This is why we need a living wage

[beagle9]

Why is that people are mixing so many characters and issues together here, when they don't go together except to try and confuse with?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Do you know anything at all about me? I'm a homemaker. I don't belong to a union. Even when I was working for the DOD I didn't belong to a union. I did belong to a union when I was working for United Airlines, but that was the Machinist union, not the SEIU.

I don't care if Walmart gets a union or not, I want them to pay a living wage. In the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage and everything should go up from there.

What is a living wage?

I think it is a wage that is paid to the employee's for services rendered, and it would be based upon their loyalty, hardworks and good stewardship while working there, and also upon the companies progress and fortunes it has had as a team within the market place. It is and should be generally divided up out of the spoils of the companies sucesses between all persons found in percentage of (structural pay grade systems), and for whom are involved in the process after cost and taxes are paid. To look upon a workforce as modern day slaves, where as greed trumps all, and where as the employee's are left out of what should be the moral and ethical realm of it all as they should not be, is just criminal if you ask me.

Minimum wage has nothing to do with the living wage situation in America, as they are two seperate things.

That's stupid.

So company should not be rewarded for their risk? You would pay an engineer the same as a welder? A pipefitter then same as a helper? A doctor the same as an intern?

Again, that's stupid.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

In our town we saw an add where "Mcdonalds" was going to help it's employee's qualify for welfare, now what do you have to say about that ? Also she is right, where as with the illegals, entry level young mothers/workers, and other such manual or low skilled labor forces in America, we the tax payers have been subsidizing the companies who have been working them for a while now, and this was so that their help can live and eat while working for them either above or under the table. The scam has been caught and the people are livid about what they have found out in all of this now, so the spin just gets faster and faster as the gates close faster and faster on it all.

Cant say I've ever seen a sixteen year old on welfare. Unless of course his parents are.

Are you suggesting that only 16 year olds work at McDonald's ?

I'm suggesting that should be the case. If you're an adult working at Micky D's you need to pull your head out of your ass.

 

[Asclepias]

Do you think its better to be paid more than you are worth? The reason I ask is I think just the opposite. I would rather there be an incentive for people to get off welfare and better themselves. I'd rather pay on the back end. Either way we are going to pay. I just would like the effect of having more people better themselves.

I agree with you that I would prefer that people aspire to better their lives. However, in the interest of fairness, our society must enable ladders of upward social mobility in order for people to have the opportunity to improve their fortunes.

I also think the optimal solution would be for employers to pay their employees more by way of the employer's own volition. There are several companies who pay far above the minimum wage of their own volition. Whole Foods, for example, though they do it to take advantage of that "hippie" vibe, let us not ignore the motivation.

Given that employers have, historically and presently, not been willing to pay their employees a wage consistent with even meager means, we have the minimum wage. The debate on the necessity of a minimum wage was settled in 1938 with the FLSA. The question is how high should it be? Obviously it should be enough such that a single fulltime employee can literally sustain themselves, and as expected the minimum wage actually is around 130% of poverty. Should it be higher to allow the minimum wage worker some disposable income to try to better themselves?

Just a thought on providing ladders of upward social mobility.

I agree there should be ladders of upward social mobility. My point is that its better to go around or through obstacles in the mean time. Raising the wage on people that do not aspire to do better is not going to help them in the long run. They will quickly spend up that extra cash to meet their income level as 90% or more of people in the US do. A curious phenomenon of money is that the more there is in circulation (surplus) the higher the inflation rate goes. This will effectively put us all back in the same boat as your dollar will be able to buy less and less as time goes on. When people start educating themselves and striving forward without sitting around waiting for a government provided wage they tend to do better as human beings.

 

[MisterBeale]

Why is that people are mixing so many characters and issues together here, when they don't go together except to try and confuse with?

The better to debase the currency with and distract the population of fools. . . .

 

[beagle9]

What is a living wage?

I think it is a wage that is paid to the employee's for services rendered, and it would be based upon their loyalty, hardworks and good stewardship while working there, and also upon the companies progress and fortunes it has had as a team within the market place. It is and should be generally divided up out of the spoils of the companies sucesses between all persons found in percentage of (structural pay grade systems), and for whom are involved in the process after cost and taxes are paid. To look upon a workforce as modern day slaves, where as greed trumps all, and where as the employee's are left out of what should be the moral and ethical realm of it all as they should not be, is just criminal if you ask me.

Minimum wage has nothing to do with the living wage situation in America, as they are two seperate things.

That's stupid.

So company should not be rewarded for their risk? You would pay an engineer the same as a welder? A pipefitter then same as a helper? A doctor the same as an intern?

Again, that's stupid.

Your analogy or interpretation of my writings is wrong and maybe stupid because you got me scratching my head now as to how you come to that conclusion by what I said.

Sorry, but if you will just go back and read what I have written for around 5 or 6 post back , then you will see that I said nothing of the sort, so how do you get that out of what I wrote in the past here ? Hmmm, or are you trying to put words in my mouth, where as if other people don't do their homework, then you will have painted me into saying something that I didn't say, and maybe that's your goal with such tactics as this maybe. Hmmm.

What now, do people just come in on a conversation, and then feel that they can just throw their two cents in there blindly, otherwise even if they don't know what the entire character is of the person is for whom has been adding input into this thread differently than what they think ?

A living wage is always fluid if that helps you any..

 

[beagle9]

Cant say I've ever seen a sixteen year old on welfare. Unless of course his parents are.

Are you suggesting that only 16 year olds work at McDonald's ?

I'm suggesting that should be the case. If you're an adult working at Micky D's you need to pull your head out of your ass.

You don't do yourself any good with post like that...Just saying.

A job is a terrible thing to waist, and so is a mind.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Are you suggesting that only 16 year olds work at McDonald's ?

I'm suggesting that should be the case. If you're an adult working at Micky D's you need to pull your head out of your ass.

You don't do yourself any good with post like that...Just saying.

A job is a terrible thing to waist, and so is a mind.

If you're an adult working at Micky D's your mind is already wasted....just saying.

 

[Andylusion]

Do you think its better to be paid more than you are worth? The reason I ask is I think just the opposite. I would rather there be an incentive for people to get off welfare and better themselves. I'd rather pay on the back end. Either way we are going to pay. I just would like the effect of having more people better themselves.

I agree with you that I would prefer that people aspire to better their lives. However, in the interest of fairness, our society must enable ladders of upward social mobility in order for people to have the opportunity to improve their fortunes.

I also think the optimal solution would be for employers to pay their employees more by way of the employer's own volition. There are several companies who pay far above the minimum wage of their own volition. Whole Foods, for example, though they do it to take advantage of that "hippie" vibe, let us not ignore the motivation.

Given that employers have, historically and presently, not been willing to pay their employees a wage consistent with even meager means, we have the minimum wage. The debate on the necessity of a minimum wage was settled in 1938 with the FLSA. The question is how high should it be? Obviously it should be enough such that a single fulltime employee can literally sustain themselves, and as expected the minimum wage actually is around 130% of poverty. Should it be higher to allow the minimum wage worker some disposable income to try to better themselves?

Just a thought on providing ladders of upward social mobility.

I agree there should be ladders of upward social mobility. My point is that its better to go around or through obstacles in the mean time. Raising the wage on people that do not aspire to do better is not going to help them in the long run. They will quickly spend up that extra cash to meet their income level as 90% or more of people in the US do. A curious phenomenon of money is that the more there is in circulation (surplus) the higher the inflation rate goes. This will effectively put us all back in the same boat as your dollar will be able to buy less and less as time goes on. When people start educating themselves and striving forward without sitting around waiting for a government provided wage they tend to do better as human beings.

And the only exception to that, is when people are replaced with machines.... which will cut down on inflation, but the people the minimum wage was meant to help, will end up unemployed.

So either way, it doesn't help. Either the minimum wage drives up inflation, or it causes people to lose their jobs.

Both result in people being just as bad, or worse off than before.

 

[beagle9]

I agree with you that I would prefer that people aspire to better their lives. However, in the interest of fairness, our society must enable ladders of upward social mobility in order for people to have the opportunity to improve their fortunes.

I also think the optimal solution would be for employers to pay their employees more by way of the employer's own volition. There are several companies who pay far above the minimum wage of their own volition. Whole Foods, for example, though they do it to take advantage of that "hippie" vibe, let us not ignore the motivation.

Given that employers have, historically and presently, not been willing to pay their employees a wage consistent with even meager means, we have the minimum wage. The debate on the necessity of a minimum wage was settled in 1938 with the FLSA. The question is how high should it be? Obviously it should be enough such that a single fulltime employee can literally sustain themselves, and as expected the minimum wage actually is around 130% of poverty. Should it be higher to allow the minimum wage worker some disposable income to try to better themselves?

Just a thought on providing ladders of upward social mobility.

I agree there should be ladders of upward social mobility. My point is that its better to go around or through obstacles in the mean time. Raising the wage on people that do not aspire to do better is not going to help them in the long run. They will quickly spend up that extra cash to meet their income level as 90% or more of people in the US do. A curious phenomenon of money is that the more there is in circulation (surplus) the higher the inflation rate goes. This will effectively put us all back in the same boat as your dollar will be able to buy less and less as time goes on. When people start educating themselves and striving forward without sitting around waiting for a government provided wage they tend to do better as human beings.

And the only exception to that, is when people are replaced with machines.... which will cut down on inflation, but the people the minimum wage was meant to help, will end up unemployed.

