Restaurant Workers Lose Their Jobs Over Newsom’s $20 Minimum Wage

HUH…..you think the workers are the problem, and not the greed of the employer ? You understand that when money is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, capitalism fails….

Why do we tell an employee “if its not enough, find another job”, but when its the employer we dont say “if you cant pay your employees, go out of business” ?

 

Having a national or govt run health service would be a subsidy to the low paid,
would cost less than the for-profit mess we have now, and would simplify
the systems, both the health care and the benefits systems.

1/ There has to be an incentive to work.
2/ People of low ability should be able to survive.

The US had sufficient money to run both systems
a profit based system for the more able and motivated
and a subsidized system of those who can't handle a
completely competitive employment system

But not if we invite in all the unemployed people from
all over the World!

 

But you leave out that SOMEBODY has to stock the shelves at WalMart. Skilled jobs are not infinite. In the immortal words of Judge Smails “The world needs ditch diggers too”…somebody has to do those jobs. So do you think that we the taxpayer should subsidize that company ?

 

Bargaining power refers to the skilled job, not the person.

 

I'll ask this again: How does the government decide an employee's value to an employer or what they can afford to pay? Small businesses are shutting down because of this new minimum wage law and that helps no one.

 

no I didn't leave that out that's a starting position you shouldn't do that all your life.

And when the people that are stalking the shelves at Walmart now get enough skills to where they can move up there will be new people entering the employment market and they'll take those jobs.

Why is it you think every single job should afford someone the ability to pay rent car payments gasoline and food?

we're operating in an extreme shortage of skilled labor so that's not a problem right now.

but the world doesn't need a person to dig ditches all their life as people grow from child into adult and other people find skills that cause them to move up the younger people will feel this ditch digging jobs.

Until all the babies stop being born and all the teenagers die off they're always the people to dig ditches. Also that's skilled labor because you have to typically run an excavator and it pays pretty good.

And when we see highly skilled Carpenters with signs up will frame your house for food then we'll know that we've reached the maximum of that skill.

yeah operating an excavator to dig a ditch is a skilled job. Before you get to that skill you have to be ground crew. Ground crew is a skill.

You act like anything that is labor is unskilled operating an excavator spotting for an excavator these are skilled positions. Just because the people that do it get a little dirty doesn't mean they don't make money and make quite a bit of money.

what an earth moving company no they probably make money hand over fist an employee some very skilled diggers and machine operators. These aren't difficult skills to acquire

 

I'm saying the employees need to take actions to make themselves marketable for higher wages in the labor market.

I'm not sure why that's such a foreign concept.

And no, we don't have a zero sum economic system. It is the biggest argument failure of the class warfare people.

Who got less wealthy because Jeff Bezos started Amazon? Who got less wealthy because Elon Musk started Tesla?

The idea that our economy is the same as a monopoly game is patently false. That's simply not how it works.

Because the market!

In that case the labor market. People are paid based on their value in the market. If there were not people willing to take the jobs at this wages, guess what happens to the wage? Of there are hordes of people willing to take the job, guess what happens to wages.

This idea that it's all abstract is also a major fallacy of the argument.

You can't reduce profit by mandating wages, that's also wrong. If wages are artificially increased, prices go up. That's the same for the consumer and services markets.

We can't just throw the entirety of Economics 101 out the window so these arguments make sense.

 

Yea, these greedy employers that are so greedy that they close up the business that they've worked so hard to build. Now they get to enjoy the rewarding job sitting at a corporate job in a gray cubical all day feeling the life get sucked out of them. But hey, their ex-employees almost got $20 an hour for doing a job worth $10. Now they get to stay home, smoke pot, and draw unemployment for a few months before they have to get another job so Dad won't kick them out, again.

 

They are not less wealthy because he started Amazon, the opposite in fact. They are less wealthy as a result of all the profit he’s keeping and not sharing it with the people who do the work. Something a higher tax rate could (and has) incentivize.

 

Republicans think no business should pay a cent more than they have to do get the job done.
Democrats think the workers should share some of the profits.
Pretty simple.

 

Prices are not purely set by a desired amount of profit. lol talk about economics 101!

 

Not that I agree with the minimum wage hike for such simple jobs, but at least with automation, I might have a 50/50 chance of them getting my GD order right.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

If a company cannot pay a livable wage: Why should they exist?

 

Captialism is, when you are working hard you make money. Socialism is working in bad conditions and staying poor. The practice of wages which don't cut the cost of living is socialist.

 

Flipping burgers was never intended to be a career, enabling the worker to buy a new car or take on a mortgage. It's an entry level/part time gig for teenagers. The premise of your laughable question is Marxism, which has failed whenever it's been tried.

 

An American fast good joint is a pretty poor example of Marxism. It would serve a better example of what is the opposite of Marxism. In a Marxist society, the government would own and operate the place.

 

Right that's why Gavin exempted Panera Bread, because democrats think the workers should share some of the profits.

 

Panera Bread restaurants will follow minimum wage law
https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-wes...som signed a law last,a stand-alone menu item.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A wealthy campaign donor of California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the Panera Bread restaurants he owns will start paying workers at least $20 an hour on April 1 after controversy over whether a new state minimum wage law for fast food workers applies to his businesses.

Flynn has not said whether he agrees with the Newsom administration’s interpretation. But on Tuesday, he announced that all of the Panera Bread restaurants his company owns and operates will pay all hourly workers pre-tip wages of “$20 per hour or higher.”

 

Think about this for more than a second please. Are you suggesting that in the absence of Amazon these people would be more wealthy? How can someone be less wealthy after being paid for the production of value? Did these less wealthy people somehow lose wealth by selling their labor? Could they have converted that labor value into wealth without the collaboration with Amazon?

Why didn't or don't they do that?

 

So long story short, raising the minimum wage to try and make it a "living wage" is haven the EXACT effect Republicans said they would? Why am I not surprised?

Sure, they'll follow it but do you really think there won't be changes? Like the most obvious one is they'll be forced to hire the bare minimum of people to be able to afford it, or even WORSE, they'll just get replaced with AI waiters/waitresses/food servers
China already has places like this all over.
Its a shame you cannot see whats happening here because of possible partisan blinders.
They won't hire as many people now and will push for automation and those people will end up with less $$$ than they did before they raised the minimum wage, because they won't be EMPLOYED anymore
This is so obvious I'd expect even hyper-partisan folks to recognize it is not a good idea.

 

No. That's not what happens when the token of value is no longer traded. What happens is that traders use different tokens of value.

Money is not value. It's an abstract yardstick for value. It doesn't have a value outside of a system of trade. It doesn't have a fixed length, or width or weight of value. As with all value, it only has utility. The society uses it as a record keeping device that marks an exchange of value, but you couldn't take it to an isolated island and trade it for the things you need to survive on the island. Those people would not recognize any utility in the measuring device.

Value is subjective. A useful product or service for one person might be completely useless for another. Those two people would measure the value of the product or service differently, yet they trade this product or service with the same dollars. The person that produces the product or service values the product less than the dollars. The person that purchases that product values the dollars less.

If the employer is so greedy, why don't they keep their product, instead of the dollars, since all the consumers think that the product is more valuable than the dollars they trade for it?

 

They still pay a higher min wage, required by law, than any red state lol

 

Why not make the minimum wage $50/hr? $100/hr? $1000/hr? Why is $20 the magic number? Not long ago, we had the same argument about $15/hr.

 

You obviously didn’t read my post. Try that, then get back to me