Restaurants are adding labor surcharges to help offset minimum wage increases

[Skull Pilot]

Not now, but as it continues it's popularity, we may be able to syphon some of those school dollars to pay parents to educate their kids, and who knows, maybe other kids nearby their home as well.

My problem with homeschooling is why does it need to be all or nothing?
Why not homeschool for English, history and subjects you are comfortable with and send your kid to regular school for science labs, foreign language and advanced mathematics?

you can get all that via the web now

Do you have a home science lab? Computer lab? How about an indoor pool or weight room facilities

Your taxes pay for those facilities.....why not use them?

Because the public school won't let home schoolers use them

and FYI one can do all kinds of chemistry with household items and many chemicals and supplies used in HS chem labs can be bought it's not as hard as you think

and FYI I do have quite the home gym set up weights heavy bags, pull up bars I even have a home made obstacle course on the back acre of my property

All of my trailer dwelling rural friends have an obstacle course in their backyard. It's common name is junk.

Good for you. I don't have any friends who live in trailer parks and mine is more like a scaled down military style course

 

[NYcarbineer]

I thought restaurants were just going to lay off enough people to make up the difference.

I'm sure some have. When you pin the business owner against the wall, each will deal with the problem differently.

If you're up against the wall because you have to pay your people a whopping 8 bucks an hour, you need to take up another enterprise.

As I wrote earlier. When a boss gives you a dollar an hour raise, it costs him much more than just that dollar. Then you multiply that by X amount of employees. Sorry, but it all adds up to some substantial money in the end.

And the employee spends his extra dollar in someone else's business increasing their sales revenue.

The ole liberal trickle up theory of economics. If that works so well, why not pay them $100 and hour? The economy should sky rocket.

Or why not reduce wages to zero, force people to work for nothing, and really get that trickle down thing going?

 

[Iceweasel]

I remember when all the bills from my vendors included fuel surcharges when the price of gas went over 3.50 a gallon

and none of us threw the conniption fit you idiots are

So why didn't the restaurants put that on their bills? Why try to specifically humiliate the $8 an hour guy as a greedy money grubber?

really? The employees were humiliated?

care to back that up with something other than your mouth?

The employees weren't humiliated

Yes the surcharge on the bill is a humiliation BY the restaurant owner.

Nope. It tells the customer where the extra charge is and he is taking care of it. No need to tip.

IOW, don't blame me, blame your waiter.

Who said blame? You did. The tips are now included in the check. Duh! Many will make less.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm sure some have. When you pin the business owner against the wall, each will deal with the problem differently.

If you're up against the wall because you have to pay your people a whopping 8 bucks an hour, you need to take up another enterprise.

As I wrote earlier. When a boss gives you a dollar an hour raise, it costs him much more than just that dollar. Then you multiply that by X amount of employees. Sorry, but it all adds up to some substantial money in the end.

And the employee spends his extra dollar in someone else's business increasing their sales revenue.

The ole liberal trickle up theory of economics. If that works so well, why not pay them $100 and hour? The economy should sky rocket.

Or why not reduce wages to zero, force people to work for nothing, and really get that trickle down thing going?

You farted. I asked why not pay them $100/hr if your theory works.

 

[dannyboys]

I haven't heard the evil Republicans make your argument, but I don't watch political cartoon shows. Minimum wage jobs are the good jobs you think the evil Republicans meant? Of course any raises, artificial or not result in higher end prices.

I don't eat out so they can add $50 in fees to the tab. But the higher costs go the less the demand will be. Bottom line is if you open a business it should be up to you if you go out of business or not, not the do gooders in government.

The guy said people with college degrees would be his waiters.

These are exactly the people promised better jobs. All the unemployed people with degrees or experience but they can't find work in their field of study so they are forced to wait tables.

Yes, of course you don't remember your empty promises

there never has been much demand for degrees in stupid shit like women's studies

Then colleges should be sued for offering a useless degree.

By that logic union run public schools should be sued for not teaching the kids how to read and write and do basic math by the time they are 'streamed' through grade twelve only to find out no one will hire a kid who is illiterate.
There are MILLIONS of these kids wandering around, some who are realising the chance of EVER getting a decent paying stable job is fucking ZERO!

Do you realize how many white children would fail out of highschool if we didn't cut the slackers some slack? All those factory workers who only have a highschool degree. They hated school. Only went to school because they are forced to go by law. Their white trash parents can't help them with their homework.

Maybe we shouldn't insist every kid get an education. Some don't care.

The teachers aren't really the problem here, although I won't disagree there's probably a better way.

Are you willing pay to support the millions of kids being 'streamed' out of high school.
"All those factory workers" aren't able to work in the hundreds of thousands of factories that are closing their doors.
Who's supporting them?
Bottom line our society evolved an education system to teach a core curriculum so kids could at minimum read and write and accomplish basic math. The people who were responsible to make this happen have failed the kids/their families/their neighborhoods and their country.

