Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 5
CEOs at chains like McDonald's and Waffle House stop fighting a $15 minimum wage — but say it could mean higher menu prices for customers

As more states and countries raise minimum wage, CEOs at Waffle House and McDonald's say chains can handle a federal $15 minimum wage.

"We've had to deal with differences in minimum wages, state by state, as the states have taken the lead in moving forward," Waffle House CEO Walt Ehmer said.

Waffle House, Potbelly's, and Texas Roadhouse are among the chains that will likely increase menu prices if new state and federal minimum wage regulation passes.

...

https://news.yahoo.com/ceos-chains-mcdonalds-waffle-house-13...

Desert (Would you like fries with that?) Dave
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 50
CEOs at chains like McDonald's and Waffle House stop fighting a $15 minimum wage — but say it could mean higher menu prices for customers

In-n-out burger chain came to Texas a few years ago. The restaurant close to our house hires at 14.25 an hour and most kids are making over $15 an hour..... the service is exceptional for a fast food restaurant. Probably why the drive through is stacked throughout the day. Looking across the web - store managers for the chain yank down anywhere from 80k-160k. How do they do that and keep the price of a double meat burger meal at around $7-8?

I stumbled across this metric:
https://www.comparably.com/companies/in-n-out-burger/executi...

"The average In-N-Out Burger executive compensation is $209,844 a year.The median estimated compensation for executives at In-N-Out Burger including base salary and bonus is $222,802, or $107 per hour. At In-N-Out Burger, the most compensated executive makes $380,000, annually, and the lowest compensated makes $53,000."

then I stumbled across this metric:
https://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-ceo-made-1939-time...
"According to a McDonald's proxy statement released on Thursday, the CEO's total compensation in 2019 was $18,012,549. According to the company's calculations, that was 1,939 times what the median worker made in the same year."

yeah - those minimum wage workers are just killing the industry......

--cliff
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The restaurant close to our house hires at 14.25 an hour and most kids are making over $15 an hour.....

I wonder if the people, the "kids", who work there may work better, may be more reliable, may stay longer, and appreciate the wage they are receiving? BK, McDs, etc. are notorious for turnover and for staff not showing up for shifts and often for less than exemplary customer service.

At least with some of these $15/hour jobs, there may be a 'side' result of a better business overall.

Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Lots of people are willing to pay $25.99 not to have to eat that crap.

Moral of the story?

The poor get screwed by the do-gooders.

The Captain
 


Before Chavez arrived to power in Venezuela the only person I had seen eating food out of a trash can was a homeless person in San Francisco, CA, USA.

After Chavez arrived to power in Venezuela they had to introduce an ordinance regulating the time of day when food establishments were allowed to take out the trash.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
CEOs at chains like McDonald's and Waffle House stop fighting a $15 minimum wage — but say it could mean higher menu prices for customers.

Good. Maybe it will motivate them to eat better elsewhere or at home.

We have been amazed at the lines of cars at the chicken places. Cains Chicken in particular, though Popeye's, KFC and Chick Fillet have all been causing similar traffic problems. Just insane.

My version of "junk" food is getting a 3+ Lb rotisserie chicken at Costco for $4.99. Feeds the two of us for several meals and when I have two sets of bones from the rotisserie, (keep in freezer,) I make a wonderful batch of chicken broth.

IP
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What percentage of the fast food restaurant budget or cost sheet is labor? I'll be surprised to see $15/hr increase the price of a hamburger by more than $2.

Most hamburger and fries meals in my area go for about $8. So $10 max after increase is my guess.

As you note, many are already paying those numbers. So no change. And many have already increased prices in anticipation of higher labor costs.

In the end it will be determined by what the competition does.

Burger King routinely offers two Whoppers for $6 here. Dairy Queen still has lunch specials for $5. Lots of 2 for $5 specials with coupons.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
CEOs cry a river about everything. It's their nature. Before the plague hit, the Michigan legislature passed a work requirement for people on Medicaid, with the stated intent of forcing people to take minimum wage jobs, because the CEOs were crying they couldn't get people to take their crap, lousy pay, no benefit, "jobs", but they didn't want to do anything to make the "jobs" more attractive.

