• 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!

How Will White Castle Respond to the Increased Minimum Wage?

What is so stupid with the minimum wage issue is cost of living is not the same across the US. To live in small farm town Colorado cost way less than living in NYC. I am very comfortable with what I make living where I am at. If I was to move to SF or NYC, I would definitely have a reduced purchasing power.

I bet the people in smaller towns are saying, heck yes, bring on $15/hr for burger flippers. Those in SF or NYC may say that is what they want. I bet if the workers in SF or NYC get 15/hr, it won't take them but a year or two to state that isn't enough.:mrgreen:

If your not happy with the wages and work your doing. Improve yourself and get a better job. I can't see paying someone $15/hr in the area I live who cannot even make correct change.

Yeah. Hillary used to claim this very same thing, wanting $12 per hour instead of $15 but then when asked the other day in the debate if a Democratic congress sent her a bill for $15 she would sign it.
 
the ceo of wh made 22.8 million last year so I have no sympathy for him. this push by the right to make our economy like chinas will destroy us.

Do you have any sympathy for the hourly workers who will lose their jobs, or those who will be denied an opportunity to work at all?

In China 90% of the people are living in rural areas at subsistence levels. Moving to the city and working for a dollar an hour is a huge increase in wealth and standard of living, a blessing. Would you deny them that because you think their wages are too low?
 
If the reason for that government action is that wages are unconscionably low, then the policy is justified. (See Big N' Large example above)

What does "unconscionably low" mean? Some people actually seem to think that at minimum wage people ought to be able to raise a family of 4 without government assistance and without falling into poverty. Burger flipper jobs traditionally are taken by people who have no work experience or skills and are living with their family or share a space with friends. What is "unconscionably low" for them? If an employer offers a job at a certain level of pay and someone is willing to do the job then why interfere with that mutually agreed upon arrangement?
 
Just about all companies can't handle huge minimum wage increases, even if they are phased in. That's a liberal fallacy that all business owners are fat cats.
I'm sorry, but that is nonsense.

McDonald's has a profit margin in the 20% range; people were freaking out when their margins dropped to 13%, not because of higher labor costs, but because customers weren't enthusiastic about the products for a year or two.

Walmart is pretty lean; margins are around 3.8%. Then again, their net income is around $14 billion per year -- and their high turnover (44% of employees quit in their first year) has its own costs. Given that they voluntarily increased wages last year, I'd say they can survive minimum wage increases.

And yet again: When MW is not indexed to inflation, that means employers are actually getting the same labor for anywhere from 1-3% cheaper, depending on the inflation rate that year. If an employer cannot afford to keep wages on pace with inflation, they are definitely doing something wrong.

Meanwhile, the price of oil has cratered in the past ~18 months, falling from $110 to $40. Did every company in the US slash its prices to match the windfall? If so, would it utterly decimate their business if the price of oil went back up to $80? What would they do, if their rent went up by 5%? If sales fell by 5%? Close up shop?

If your business cannot withstand any sort of price shock, then yeah... That's bad business.
 
I'm sorry, but that is nonsense.

McDonald's has a profit margin in the 20% range; people were freaking out when their margins dropped to 13%, not because of higher labor costs, but because customers weren't enthusiastic about the products for a year or two.

Walmart is pretty lean; margins are around 3.8%. Then again, their net income is around $14 billion per year -- and their high turnover (44% of employees quit in their first year) has its own costs. Given that they voluntarily increased wages last year, I'd say they can survive minimum wage increases.

And yet again: When MW is not indexed to inflation, that means employers are actually getting the same labor for anywhere from 1-3% cheaper, depending on the inflation rate that year. If an employer cannot afford to keep wages on pace with inflation, they are definitely doing something wrong.

Meanwhile, the price of oil has cratered in the past ~18 months, falling from $110 to $40. Did every company in the US slash its prices to match the windfall? If so, would it utterly decimate their business if the price of oil went back up to $80? What would they do, if their rent went up by 5%? If sales fell by 5%? Close up shop?

If your business cannot withstand any sort of price shock, then yeah... That's bad business.

Most McDonalds are franchises and not company owned stores. McDonalds gets a franchise fee from every franchised restaurant. You can't compare company stores with franchise stores. Anyway, I'm not talking about the larger corporations. I'm talking about SMALL businesses, which make up the majority of all businesses. They can't afford huge minimum wage increases, just as most franchise stores of corporations can't afford huge minimum wage increases. The larger corporations are better able to absorb these increases while many small businesses will not be. This will result in the bigger corporations taking over and knocking the little guys off, exactly the opposite of what the left wants to accomplish.
 
This will result in the bigger corporations taking over and knocking the little guys off, exactly the opposite of what the left wants to accomplish.