 

[dannyboys]

Or maybe they are putting it on the bill to show their customers what happens when they support something as idiotic as a huge minimum wage increase: somebody has to pay for that increase.

Or maybe it's way of letting petty douchebags know not to come back to the restaurant.

That's their option. But many uninformed voters think that when they support things like wage or taxation hikes, somebody other then them are going to pay for it. I'm sure those people who are shocked at the new charge figured it was the owner that was just going to dig deeper in his pockets.

For those who are insulted by learning something, you probably don't want their business anyhow.

I thought restaurants were just going to lay off enough people to make up the difference.

I'm sure some have. When you pin the business owner against the wall, each will deal with the problem differently.

Last year a friend of mine owned and operated a some business which employed twenty people.
Good things happened and he saw that he could double his workforce to around forty.
Instead of hiring another twenty people he started up a completely legal separate business (even changed the name of the business) a mile away and hired twenty employees to do the exact same work as in the first business.
Any guesses why he did this?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Or maybe they are putting it on the bill to show their customers what happens when they support something as idiotic as a huge minimum wage increase: somebody has to pay for that increase.

Or maybe it's way of letting petty douchebags know not to come back to the restaurant.

That's their option. But many uninformed voters think that when they support things like wage or taxation hikes, somebody other then them are going to pay for it. I'm sure those people who are shocked at the new charge figured it was the owner that was just going to dig deeper in his pockets.

For those who are insulted by learning something, you probably don't want their business anyhow.

I thought restaurants were just going to lay off enough people to make up the difference.

I'm sure some have. When you pin the business owner against the wall, each will deal with the problem differently.

Last year a friend of mine owned and operated a some business which employed twenty people.
Good things happened and he saw that he could double his workforce to around forty.
Instead of hiring another twenty people he started up a completely legal separate business (even changed the name of the business) a mile away and hired twenty employees to do the exact same work as in the first business.
Any guesses why he did this?

And it accomplishes nothing except adding unnecessary costs to a business.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you're up against the wall because you have to pay your people a whopping 8 bucks an hour, you need to take up another enterprise.

As I wrote earlier. When a boss gives you a dollar an hour raise, it costs him much more than just that dollar. Then you multiply that by X amount of employees. Sorry, but it all adds up to some substantial money in the end.

And the employee spends his extra dollar in someone else's business increasing their sales revenue.

The ole liberal trickle up theory of economics. If that works so well, why not pay them $100 and hour? The economy should sky rocket.

Or why not reduce wages to zero, force people to work for nothing, and really get that trickle down thing going?

You farted. I asked why not pay them $100/hr if your theory works.

Because you created a textbook strawman.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So why didn't the restaurants put that on their bills? Why try to specifically humiliate the $8 an hour guy as a greedy money grubber?

really? The employees were humiliated?

care to back that up with something other than your mouth?

The employees weren't humiliated

Yes the surcharge on the bill is a humiliation BY the restaurant owner.

Nope. It tells the customer where the extra charge is and he is taking care of it. No need to tip.

IOW, don't blame me, blame your waiter.

Who said blame? You did. The tips are now included in the check. Duh! Many will make less.

I already posted that there's a special minimum wage for people who work for tips.

 

[Iceweasel]

As I wrote earlier. When a boss gives you a dollar an hour raise, it costs him much more than just that dollar. Then you multiply that by X amount of employees. Sorry, but it all adds up to some substantial money in the end.

And the employee spends his extra dollar in someone else's business increasing their sales revenue.

The ole liberal trickle up theory of economics. If that works so well, why not pay them $100 and hour? The economy should sky rocket.

Or why not reduce wages to zero, force people to work for nothing, and really get that trickle down thing going?

You farted. I asked why not pay them $100/hr if your theory works.

Because you created a textbook strawman.

How so? You said paying them more boosts the economy. Looks like you ran away from it pretty quick!

 

[NYcarbineer]

So why didn't the restaurants put that on their bills? Why try to specifically humiliate the $8 an hour guy as a greedy money grubber?

really? The employees were humiliated?

care to back that up with something other than your mouth?

The employees weren't humiliated

Yes the surcharge on the bill is a humiliation BY the restaurant owner.

Nope. It tells the customer where the extra charge is and he is taking care of it. No need to tip.

IOW, don't blame me, blame your waiter.

Who said blame? You did. The tips are now included in the check. Duh! Many will make less.

Can you prove that the owner is passing the surcharge along to his employees.

 

[Iceweasel]

really? The employees were humiliated?

care to back that up with something other than your mouth?

The employees weren't humiliated

Yes the surcharge on the bill is a humiliation BY the restaurant owner.

Nope. It tells the customer where the extra charge is and he is taking care of it. No need to tip.

IOW, don't blame me, blame your waiter.

Who said blame? You did. The tips are now included in the check. Duh! Many will make less.

I already posted that there's a special minimum wage for people who work for tips.

It's $15/hr. in Seattle, how did your post change the law?