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
What percentage of the fast food restaurant budget or cost sheet is labor?

https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/normal-restaurants-labor-...
Labor is typically among the highest costs restaurant owners incur. According to a 2016 industry study by consulting firm BDO , the average labor cost generated by front- and back-of-the-house positions across all restaurant categories comprises 30.5% of sales revenue.

https://upserve.com/restaurant-insider/profit-margins/#:~:te....
When looking at the industry as a whole, the average restaurant profit margin is around 3-5%

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I wonder if the people, the "kids", who work there may work better, may be more reliable, may stay longer, and appreciate the wage they are receiving? BK, McDs, etc. are notorious for turnover and for staff not showing up for shifts and often for less than exemplary customer service.

Quite a few years ago, I chatted one morning with a Burger King manager. She had three appointments at 9:00. One brand new employee showing up for his first day, and two people coming for pre-hire interviews. I thought it sounded like she was over-booking herself, but she assured me she expected no difficulties.

I should mention that this restaurant paid new hires more than 10% above the local minimum wage, and gave a raise after 3 months.

The next day she told me how her "over-booking" had turned out. The new hire and one of the interviewees were no-shows. The other interviewee arrived up 15 minutes late, which killed any chance he'd be hired.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
At In-N-Out Burger, the most compensated executive makes $380,000

McDonald's ... CEO's total compensation in 2019 was $18,012,549.


That's nearly a factor of 50. McDonald's has about 100 times as many locations (40K vs ~400) and employees (1.9M including franchisees vs 19K). With In-N-Out's superior business model, what will their CEO make when they have more locations than McDonald's? /s

On a per employee basis, which company has more executive overhead? That is, if all of the executive staff gave all of their compensation to the employees for a given year, how much more would each employee get? Maybe increase their wage by a few pennies per hour?

But, seriously, what is the correct metric?

Suppose you had four companies -- one with 50 employees, one with 5000 employees, one with 100,000 employees, and one with a million employees. The lowest paid worker for each company should be about the same. I wouldn't expect the CEOs to be paid anywhere near the same...

Suppose I merge two 500-employee companies into one, but keep them as two divisions. Would the head of each division make what the old CEOs of each made, but the new CEO over both companies make even more?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature.

The new hire and one of the interviewees were no-shows. The other interviewee arrived up 15 minutes late, which killed any chance he'd be hired.

Sounds like live-at-home teenagers who didn't really need/want the jobs.

Desert (at one point I worked three (3) part time job minimum wage jobs) Dave
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
... The next day she told me how her "over-booking" had turned out. The new hire and one of the interviewees were no-shows. The other interviewee arrived up 15 minutes late, which killed any chance he'd be hired...

What continually gets glossed over about these minimum wage jobs is that they establish a work history. They prove that you can show up on time and do what you are supposed to do. That then opens the door to move up the food chain to a better job better pay.

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Labor is typically among the highest costs restaurant owners incur. According to a 2016 industry study by consulting firm BDO , the average labor cost generated by front- and back-of-the-house positions across all restaurant categories comprises 30.5% of sales revenue

OK, some basic math.

Current "Burger Meal" Price: $10.00
Labor costs : $3.00 (this includes all costs; including management)

Assume a 50% increase in the costs for lowest paid workers might add 30% to the total labor costs; or less than $1.00 to the total burger meal price.


tecmo
...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
... The next day she told me how her "over-booking" had turned out. The new hire and one of the interviewees were no-shows. The other interviewee arrived up 15 minutes late, which killed any chance he'd be hired...

What continually gets glossed over about these minimum wage jobs is that they establish a work history. They prove that you can show up on time and do what you are supposed to do. That then opens the door to move up the food chain to a better job better pay.


Yep. The same lady told me that the large majority of her new hires with no work experience either quit/get fired in the first two months, or leave on good terms for a better-paying job elsewhere in 6-8 months.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Assume a 50% increase in the costs for lowest paid workers might add 30% to the total labor costs; or less than $1.00 to the total burger meal price."

If labor is 1/3rd the cost, a 50% increase will cause even more of a rise.

First, the overhead for those higher paid salaries goes up. the Feds get to claim more money based upon salary - so it's another 9% between SS contribution and Medicare on the part of the employer. Likely other costs will rise too, including vacation time, sick leave, etc.....workers comp?