Bigger businesses often do more harm - in part due to diffusion of responsibility and not least because of their influence over governments - but that's a reason to regulate, not blindly oppose what works. I'm not sure 'the left' really cares what size businesses are, as long as they are or can be made to be beneficial to local and national societies. Any more than they care what size government is, as long as it serves its people's interests.

Arbitrary size fixation is more a thing for the right ;)


However if there were a valid concern that small businesses couldn't compete, and a valid reason to favour small businesses - emphasis on competition and innovation for example - it surely wouldn't be hard to have a minimum wage 5 or 10% lower for businesses with less than $2 million annual gross revenue, for example.
 
Last edited:
Before implementing living wages, which I think is good, I think it would be smart to eliminate corporate taxes and eliminate business health insurance costs by putting these costs solely on government by going to a single payer catastrophic. Then maybe a living wage will not just increase prices and eliminate jobs. People do not realize when they want to hammer businesses and corporations, they just limit the money the company has topay workers, raises consumer prices causing lower average living standards, decreases money company has to grow company, causes companies to leave for low tax nations, restricts growth of foreign companies relocating to the U.S., and makes it harder for domestic job creators. It would be much wiser imo to eliminate business taxes as job and goods and services creation are positive externalities, and raise real taxes on the wealthy's divedends and salaries, and raise taxes on negative externalities such as carbon, unhealthy food and beverages, etc. But that is the cry of a lonely centrist.
 
One thing that never gets talked about is that not everyone needs "living wages". Most of these minimum wage jobs were meant for those that don't need "living wages" like high school or college kids, spouses just wanting to supplement the other spouse's earnings, and seniors who want to supplement their retirement income. These jobs were never meant to be living wage jobs in the first place. Another thing that doesn't get talked about much is that many people earning minimum wage don't even work full time. Are they going to earn a living wage working at McDonalds 15 hours per week, even at $15 per hour? Are we next going to pass a law that there will be no part time work, only full time? Do we pass a law that the minimum full time wage is $15 per hour and the minimum part time wage is $30 per hour? What happens when prices go up everywhere due to the minimum wage increase and $15 per hour is no longer a "living wage"?
 
I'm not talking about the larger corporations. I'm talking about SMALL businesses, which make up the majority of all businesses. They can't afford huge minimum wage increases....
The same logic still applies.

If a business is so lean that it can't increase its payroll just to match inflation, then that is not a well-run business. It won't be able to handle any other price shock, such as an increase in the price of oil, or rent, or if a critical vendor increases its price.

I mean, really. What will you do if the price of oil goes up from its current $40/barrel to its previous price of $100/barrel? This will increase your electrical, heating, and cooling costs; it will increase the costs of every object that is shipped to you, and that you ship out; if you sell to the public, they will be spending more on gas and energy, meaning they have less to spend; if you sell to other businesses, they will also feel the squeeze. Will there be a massive rash of small business closures, because they couldn't handle any increase in their costs?
 
One thing that never gets talked about is that not everyone needs "living wages".
No, right-wingers talk about this all the time. It's one of their many talking points that bears little relation to the facts.


Most of these minimum wage jobs were meant for those that don't need "living wages" like high school or college kids.....
1) The market does not care what jobs were "meant for." No matter who is doing the job, they ought to be paid a fair wage, and the market does not care in any way, shape or form about equity.

2) When minimum wages go up, other wages in the same general range also go up. (Several conservatives in this very thread claim that it's the left which ignores this... I guess the right does as well)

3) Times have changed, and so has our economy. As Ben Casselman puts it:

Ultimately, low-wage workers are the victims of a broader trend of stagnant wages that stretches back long before the most recent recession. Adjusted for inflation, average hourly wages of all non-managerial workers rose less than 1 percent between 2002 and 2007, when the recession began, compared to nearly 7 percent growth in the five years before that. Economists aren’t sure what’s behind that stagnation: outsourcing, automation, the decline of unions, changes to the tax code, or, more likely, a combination of several factors. But whatever the causes, anemic earnings growth means more people are trying to get by on low wages.
When Living Wage Is Minimum Wage | FiveThirtyEight


Another thing that doesn't get talked about much is that many people earning minimum wage don't even work full time.
Incorrect. 73% work full time.

Instead of spouting, perhaps you should study up on who does in fact earn MW these days. Over half are 25 and older; 2/3 are women; 3/4 are white; 3/4 are full time. 1/3 are in the South, 1/4 in the West. They are fairly well distributed across sectors. 34% only have a high school degree, another 35% have some college education (but no degree). 80% are over 25; 18% are ages 55 and older. About half are married. About half are supporting themselves on MW.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/min...racteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf

Also, see Casselman's article above, or find other sources on your own.