 

[NYcarbineer]

And the employee spends his extra dollar in someone else's business increasing their sales revenue.

The ole liberal trickle up theory of economics. If that works so well, why not pay them $100 and hour? The economy should sky rocket.

Or why not reduce wages to zero, force people to work for nothing, and really get that trickle down thing going?

You farted. I asked why not pay them $100/hr if your theory works.

Because you created a textbook strawman.

How so? You said paying them more boosts the economy. Looks like you ran away from it pretty quick!

I stated the indisputable fact that when a low wage person makes more money they will spend more money.

Do you wish to dispute that?

 

[Iceweasel]

really? The employees were humiliated?

care to back that up with something other than your mouth?

The employees weren't humiliated

Yes the surcharge on the bill is a humiliation BY the restaurant owner.

Nope. It tells the customer where the extra charge is and he is taking care of it. No need to tip.

IOW, don't blame me, blame your waiter.

Who said blame? You did. The tips are now included in the check. Duh! Many will make less.

Can you prove that the owner is passing the surcharge along to his employees.

It's what we are talking about when we say "wages".

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes the surcharge on the bill is a humiliation BY the restaurant owner.

Nope. It tells the customer where the extra charge is and he is taking care of it. No need to tip.

IOW, don't blame me, blame your waiter.

Who said blame? You did. The tips are now included in the check. Duh! Many will make less.

I already posted that there's a special minimum wage for people who work for tips.

It's $15/hr. in Seattle, how did your post change the law?

As always, you are wrong:

Seattle’s minimum wage law kicks into high gear with 2016 bump

 

[Iceweasel]

The ole liberal trickle up theory of economics. If that works so well, why not pay them $100 and hour? The economy should sky rocket.

Or why not reduce wages to zero, force people to work for nothing, and really get that trickle down thing going?

You farted. I asked why not pay them $100/hr if your theory works.

Because you created a textbook strawman.

How so? You said paying them more boosts the economy. Looks like you ran away from it pretty quick!

I stated the indisputable fact that when a low wage person makes more money they will spend more money.

Do you wish to dispute that?

I wish to dispute it's better for the economy if we force businesses to artificially increase wages. I made it crystal clear but you can't grasp it for some reason.

Your failure to answer my challenge proves it's wrong.

 

[Iceweasel]

Nope. It tells the customer where the extra charge is and he is taking care of it. No need to tip.

IOW, don't blame me, blame your waiter.

Who said blame? You did. The tips are now included in the check. Duh! Many will make less.

I already posted that there's a special minimum wage for people who work for tips.

It's $15/hr. in Seattle, how did your post change the law?

As always, you are wrong:

Seattle’s minimum wage law kicks into high gear with 2016 bump

LOL

"The Minimum Wage Ordinance sets wages for the City of Seattle and will gradually increase to $15.00/hour."

 

[rightwinger]

Or why not reduce wages to zero, force people to work for nothing, and really get that trickle down thing going?

You farted. I asked why not pay them $100/hr if your theory works.

Because you created a textbook strawman.

How so? You said paying them more boosts the economy. Looks like you ran away from it pretty quick!

I stated the indisputable fact that when a low wage person makes more money they will spend more money.

Do you wish to dispute that?

I wish to dispute it's better for the economy if we force businesses to artificially increase wages. I made it crystal clear but you can't grasp it for some reason.

Your failure to answer my challenge proves it's wrong.

We have had minimum wages for over 70 years
Each time we tried to raise them, conservatives moaned about the end of small business as we know it

 

[Skull Pilot]

really? The employees were humiliated?

care to back that up with something other than your mouth?

The employees weren't humiliated

Yes the surcharge on the bill is a humiliation BY the restaurant owner.

Nope. It tells the customer where the extra charge is and he is taking care of it. No need to tip.

IOW, don't blame me, blame your waiter.

Who said blame? You did. The tips are now included in the check. Duh! Many will make less.

I already posted that there's a special minimum wage for people who work for tips.

DUH

Everyone knows that.

And I already told you there are restaurants who pay their waitstaff 15 an hour and people won't tip if the staff is getting that

and I also already told you that most waitstaff do not want to give up tips because even with the low hourly rate they still make 18 to well over 20 an hour

 

[Skull Pilot]

You farted. I asked why not pay them $100/hr if your theory works.

Because you created a textbook strawman.

How so? You said paying them more boosts the economy. Looks like you ran away from it pretty quick!

I stated the indisputable fact that when a low wage person makes more money they will spend more money.

Do you wish to dispute that?

I wish to dispute it's better for the economy if we force businesses to artificially increase wages. I made it crystal clear but you can't grasp it for some reason.

Your failure to answer my challenge proves it's wrong.

We have had minimum wages for over 70 years
Each time we tried to raise them, conservatives moaned about the end of small business as we know it

really?

Care to link to that claim?

And you can't seem to understand that more than half the states already have MW that is higher than the federal