Second, if lowest paid get more salary, the guy up the ladder will demand a raise, too...so it is likely to bump costs even more.....

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Sounds like live-at-home teenagers who didn't really need/want the jobs.

Scraping the bottom of the barrel. That's what happens when unemployment rates are low.

There is always going to be a shiftless segment of the population. There will always be employers that are regarded as the worst place to work in town. They deserve each-other.

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 43
What continually gets glossed over about these minimum wage jobs is that they establish a work history. They prove that you can show up on time and do what you are supposed to do. That then opens the door to move up the food chain to a better job better pay.

Translated into Proloteriat:

It’s OK to pay people a wage which they cannot live on, because someday they might be able to make a wage they can.

If this includes you and you are a single mother supporting a child or two, a student working their way through school and trying not to amass too much debt, or an older American who still needs to work to supplement their Social Security check because it doesn’t cover living expenses, take heart. The fact that you are trapped in a cycle of poverty just means you are being punished forever for some bad choices you made in the past, and although it’s tough for you, it’s good for the economy and especially for the owner of your business, who already gets to deduct many expenses from his taxes that you don’t.

I hope this translation makes you feel better about your situation, and don’t worry, the stock market is at an all time high!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Have a friend who worked many jobs at fast food places - and half the time as a manager. for 8 or 10 years.

Getting help was always a problem.

Most new hires didn't make it 30 days probationary period. Late, surly, not willing to work, taking smoke breaks outside, stealing stuff. Stiffing customers on change/bills.

Even some of the managers got fired for theft.

Real zoo....and even the good folks often quit after a few months for one reason or another - from pregnancy to going back to school...to flunking out of school and not studying, etc.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
Goofy's translation:

"t’s OK to pay people a wage which they cannot live on, because someday they might be able to make a wage they can.

If this includes you and you are a single mother supporting a child or two, a student working their way through school and trying not to amass too much debt, or an older American who still needs to work to supplement their Social Security check because it doesn’t cover living expenses, take heart. The fact that you are trapped in a cycle of poverty just means you are being punished forever for some bad choices you made in the past, and although it’s tough for you,"....

--

Duh, 55 years ago or so....I had a part time job at college.....which paid minimum wage for 6-10 hours of work a week in the EE lab. (from 90c an hour up to 1.15 an hour after 3 years). No way you could live on that.....but....it gave me some spending money. Summer jobs I had paid me $2/hour...... then I got one for close to $4/hour last summer break.....by using some smarts.

Got out of college and of course, made ....a bit over $4/hour - well, on salary......which you could live on - but not 'rich' by any means.

Part time/minimum wage jobs are not intended to be 'living wages'. Half of them would be automated if the costs doubled.

If you make 'bad choices' along the way, am I supposed to bail out EVERYONE who makes 'bad choices'? Which means there are no longer any consequences for bad choices? So why bother to even get a high school diploma since 'everyone' will get a job at a 'living wage' no matter what?

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
It’s OK to pay people a wage which they cannot live on, because someday they might be able to make a wage they can.

We’ll pay you wages you cannot live on, when we raise them to subsistence wages you’ll be glad to be promoted to slave.

There! Fixed it for you.


Cheers
Qazulight
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 26
Got out of college and of course, made ....a bit over $4/hour - well, on salary......which you could live on - but not 'rich' by any means.

Ok, you started 55 years ago and proved yourself an industrious young person (like most of us, I assume, on this board) and after a few years you were earning a bit over $4/hour. Not rich, but you could live on it.

So let’s say that was 50 years ago by the time you were out of college.

$4 in 1970 has the same purchasing power as $26.84 does in 2020. You said a bit over $4 so let’s round that up to $30/hour.

And we’re arguing over a minimum wage of what? Maybe $15/hour?

By rights, we should be paying folks at least $30/hour so they could live on it, but not be rich by any means.

I don’t believe in bailing out everyone who makes a bad choice but I do believe we should pay anyone willing to work an amount they can live on.

$30/hour seems fair to me. Same as you got paid in 1970.

AW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
It’s OK to pay people a wage which they cannot live on, because someday they might be able to make a wage they can.

If this includes you and you are a single mother supporting a child or two, a student working their way through school and trying not to amass too much debt, or an older American who still needs to work to supplement their Social Security check because it doesn’t cover living expenses, take heart.


Since when are wages paid for what one "needs" instead of what the job is worth?

Are you suggesting that the "single mother supporting a child or two" should make more for doing the same job as a woman with no kids, simply because she needs more money to care for her kids?

On average, a 55-year-old man has six times the healthcare costs of a 21-year-old man -- should 55-year-old men be paid more than 21-year-old men for doing the same job?

Should the amount of debt of an individual change how much they get paid for doing a job?

The question isn't why aren't people being paid a wage they can live on, but why their skillset determines that that is all their time is worth. If their skillset has a limited demand, or is competing against an abundant supply, it isn't going to be worth much.

The fact that you are trapped in a cycle of poverty just means you are being punished forever for some bad choices you made in the past...

Yes. Let's solve that problem. It's not a problem that employers should be tasked to solve. The responsibility should be shouldered onto larger shoulders.

If what someone can produce in an hour is only worth $10, who should be responsible for bridging the gap to their need for $15 an hour? Or to improve the situation so their time is worth 50% more?

Same with healthcare costs. If someone needs $1000 per month of healthcare and can't afford it, who should be responsible for the shortage?

If we decide as a society that those goals are desirable, then it should be society at larger that takes on the responsibility.

From the other side of the coin, how do we reasonably prevent "some bad choices" without limiting freedoms? Make laws on things like wearing seat belts? Wearing a helmet while using a motorcycle? How about getting exercise? Eating a health diet? Not smoking?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 31
Duh, 55 years ago or so....I had a part time job at college.....which paid minimum wage for 6-10 hours of work a week in the EE lab. (from 90c an hour up to 1.15 an hour after 3 years). No way you could live on that.....but....it gave me some spending money. Summer jobs I had paid me $2/hour...... then I got one for close to $4/hour last summer break.....by using some smarts.

55 years ago it was 1965. Since that tine the minimum wage has lagged the increase inflation by, oh, a ton. Had it kept up it would be somewhere between $11 and $13, depending on which inflation measure you use. At $12/hr, a 40 hour week would pay $480 a week, or about $24,000 a year - not princely wages but enough to life on. Instead we’re willing to have people make less than the poverty level while holding down a full time job.

In another era they called this serfdom. Today they call it trickle down or other euphemisms popular among certain groups.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
$4 in 1970 has the same purchasing power as $26.84 does in 2020. You said a bit over $4 so let’s round that up to $30/hour.

And we’re arguing over a minimum wage of what? Maybe $15/hour?


In my situation, in 1975 to 1978, I was working 15 hours per week in the dormitory food service, which paid for my room and board. My first minimum wage job, in 1973, paid $1.90 per hour. In the dorm food service, the going rate for a substitute to cover a shift was $2 per hour.

So $4 is way too large a number.

...but you could live on it.

If "live on" were a criteria...

My nephew lives in the 1-bedroom condo I lived in from 1982 to 2006. It's larger than the suite four of us shared when I was in college. When I last lived there, it would have been about $400 per month for association dues, taxes, heating, cooling, landscaping, water, and all utilities except phone and electricity. From what my nephew tells me, none of those costs have changed much in 14 years. A mortgage on the current market price (nearly double what it was 14 years ago) would run less than $600 per month.

Split four ways -- $250 to $300 a month for housing. In much nicer housing.

I do a lot of keto meal preps that cost between $1 and $2 per (generous) serving. So add another $200 or so for food.

The current minimum wage would cover that "minimum lifestyle" easily.

but I do believe we should pay anyone willing to work an amount they can live on.

I can get down with that. But why should it be an employer paying someone for more than a job is worth?

Why not a UBI instead of a minimum wage?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
aw:"$30/hour seems fair to me. Same as you got paid in 1970.:

$30 an hour with a COLLEGE DEGREE in a STEM area.

No one is going to pay $30/hr for a high school grad or drop out who flips burgers. or likely $15 in most parts of the country.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
In my situation, in 1975 to 1978, I was working 15 hours per week in the dormitory food service, which paid for my room and board. My first minimum wage job, in 1973, paid $1.90 per hour. In the dorm food service, the going rate for a substitute to cover a shift was $2 per hour.

FWIW, $1.90 an hour in 1973 would be about $12/hour today.

I can get down with that. But why should it be an employer paying someone for more than a job is worth?

Why not a UBI instead of a minimum wage?


Interesting question, and one worth exploring.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Since when are wages paid for what one "needs" instead of what the job is worth?

Since FDR instituted the minimum wage. He actually stated in one of his speeches that if you couldn’t pay a wage that not only allowed one to live, but to live in dignity, then it should go away.

In other words, if we raise wages and businesses replace workers with
machines that is a feature not a bug.

Cheers
Qazulight
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Why not a UBI instead of a minimum wage?

Because a UBI discourages people from entering the workforce while minimum wage encourages it. US economy has too many freeloaders - from rich connected bankers to olds on Social Security and Medicare drawing far more benefits than what they paid in.

Because nothing is free and someone has to pay for your precious UBI. I'd rather have willing consumers bear the extra cost of minimum wage than unwilling taxpayers and their grandchildren bear the cost of UBI via more taxes and government debt.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
$4 in 1970 has the same purchasing power as $26.84 does in 2020. You said a bit over $4 so let’s round that up to $30/hour.

Real numbers. In 74, I worked part time in a bowling ally: $1.75/hr. Minimum was $1.60.

The BLS inflation calculator says my princely $1.75 in the winter gloom of early 74 was worth $9.78 in Trumpbux. Minimum wage in Michigan now is $9.45. Federal minimum wage is $7.25.

$1.75/hr, if I worked 40 hrs, would gross $3640/yr. Standard deduction then was $1300 and the personal exemption was $750. So net taxable would be $1590, which puts the marginal dollar of income in the 17% bracket.

SS tax was 5.85%

2020 Michigan minimum wage of $9.45. 40 hrs/wk/52 wks/yr $19656. Standard deduction $12,400. Personal exemption $0.00. Taxable income: $7256, putting the marginal dollar of income in the 0% bracket.

SS tax rate 6.2%

2020 Federal minimum wage of $7.25. 40 hrs/wk/52 wks/yr $15080. Taxable income $2680. Marginal rate of 0%.

SS tax rate of 6.2%

Everyone wants to be paid more money. Doesn't matter if they are flipping burgers, or running a criminal enterprise like JPM, they want MORE MONEY!

Everyone happy now?

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
FWIW, $1.90 an hour in 1973 would be about $12/hour today.

It's not about inflation. It's about supply and demand. Minimally skilled manual labor is valued less today than back then. Less demand. More supply. My first two minimum wage jobs don't even exist any more.

The "real" value of minimum wage peaked in about 1968, so the 1973 comparison is skewed upwards. If you adjust the original 1938 minimum wage of $0.25 per hour to today, the minimum wage should only be $4.62. A chart over time:

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/business/us-minimum-wag...

In any case, I only needed 15 hours per week to pay for room and board.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Because a UBI discourages people from entering the workforce while minimum wage encourages it.

Not if increasing minimum wage phases out jobs using automation. As I mentioned on another message, my first two minimum wage jobs no longer exist.

Automation is going to be more and more prevalent. There are going to be fewer and fewer jobs for those of minimal skills. Those are the easiest jobs to automate.

Because nothing is free and someone has to pay for your precious UBI.

Yes. We should be talking about how the "value added" from automation should be taxed.

When automation reduces the work force, that's a tangible loss of tax revenue. Both payroll taxes and income taxes. It also causes issues with healthcare.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Since FDR instituted the minimum wage. He actually stated in one of his speeches that if you couldn’t pay a wage that not only allowed one to live, but to live in dignity, then it should go away.

In other words, if we raise wages and businesses replace workers with machines that is a feature not a bug.


So they live in dignity after they lose their job to automation?

The dignity should come from having skills that are worth something.

I had a co-worker I used to eat lunch with regularly. Both of us had worked minimum wage jobs in grocery stores when we were in high school. He once told me that when he and his 15-year-old son were at a McDonald's, his son off-handedly called the workers "losers" because they were working for minimum wage. This is a kid that had absolutely no skills of value.

Where's the dignity?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The minimum wage is designed to lift all boats. So with the increase in per capita income from 20,000 a year in 1956 to 65,000 a year in 2020, we should see a minimum wage of roughly 30 dollars an hour. Yes the minimum wage was 1.00 in 1956 and the equivalent money is about 10 dollars, but we have gotten wealthier and to participate in that wealth we need to adjust for the increase in wealth.