Speaking of part-time, leftists are also much more aware of an issue that often strikes low-wage employees, namely that larger employers tend to screw their part-time employees with awful schedules. They often use software to set up schedules, which can change from week to week, and are usually only released right before the week starts. Some employers demand that employees make themselves available for work on short notice, but won't pay them to be on call. Those employers generally ignore employee scheduling requests. The result is chaos for those employees.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/starbucks-workers-scheduling-hours.html


What happens when prices go up everywhere due to the minimum wage increase and $15 per hour is no longer a "living wage"?
Yet another right-wing claim, discussed several times in this thread alone.

1) There is little evidence that minimum wage increases causes inflation to skyrocket.

2) The smart way to deal with this situation is to index MW increases to inflation. Several states are already doing this.

3) Yet again! No one is suggesting that MW jump to $15/hour overnight across the nation. Even Bernie Sanders says that getting MW up to $15/hour should take several years.
 
The market does not care what jobs were "meant for."

What a meaningless made up sentence.

No matter who is doing the job, they ought to be paid a fair wage, and the market does not care in any way, shape or form about equity.

Aside from where unions are involved, they are paid a fair wage.

Ultimately, low-wage workers are the victims

Great, more emotional victim-speak.
Yet again! No one is suggesting that MW jump to $15/hour overnight across the nation. Even Bernie Sanders says that getting MW up to $15/hour should take several years.

All you guys do in your minimum wage hyper-obsession is deny that it affects price or employment. You point to past small increases and say "see? Negative effects are so small!" But so were the increases. The evidence shows small negative effects because the evidence is based relatively small increases.

The negative effect on employment is logarithmic. A hike to $9 will probably eliminate 100,000 low wage jobs, to $10 will probably eliminate 500,000, so to hike it to $11, $12, $15? Which hell,
if that's your actual goal, to try to get grunt labor out of this nation, ok, but be honest that's what you're trying to do and stop pretending you're doing a universally great favor for low wage labor in general.

A federal wage floor designed to meet some sort preconception of what a wage earner needs defies the reality
of our vastly diverse local and regional
markets, vastly diverse sizes of businesses, and vastly diverse industries that have different degrees and bases of competition. A one-size-fits all wage floor ignores this diversity as a mere inconvenient fact that gets in the way of the left wing mission to hike the minimum wage. You zealots work so hard to keep the focus on the contrived pretense that all wage workers are trying to raise families, in expensive cities, and pay household bills, with each single wage. Between a multinational corporation in a metropolis and a small family owned podunk store or restaurant in rural economically depressed nowhereville, which is more equipped to deal with and adjust to wage floor hikes?
 
What a meaningless made up sentence.
Makes sense to me. The market doesn't care that someone planned to offer a job to a teen, or that life was simpler in the 50s, or whatever outdated ideas you have about minimum wage jobs.


Aside from where unions are involved, they are paid a fair wage.
....unless they aren't, as indicated by the need of our society to subsidize the incomes of those low-wage workers.

We could use other measures as well to determine a fair wage, such as purchasing power, or just keeping up with inflation, or productivity gains. Oh, wait! We do, and still find that $7.25/hour is too low.


Great, more emotional victim-speak.
Great, more refusal to read more than 5 words, and understand a concept in context.


All you guys do in your minimum wage hyper-obsession is deny that it affects price or employment. You point to past small increases and say "see? Negative effects are so small!" But so were the increases.
So are the proposed increases!

Are you genuinely incapable of reading how almost everyone who suggests MW hikes is talking about incremental changes? How I explicitly stated in that post that MW should be indexed to inflation? Do you really think that keeping wages on pace with inflation, which has hovered around 2% since the Reagan years, indicates a massive change?


The negative effect on employment is logarithmic.
Yes, you definitely proved it by.... making stuff up.

If you're going to make a claim like this, let's see some proof.


A federal wage floor designed to meet some sort preconception of what a wage earner needs defies the reality
of our vastly diverse local and regional
markets, vastly diverse sizes of businesses....
No, it doesn't. It only sets the floor. Think of it as providing a decent wage for the areas with the lowest COLA.

States and cities can and do set higher MW to suit their regional areas -- with the exception of boneheaded moves like Missouri blocking Kansas City from increasing its minimum wages. That is why cities like Seattle already have a higher MW than, say, Louisiana.


A one-size-fits all wage floor ignores this diversity as a mere inconvenient fact that gets in the way of the left wing mission to hike the minimum wage....
lol

First, regional and industry-specific MWs are not incompatible with things like indexing MW to inflation, or ensuring higher overall MWs.

Second, I don't hear any conservatives advocating that type of system. They are categorically opposed to ANY increases in MW.

Third, I have no doubt that if anyone on the left proposed a system that accounts for region and industry and inflation, conservatives would still bitch and moan about it.

