• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America needs bold increases in the Minimum Wage

danielpalos said:
I am just glad, even the right wing can understand it.
Click to expand...

if you have evidence that anyone understands your non english gibberish I will pay you $10,000. Bet?
 
Lafayette said:
JUST-THE-FACTS ABOUT AMERICA'S MINIMUM-WAGE

It is decisions made at the levels of the national Executive and Legislature that affect most the way we live. And for those living below the Poverty Threshold (all 45 million of them) the Minimum Wage in America is laughable. (Except when it diminishes your standard of living.)

From the Pew Research Center: 5 facts about the minimum wage - excerpt:


MY POINT

[COLOR=#00080]The Poverty-Threshold-Wage[/COOR] is $25K annually, which becomes $12/hour (based upon a 52 week year and a 40-hour work-week). See herebellow the states where the MW equals or is greater than the P-T-W: States with minimum wages higher than the $7.25/hr federal standard. I count none and only 7 above the MW of $10/hour![/][/COLR]
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2017/01/05105043/FT_17.01.03_minWage_by_state.png[/I][/QUOTE]

I like how theyve now redefined the issue to be "near minimum wage workers" in order to get a higher number. Set an arbitrary number that they want everyone to be, then say everyone under it but above the minimum wage they set is basically the same thing.
Click to expand...
 
Napoleon said:
It’s possible that McDonalds will replace cashiers someday but the key message in your article is the second bullet point. The adoption rates of US consumers are very slow when it comes to new technologies - particularly automation. US consumers like human interaction so, as the article points out, automated kiosks are not viewed favorably - “78% of customers said they would be less inclined to go to a restaurant that has automated ordering kiosks.”
Click to expand...

They sure like ordering ahead with their phone, showing up and getting it to go though. Which means less people needed to take orders.

Restaurant takeout and delivery are taking a bite out of dine-in traffic | Nation's Restaurant News
 
Napoleon said:
It’s possible that McDonalds will replace cashiers someday but the key message in your article is the second bullet point. The adoption rates of US consumers are very slow when it comes to new technologies - particularly automation. US consumers like human interaction so, as the article points out, automated kiosks are not viewed favorably - “78% of customers said they would be less inclined to go to a restaurant that has automated ordering kiosks.”
Click to expand...

That's only because they haven't had to pay $10 for a Big Mac yet, simply because McDonald's works around the problem. If it had happened, the public would be all over that kiosk, or they'd go elsewhere.
 
American said:
That's only because they haven't had to pay $10 for a Big Mac yet, simply because McDonald's works around the problem. If it had happened, the public would be all over that kiosk, or they'd go elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I’d take that gamble. If McDonald’s believed they could get away with charging $10 for a low-brow burger then they’d be doing it already. Same goes for self-ordering kiosks. They may be piloting them but based on your source the results seem to be a resistance to technology that typifies American consumers.

The best argument you could make against it would be job loss because most of the locations are franchises in an over saturated market with small profit margins. As things stand today - it would take around 10 years to recoup your initial investment in opening a McDonalds franchise. That’s in no small part because the biggest competitor to a McDonald’s restaraunt is another Mcdonald’s restaurant a mile or two down the road. Some would undoubtedly close.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
I’d take that gamble. If McDonald’s believed they could get away with charging $10 for a low-brow burger then they’d be doing it already. Same goes for self-ordering kiosks. They may be piloting them but based on your source the results seem to be a resistance to technology that typifies American consumers.

The best argument you could make against it would be job loss because most of the locations are franchises in an over saturated market with small profit margins. As things stand today - it would take around 10 years to recoup your initial investment in opening a McDonalds franchise. That’s in no small part because the biggest competitor to a McDonald’s restaraunt is another Mcdonald’s restaurant a mile or two down the road. Some would undoubtedly close.
Click to expand...

Someone's got to pay for those wages. It isn't nationwide by a long shot. So don't get excited.
 
American said:
Someone's got to pay for those wages. It isn't nationwide by a long shot. So don't get excited.
Click to expand...