So while 10 dollars an hour will provide a subsistence at 1956 living standards, no one is interested in 1956 living standards. Greece has about 1956 living standards now. Puerto Rico has 50 percent better than 1956 living standards.

So a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage is about right. Although I am personally a little queasy about minimum wages and would prefer very strong militant unions as the power would be with labor directly and the struggle would be directly between labor and capital rather than capital and government.

Cheers
Qazulight
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
From a pragmatic standpoint, paying a wage that a person can't subsist on accomplishes a few negative things happen:

1) Public money, whether for food stamps, medical, rent, whatever are paid by the taxpayer.

2) People who work hand-to-mouth frequently lack the resources and time to make sure their kids are educated - perpetuating poverty across generations.

3) People who don't have the ability to gather enough resources - whether by wages or public assistance - can almost be forgiven if they turn to crime to survive. A few find it to be a calling rather than an economic necessity.

So, what happens if you pay a hamburger flipper, or whatever, 15 bucks an hour? You end up either automating part of the production (leaving that former employee only marginally worse off than when he was working) or raise the price of a Big Mac from $2 to $4 (not being a junk food aficionado, the prices are arbitrary). The parallel news is that all competing restaurants would have to raise their prices as well.

While some customers might cut some of their restaurant spending, more likely, they would just continue - and pay the higher prices. That's what happened about a year or two ago when NYC dramatically raised the salaries of restaurant workers. After whining that it was going to drive restaurants out of business, prices rose by about 25% across the board, everything just normalized.

My response was to continue my rate of patronizing the same restaurants. What I adjusted was my tips. I still left tips out of custom, but they were lower than my previous generous ones on the basis that the waiters were now earning a living wage - which I was paying through the higher cost of my meal and adding the previous percentage tip on the higher bill would deliver an unearned bonus.

But, to the best of my knowledge, no restaurant lost substantial business, nor did any lay off any employee that I was familiar with.

Paying a person a living wage is not a socialist activity, it is a responsible one. As a capitalist, I paid my employees more (frequently far more) than they could have made elsewhere. They rewarded me with above average performance and loyalty (out of live of me or money - likely the later, but the effect was the same).

Jeff
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Not if increasing minimum wage phases out jobs using automation. As I mentioned on another message, my first two minimum wage jobs no longer exist."

Discussed here before.

1. Automation will phase out jobs no matter what the minimum wage is. Humans are more expensive and break more often than the machines no matter what you pay the humans.

2. Many minimum wage jobs are not automatable in near future because they are non-repetitive service jobs like restaurant servers, hair and nail stylists, etc.

Overall automation is not being driven by demand - desire to curb high wages - but by supply -AI is here so mad scientists want to see what they can do with it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So they live in dignity after they lose their job to automation?

The dignity should come from having skills that are worth something.


fwiw, I think this entire "dignity of work" thing is "job creator" propaganda. I have been retired since 2011, and I don't feel the lease bit un-"dignified". Where is the "dignity" in having to put up with a swaggering, tin-plated, dictator of a boss, who likes to kick people around, just because he can? Where is the "dignity" in having to work for some jumped up piece of crap that puffs himself up by denigrating his employees?

In the runup to my retirement, coworkers said I would miss working. I replied "miss getting up before dawn and slogging through a snowstorm, so people can yip at me all day?"

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Why not a UBI instead of a minimum wage?

Same problem, someone that lives in NYC vs Laurel, Mississippi would require different amounts? Would that be "fair"?

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Same problem, someone that lives in NYC vs Laurel, Mississippi would require different amounts? Would that be "fair"?

I think they should get the same. If someone chooses to live in NYC for the extra lifestyle benefits it may have, paying someone more for those extras wouldn't be "fair".

Similar issues concerning people that decide they "require" a house with a picket fence instead of an apartment, or "require" a sports car, or "require" kids (~$250,000 until adulthood) or pets (~$90,000 over their lifetime).

They are free to spend their UBI in the way they choose.

Based on Yang's proposal:

Every eligible UBI recipient, regardless of location, would receive $1,000 a month. Varying the dollar amount by location would add expensive layers of bureaucracy.
Print the post Back To Top