Posted by examinerebb on 6/5/2014 11:51:00 AM (view original):
If you believe those are the only monetary considerations in the equation, you are right.  However, if you believe that customer loss due to lack of human service, frustration with the machines, company image, etc. is also a part of the equation, which it surely is, the amount you pay that human to retain those customers is exceedingly relevant.  There is a wage level tipping point where it no longer makes fiscal sense to employ that human.  Having a machine replace a human in a factory assembly line is a much simpler equation than having a machine replace a human in a direct to consumer service capacity.

Not sure what it's like in your area, but in California, the people that work at fast food joints are mostly immigrants.  The "personal touch" is mitigated when the person can't hold a conversation in fluent English.

And since they're paying $25K/year for the same skills that got us paid $2.85/hour in high school, fast food is no longer cheap food, pricing out the very people that the minimum wage was supposed to help.  Of course, one could argue that making fast food more expensive IS helping the lower classes...

Posted by bad_luck on 6/5/2014 12:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 6/5/2014 11:51:00 AM (view original):
If you believe those are the only monetary considerations in the equation, you are right.  However, if you believe that customer loss due to lack of human service, frustration with the machines, company image, etc. is also a part of the equation, which it surely is, the amount you pay that human to retain those customers is exceedingly relevant.  There is a wage level tipping point where it no longer makes fiscal sense to employ that human.  Having a machine replace a human in a factory assembly line is a much simpler equation than having a machine replace a human in a direct to consumer service capacity.

Fine, but if you're going to employ humans, you're going to do it at a level that allows the human to eat and pay rent. Otherwise, good luck with the auto-kiosk machines.

Why is it the businesses problem to worry about whether their employees can "eat and pay rent"?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/5/2014 1:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/5/2014 12:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 6/5/2014 11:51:00 AM (view original):
If you believe those are the only monetary considerations in the equation, you are right.  However, if you believe that customer loss due to lack of human service, frustration with the machines, company image, etc. is also a part of the equation, which it surely is, the amount you pay that human to retain those customers is exceedingly relevant.  There is a wage level tipping point where it no longer makes fiscal sense to employ that human.  Having a machine replace a human in a factory assembly line is a much simpler equation than having a machine replace a human in a direct to consumer service capacity.

Fine, but if you're going to employ humans, you're going to do it at a level that allows the human to eat and pay rent. Otherwise, good luck with the auto-kiosk machines.

Why is it the businesses problem to worry about whether their employees can "eat and pay rent"?

It's not. Which is why the government should/does regulate things like wages.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/5/2014 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/5/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Because everyone needs 30K a year to pay rent and eat.

A $10/hr minimum wage is less than $21,000 a year. That's $400 a week or about $1700 a month before taxes. With zero dependents, your weekly take home would be about $315 or $1365 a month.

I live in Southern California, so the following expenses may be different from other parts of the country.

A one bedroom apartment in a bad part of town costs around $900.
Electric $50
LA County 30 day bus pass $75
Food $180 (that's $6 a day, but you'd probably need more if you want fruit and vegetables)

Just those 4 things add up to over $1200 a month. We still haven't added health insurance, clothing, or retirement & emergency fund savings.

Getting by on $10 an hour is next to impossible. Good luck at $8.25, or whatever the current minimum wage is.

and I live in Alabama where the cost of living is WAAAY lower than in SoCal.

Specifically I live in a 2300 sq foot home that I own and pay less than 900 a month.

That's a big reason why the FEDERAL government shouldn't be setting NATIONAL wage minimums.

Let the states handle themselves as the government was designed.

I'm pretty sure that's the way it ends up working. Most states have minimum wages higher than the Fed's 7.25.

Edit: not most. About half.

So there is ABSOLUTELY no reason for the increase in a federal mandate.
It does NOTHING to solve a wholly fabricated problem, yet creates MORE poverty in the places that are doing fine as is.

I don't have a problem with states setting their own minimum wages. I just think those minimums should be higher.

In SOME states sure. NOT in ALL of them.

Minimum wage jobs weren't intended to be "living wages".  If you get minimum wage, you must have minimal skills.  If you want to EARN a living wage, stay in school and learn some marketable skills.

It also helps to NOT live in the most expensive enviroments possible.    You like the weather in SoCal?  Good for you.  You can't afford to pay for that.   Move.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):
It also helps to NOT live in the most expensive enviroments possible.    You like the weather in SoCal?  Good for you.  You can't afford to pay for that.   Move.

And when everyone who works low paying jobs moves out of SoCal, New York City, the SF Bay area, Seattle, etc., what happens to the companies that employ low paid workers?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/5/2014 4:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):
It also helps to NOT live in the most expensive enviroments possible.    You like the weather in SoCal?  Good for you.  You can't afford to pay for that.   Move.

And when everyone who works low paying jobs moves out of SoCal, New York City, the SF Bay area, Seattle, etc., what happens to the companies that employ low paid workers?

They employ high school students that live at home instead of ADULTS.  Like we did in the Bay Area in the 70's

Posted by toddcommish on 6/5/2014 2:53:00 PM (view original):
Minimum wage jobs weren't intended to be "living wages".  If you get minimum wage, you must have minimal skills.  If you want to EARN a living wage, stay in school and learn some marketable skills.

This is the point that can't be argued, so it is either ignored or battled via a straw man.  When I got out of school, I made more than minium wage (though considerably less than $15/hour) and lived in a two bedroom apartment with two other roommates, not a one bedroom apartment for $900/month.  Why?  Because I couldn't afford one yet.  It was my responsibility to get to the point where I could, not the government's responsibility to get me there under my (then) currrent circumstances.

The whole argument always essentially boils down to one side saying that everyone should have the opportunity to earn a living wage or better, and the other side saying that everyone is entitled to a living wage.  One argument sounds really nice, the other makes actual sense.