Sure and right now it’s the American taxpayer which hast to bolster existing wages with a welfare safety net because we’ve created an environment in which employer profits and executive pay soar but labor class wages peaked over 40 years ago. The price of goods has adjusted for inflation but the purchasing power of consumers hasnt changed since the late 1970s. That is very bad news for a consumer-based economy and it will catch up with us eventually if something isn’t done to adjust wages.
 
itsforthekids said:
Okay, here's a scenario....Johnny is a slow learner, Johnny rents a room in a boarding house. Johnny likes to work, it gives Johnny the resources to pay for his basic needs. Johnny, as I stated, is a slow learner, so Johnny can only perform the most basic tasks and doesn't have the mental facilities to increase his skills. Johnny is thankful for his minimum wage job...the business owner treats him well. Johnny is basically happy. There are many, many people like Johnny.Now, some leftie "do gooder" gets in Johnny's ear and tells him that he's underpaid. Johnny soon becomes irritated and asks for a raise from $8 an hour to $15 an hour, he gets a 10% raise, due to his work history, but is still agitated because he was told by some loser that he's under paid. The irritated Johnny starts to resent the owner of the business and starts slacking off. Johnny gets replaced by another person like Johnny who is grateful for the job. Johnny is now homeless.


Minimum wage jobs are there for minimum skilled people and ne employees entering the workforce. These are the jobs that have high turnover due to their nature...most people's skills increase and they move on...if you stay in that position longer than a few years, it speaks volumes about your ability to grow.
Click to expand...



I agree with you on some level. The problem is that Johnny **doesn't** get even get close to paying for his basic needs.

There *are* many people like Johnny. What happens to them?

The problem is only going to get worse with automation.

Despite all Johnny's qualities, he's still about $4/hr shy of achieving poverty standards.

I'm sorry, but in a first world, wealthy nation, that's utter BS...
 
danielpalos said:
no wonder the right wing is so, clueless and Causeless.
Click to expand...

yes if only we understood your English as a 4th language gibberish we could understand economics!!
 
Napoleon said:
I’d take that gamble. If McDonald’s believed they could get away with charging $10 for a low-brow burger then they’d be doing it already.
Click to expand...

wrong of course, competition now prevents it but if minimum wage was $15 competition would not prevent a higher price rather it would require it. Do you understand?
 
Doppelgangirl said:
Despite all Johnny's qualities, he's still about $4/hr shy of achieving poverty standards.

I'm sorry, but in a first world, wealthy nation, that's utter BS...
Click to expand...

we could put him on welfare, pretend he's equal because equality is important, and thus try to reverse evolution because as liberals we don't believe in science.
 
James972 said:
we could put him on welfare, pretend he's equal because equality is important, and thus try to reverse evolution because as liberals we don't believe in science.
Click to expand...

James972 said:
Europe lives at 60 %
of our living standard and would live at 30% if they had to invent their own products. Their low end lives well enough so the middle and upper class don't.
Click to expand...


:lamo

:beam:
 
James972 said:
wrong of course, competition now prevents it but if minimum wage was $15 competition would not prevent a higher price rather it would require it. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

What I understand is that raising the price of goods and services in response to inflation without raising the purchasing power of consumers for over 40 years is an unsustainable model for a consumer based economy. What makes you believe that it is?
 
Napoleon said:
What I understand is that raising the price of goods and services in response to inflation?
Click to expand...


who is talking about inflation??? We are talking about raising wages and then prices to sustain profitability.
 
Napoleon said:
What I understand is that raising the price of goods and services in response to inflation without raising the purchasing power of consumers for over 40 years is an unsustainable model for a consumer based economy.
Click to expand...

dear, inflation makes wages and prices go up equally thus does not change purchasing power.
 
Doppelgangirl said:
I agree with you on some level. The problem is that Johnny **doesn't** get even get close to paying for his basic needs.

There *are* many people like Johnny. What happens to them?

The problem is only going to get worse with automation.

Despite all Johnny's qualities, he's still about $4/hr shy of achieving poverty standards.

I'm sorry, but in a first world, wealthy nation, that's utter BS...
Click to expand...

I've known a lot of people who were only capable of earning a basic income. Believe it or not, they survive...they can't afford a car or smart phone, but they take care of business. The whole premise of today's left is false...
 
James972 said:
dear, inflation makes wages and prices go up equally thus does not change purchasing power.
Click to expand...

You would think that should happen but it hasn’t. The purchasing power of American consumers is the same today as it was in the 1970s. The only thing adjusted up since then has been prices.
 
itsforthekids said:
I've known a lot of people who were only capable of earning a basic income. Believe it or not, they survive...they can't afford a car or smart phone, but they take care of business. The whole premise of today's left is false...
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom