Food Worker Strike

There is both corporate welfare and corporate penalty. I don't think many individuals are in favor of either but I don't think many individuals understand them either. We can discuss the benefits and drawbacks of each but i doubt anyone has the patience on a message board. Suffice it to say that in general free markets work better and more efficiently than gamed markets.

however, these are side issues. Wages are determined by markets. There is an unlimited supply of unskilled labor and a limited supply of skilled labor. There are also substitutes for both skilled and unskilled labor. With that said, the outcome of labor supply and demand is that companies have more power over salaries as labor decreases in skill.

From a poor person's perspective, he/she should hope that there is a limit to unskilled workers. The fewer unskilled workers in the US, the higher the wages for the unskilled workers. Further, an increase in the number of companies or the size of companies will help low income workers as well. Punishing companies or rewarding companies will do little to change this dynamic. And artificially raising wages for the poor will only cause inflation as economics dictates.
 
Paso is worse than a fool. He is a fool who believes he is not. A dangerous person. Maybe he is Satchel under a new name, but with the same old ****. No answers, just pathetic replies.
rolleyes.gif
 
Not to be the board policeman, AustinBat, but calling other posters a "fool" is a breach in decorum. I see a lot of people on this board offering divergent ideas and expressing disagreement. But I only see one sticking nasty labels on people. It's OK to call another person's post or popular political ideas "foolish."

Maybe I've just been lucky enough in life to encounter people left of me who are undoubtedly smarter than I am and people to the right of me of superior intellect. I've seen smart people express foolish political opinions.

Paso is no fool and he doesn't call you one.
 
I'm kind of torn Crock. I agree with your sentiment that name calling is wrong. However, paso has a pretty caustic personality as evidenced by the global warming thread. I think treating people in kind is somewhat appropriate as I assume that someone who dishes out abrasive remarks is able to handle them as well.

As you should note, people are friendly to you because you are kindhearted to them. And for the record, I have no problem with you calling out people for name calling. I'm just not so sure that any line was crossed in Bat's interaction with paso.
 
I guess you can contend that a minimum wage law "artificially inflates' wages, just like CEO domination of corporate board of directors causes inflation in CEO salaries and board perks/compensation. However, the minimum wage does not require compensation for these workers above their productivity-- just more than their bargaining power.

People making minimum wage pretty much spend all they have. When they get pay increases they spend more. Their pay increases are much more stimulative to the entire economy that multi-million CEO packages, that are used more to "keep score" that pay for a lifestyle. If everybody gets minimum wage increase/health benefits at work, it will hurt people of marginal value, but be very beneficial for people with high producitivity and low wages, like Wal-Mart workers. Their minimum wage increases will leave them with more more to spend on used cars, clothes for their kids, and groceries, and that will actually create a positive ripple effect in the economy.
 
Crockett, I don't think anyone would disagree with you. However I think the disagreement is whether or not government should be used to force those higher wages and other benefits. My belief is that if the government forces a higher minimum wage and other benefits for every worker then we will find inflation and thus those wages won't really amount to increased burden put on the company. Instead I would like to see more business hiring people thus competing for those less skilled positions. Eventually the burger flipper will decide he wants more money and go to the car dealership across the street and start washing cars, and then maybe become a salesman or find another job paying a little more.

If someone goes to McDonalyds for minimum wage and they are trying to live off that and they don't see a progression to earn more and don't look to another place to earn more then I'm not sure what the government can really do to help that person.

Once again let me say this, no matter the minimum wage, it will never be a living wage in this country.If the minimum wage is $100 per hour then we will all end up below the poverty level except for the wealthiest people.
 
Uninformed and Roger,

I think the crux of our disagreement is that you both assume that the number of available employees in the fast food industry is unlimited and that therefore the employees are easily replaceable. I don't think that's necessarily true, at least not under lawful circumstances. Obviously, it doesn't take significant skills to work in fast food but the demand is enormous. Furthermore, not everybody is willing to do it, and not everybody has the work ethic for it. (For example, I never worked in fast food, grocery stores, or retail. I always worked in an office - long before I went to law school and long before I graduated from college. Even though my skill set said I should have worked in a **** job, I simply never felt like I had to and therefore never did.)

You also have to keep in mind that illegal immigration plays a big role here. Though the person who actually serves fast food is most likely legal, many who prepare the food are not. The very presence of illegal immigrant labor in the fast food industry is strong evidence that there isn't really an unlimited labor market - certainly not for legal employees at junk wages.

So I'd change my answer on the matter and say that the market would force up wages if the welfare was done away with and if the illegal immigrant labor was stopped.

(A slight diversion from the topic, as I've said previously, unions have made a deal with the devil on illegal immigration. It is killing low-skilled workers of all kinds, yet organized labor doesn't seem to care.)
 
Lets say that illegal immigration and welfare are both stopped at the same time. Assuming that welfare receipients are all low skill workers that would be in market for a fast food job, and assuming that there are relatively equal number of them and illegals, you pretty much just wind up with the status quo as far as wages. You have one set of unskilled labor replacing the other. They might command slightly higher wages if the under the table payments to illegals were below minimum wage. The would also be required to have all the disability protection that the illegals might not have been getting. I promise that your average fast food place does not want this scenario though. Illegals are much better employees as they show up on time, ready to work, and rarely complain.

I made a lot of assumptions about the number of illegals seeking fast food work and the number of welfare takers that would be interested in fast food work. If there are more welfare people than illegals, you would see a downward effect on wages as there would be more competition for the same jobs.

Overall, this is a non-issue to me. Our economy isnt going to surge or tank based on fast food wages. Issues such as foriegn policy, the federal budget deficit, technological innovation, the state of the american family, developing an energy policy,and producing STEM workers are all far more important.
 
AS long as you can make more on the gov't dole than you can working the number available for fast food workers might be limited.

But to use uniformed as an example what IF we put as many on welfare as we could working in fast food places or any really unskilled places.
How many NOW on welfare with no incentive to improves themselves might make the effort to improve themselves once they found themselves in a dead end job?

WE really have made it waaayyy tooo easy for people to never work and yet live what to them must be a good enough life
 
I just figured out that my Social Security checks are the equivalent of $10 an hour. I paid into SS for 40 years, and $10 an hour is not enough. $20 an hour would be OK, but $30 an hour would make my retirement a lot easier. I think a living wage would need to be about $40 an hour to let me live like want to - a living wage. Let's all go picket to get this raised!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top