your lack of understanding compassion has you spiteful of those who do have an understanding apparently. And that has you looking for conspiracy theories to plug the holes of your inability to understand.

 

[pamak]

If you don't know the numbers, don't guess...

Recession Job Lost:

Dec 2007: 13,746

Jun 2008: 11,726

Difference: -2,020

Recovery:

Apr 2008: 11,453

Dec 2012: 12,822

Difference: 1,375

69% of the jobs lost from the recession were recovered. These are just basic numbers.

Are you obscure?

This is what I said

Originally Posted by pamak

Do me a favor and learn first how to read the charts you choose to post.
This is the chart you posted

According to the legend, the shaded area between 2008 and (almost) 2010 shows the last recession. Within this shaded area you see a drop of more than 1.5 million It is almost 2 million jobs.

In other words, you just proved in public that you could not read the graph you posted because you said in your # 363 post (https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...-battle-unfair-firings-37.html#post1069713457)

You don't know what you're talking. Recession started in December 2018 and Ended in June 2019. The economy lost 1.5 million manufacturing jobs. Since the Recession ended, we've gained 1.3 Million Jobs. That's 86 Percent of the jobs gained since the recession.

So, thank you for making my point!

The jobs we lost during the recession were about 2 million and we did not fully regain them many years after the recession! By the way, as you notice your mistake of the number of jobs lost during the last recession also greatly affected the percentage of the jobs we regained!

Now go back to school and learn the basic about how to read a graph!

I did not have to "guess" the 2 million figure. YOUR GRAPH showed this!

 

[jimbo]

So then wages ought to keep up with productivity. They haven't.

There's nothing that says wages should keep up with productivity. The two aren't related.

Wages rise and fall on supply and demand.

 

[poweRob]

There's nothing that says wages should keep up with productivity. The two aren't related.

Wages rise and fall on supply and demand.

It clearly defines how imbalanced the forces of economics is when it comes to being the decisive factor in wages.

 

[phattonez]

There's nothing that says wages should keep up with productivity. The two aren't related.

Wages rise and fall on supply and demand.

You would have a point if demand really had fallen. However:

Profits have risen while wages have stagnated.

 

[jmotivator]

So then wages ought to keep up with productivity. They haven't.

Because that increased productivity is connected to the investment in automation processes that make employees more productive.

 

[phattonez]

Because that increased productivity is connected to the investment in automation processes that make employees more productive.

Therefore capital deserves all of the increase and labor can go take a hike?

Tell me. As a conservative, are you interested in family formation? I would think so. So then why are you supporting an economic system that is making it harder and harder to start a family? Wages are stagnant, the cost of living is increasing, and families are going more in debt just to maintain their standard of living. Judged by this goal of trying to make family formation easier, why should we support this system?

 

[jimbo]

You would have a point if demand really had fallen. However:

Profits have risen while wages have stagnated.

There's nothing that says wages should keep up with [Profit[/U]. The two aren't related.

Wages rise and fall on supply and demand.

 

[jmotivator]

Therefore capital deserves all of the increase and labor can go take a hike?

Yes. The employee has no investment, and the productivity comes at a cost that the worker doesn't shoulder.

If you pay a janitor to sweep half a factory a day with a broom and then invest in a self propelled industrial vacuum that allows him to complete the entire factory in 1 day, why should the janitor get a raise?

If the janitor was smart he take a course in industrial self-propelled vacuum repair.

Also, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the workers that remain after the $15/hike do get paid better.. there are just less of them, and the difference is made up through automation. So the net payroll is the same, but productivity per employee sky rockets. Flat payroll, increased productivity.

You are just having a hard time accepting that what you are seeing in the OP is exactly what you were told would happen... and it will continue to happen.

Tell me. As a conservative, are you interested in family formation? I would think so. So then why are you supporting an economic system that is making it harder and harder to start a family? Wages are stagnant, the cost of living is increasing, and families are going more in debt just to maintain their standard of living. Judged by this goal of trying to make family formation easier, why should we support this system?

People go more in debt chasing the trappings of the entertainment culture we live in. Back when I started to consider starting a family I went back to school to learn a skill that I could market for better wages... why is this such a mystery to people today?

I mean, if you want to live like a low income worker of the 1960s, you can give up AC, TV, internet, a cell phone, drive an old car and you could probably still make ends meet today.

 

[phattonez]

There's nothing that says wages should keep up with [Profit[/U]. The two aren't related.

Wages rise and fall on supply and demand.

Profits tell us that we don't have a supply glut or insufficient demand. Labor is still producing things that people want, but now they're not getting paid for it.

Or to put it another way:

The share of money going to labor has never been lower. Or do you want a society where most people (laborers) see no benefit from increased wealth?

 

[phattonez]

Yes. The employee has no investment, and the productivity comes at a cost that the worker doesn't shoulder.

If you pay a janitor to sweep half a factory a day with a broom and then invest in a self propelled industrial vacuum that allows him to complete the entire factory in 1 day, why should the janitor get a raise?

I'd ask a different question. If society is wealthier because of such a machine, then why should the janitor now find it harder to live?

Also, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the workers that remain after the $15/hike do get paid better.. there are just less of them, and the difference is made up through automation. So the net payroll is the same, but productivity per employee sky rockets. Flat payroll, increased productivity.

You are just having a hard time accepting that what you are seeing in the OP is exactly what you were told would happen... and it will continue to happen.

If an increase in the wealth of society is only benefiting a select few rather than society at large, then there's something wrong with the economic system. Such a system will only breed resentment, and will lead to socialism. You and I both want to avoid that fate, so let's do something to prevent that.