But hey, if you want to propose an Australian-style system for the US? Go for it. Don't let my agreement that it's a good idea stop you. :D


You zealots work so hard to keep the focus on the contrived pretense that all wage workers are trying to raise families, in expensive cities, and pay household bills, with each single wage.
Us "zealots" are looking at the facts about who currently works at minimum wage.

Again: 73% work full time. Over half are 25 and older; 2/3 are women; 3/4 are white; 3/4 are full time. 1/3 are in the South, 1/4 in the West. They are fairly well distributed across sectors. 34% only have a high school degree, another 35% have some college education (but no degree). 80% are over 25; 18% are ages 55 and older. About half are married. About half are supporting themselves on MW.

There are still many middle-class teens working MW. But they also deserve a fair wage, and "fairness" is never produced by unimpeded markets. It is not the purpose of free markets to establish fairness; its specialty is efficiency. The tradeoff between efficiency and equity in markets is Econ 101.
 
Makes sense to me. The market doesn't care that someone planned to offer a job to a teen, or that life was simpler in the 50s, or whatever outdated ideas you have about minimum wage jobs.

A grown, skilled, educated adult's willingness to sell his time and energy for cheap doing mindless labor doesn't mean the buyer of mindless labor has some new responsibility to pay according to the needs of grown adults.

....unless they aren't, as indicated by the need of our society to subsidize the incomes of those low-wage workers.

We only "need to" because you and people like you arbitrarily declare that "we need to."

We could use other measures as well to determine a fair wage, such as purchasing power, or just keeping up with inflation, or productivity gains. Oh, wait! We do, and still find that $7.25/hour is too low.

A fair price for something is decided between its actual prospective buyer and its actual prospective seller, not by random third parties like you just because they have feelings and opinions.

Great, more refusal to read more than 5 words, and understand a concept in context.

The context is created to suggest workers are inherently victims. This is highly subjective and biased, invariably.

So are the proposed increases!

Doubling a price of something, even over 3-5 years, is not a small increase.

Yes, you definitely proved it by.... making stuff up.

If you're going to make a claim like this, let's see some proof.

The CBO made the claim. Search CBO, employment, minimum wage. If a $1.35 increase kills 100k jobs, and a $2.35 increase kills an estimated 500k jobs, how many jobs should we estimate would be killed by each next dollar of increase after that?

States and cities can and do set higher MW to suit their regional areas -- with the exception of boneheaded moves like Missouri blocking Kansas City from increasing its minimum wages. That is why cities like Seattle already have a higher MW than, say, Louisiana.

First, regional and industry-specific MWs are not incompatible with things like indexing MW to inflation, or ensuring higher overall MWs.

There's no requirement for the Feds to hike the wage floor across the board.

Second, I don't hear any conservatives advocating that type of system. They are categorically opposed to ANY increases in MW.

So what? Liberals don't take any of this into account in the first place.

Third, I have no doubt that if anyone on the left proposed a system that accounts for region and industry and inflation, conservatives would still bitch and moan about it.

So the left won't put forth a thoughtful proposal because they think conservatives will still bitch about it, therefore they just stick to the less thoughtful arguments?

But hey, if you want to propose an Australian-style system for the US? Go for it. Don't let my agreement that it's a good idea stop you.

Australia has youth unemployment, a decline in full-time work relative to part-time work, and other undesirable realities of setting prices significantly higher than the market.

Us "zealots" are looking at the facts about who currently works at minimum wage.

Again: 73% work full time. Over half are 25 and older...[/B]

Good job going to the BLS website. None of this proves anything about the actual effects or justification of hiking a wage floor.

There are still many middle-class teens working MW. But they also deserve a fair wage, and "fairness" is never produced by unimpeded markets. It is not the purpose of free markets to establish fairness; its specialty is efficiency. The tradeoff between efficiency and equity in markets is Econ 101.

Gibberish. If I'm willing to sell my labor for $35/hr, but you, a random outsider, arbitrarily think I should be paid $45, whose notion of what's fair is more valid? Yours, as the outsider, or mine, because I'm the actual seller? Mine is, because I'm the actual seller. Maybe demanding only $35 instead of $45 accomplishes something else for me, such as job security because I know my employer is going to have an extremely difficult time finding someone better than me for that price, and maybe job security affords me the confidence to make other life decisions that require long-term job stability.

The actual seller and actual buyer decide what's fair between themselves. They're the ones actually giving something up in exchange for something else. And either one of them can say "no thanks" and not trade if they're not satisfied. Third party meddlers like unions and liberals can try to butt in and interfere (and they do, far too often), but their opinions are not more valid than the actual individuals wanting to make a deal and willing to adjust their own price to secure it.
 
Back
Top Bottom