So either way, it doesn't help. Either the minimum wage drives up inflation, or it causes people to lose their jobs.

Both result in people being just as bad, or worse off than before.

Nothing wrong with a minimum wage hike, but just as long as it is not used for a living wage instead of a minimal entrance pay hike when it is done. The living wage thing can be handled as a sperate issue in my honest opinion.

The minimum wage thing is just being used I think to satisfy the masses for political reasons, and to give corporations the excuse to pay equal pay across the board to labor. These issues are not being understood as they should be, and that is ashame really.

 

[Asclepias]

I agree with you that I would prefer that people aspire to better their lives. However, in the interest of fairness, our society must enable ladders of upward social mobility in order for people to have the opportunity to improve their fortunes.

I also think the optimal solution would be for employers to pay their employees more by way of the employer's own volition. There are several companies who pay far above the minimum wage of their own volition. Whole Foods, for example, though they do it to take advantage of that "hippie" vibe, let us not ignore the motivation.

Given that employers have, historically and presently, not been willing to pay their employees a wage consistent with even meager means, we have the minimum wage. The debate on the necessity of a minimum wage was settled in 1938 with the FLSA. The question is how high should it be? Obviously it should be enough such that a single fulltime employee can literally sustain themselves, and as expected the minimum wage actually is around 130% of poverty. Should it be higher to allow the minimum wage worker some disposable income to try to better themselves?

Just a thought on providing ladders of upward social mobility.

I agree there should be ladders of upward social mobility. My point is that its better to go around or through obstacles in the mean time. Raising the wage on people that do not aspire to do better is not going to help them in the long run. They will quickly spend up that extra cash to meet their income level as 90% or more of people in the US do. A curious phenomenon of money is that the more there is in circulation (surplus) the higher the inflation rate goes. This will effectively put us all back in the same boat as your dollar will be able to buy less and less as time goes on. When people start educating themselves and striving forward without sitting around waiting for a government provided wage they tend to do better as human beings.

And the only exception to that, is when people are replaced with machines.... which will cut down on inflation, but the people the minimum wage was meant to help, will end up unemployed.

So either way, it doesn't help. Either the minimum wage drives up inflation, or it causes people to lose their jobs.

Both result in people being just as bad, or worse off than before.

Thats only if people chose to remain at the market value of a minimum wage employee. You cant really help someone that flat out refuses to help themselves. If you see the market is changing and robots are taking over your job that should be a clue for you to acquire more skills prior to that happening. I have a problem making employers pay higher wages because ultimately they will hire less employees and work the hell out of them. You cant win or get ahead looking for someone to gift you more than you are worth as an employee.

 

[Mertex]

The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage

Watch the video.

$300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees. Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods. One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.

Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?

Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"

Yep, Economists have. Google is your friend.


Living Wage Calculator - Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator

 

[beagle9]

I agree there should be ladders of upward social mobility. My point is that its better to go around or through obstacles in the mean time. Raising the wage on people that do not aspire to do better is not going to help them in the long run. They will quickly spend up that extra cash to meet their income level as 90% or more of people in the US do. A curious phenomenon of money is that the more there is in circulation (surplus) the higher the inflation rate goes. This will effectively put us all back in the same boat as your dollar will be able to buy less and less as time goes on. When people start educating themselves and striving forward without sitting around waiting for a government provided wage they tend to do better as human beings.

And the only exception to that, is when people are replaced with machines.... which will cut down on inflation, but the people the minimum wage was meant to help, will end up unemployed.

So either way, it doesn't help. Either the minimum wage drives up inflation, or it causes people to lose their jobs.

Both result in people being just as bad, or worse off than before.

Thats only if people chose to remain at the market value of a minimum wage employee. You cant really help someone that flat out refuses to help themselves. If you see the market is changing and robots are taking over your job that should be a clue for you to acquire more skills prior to that happening. I have a problem making employers pay higher wages because ultimately they will hire less employees and work the hell out of them. You cant win or get ahead looking for someone to gift you more than you are worth as an employee.

No one is saying for anyone to gift someone more than what they are worth (your words), but rather to just pay them what they are worth in a structural pay system that they these companies should have intact in all of them. What is about to happen is Obama and company is about to give them (big companies/corporations) something that is right in line with what they wanted the whole time anyway, and that is for minimum wage to turn into a socialistic styled living wage across the board for all labor. Man talk about giving the wealthy a huge gift, and I mean wow. They will say next that the wage is a living wage, and therefore it won't be raised again for another 5 years, and that will be the next raise that the labor forces will get when government raises it again instead of them.

Talk about socialism/communism operating in America now. WOW! This is what happens when you mix it up with the world to much, and then you start becoming corrupted as a nation by it all. Obama wants to be a world leader, and not just the American President.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Do you think its better to be paid more than you are worth? The reason I ask is I think just the opposite. I would rather there be an incentive for people to get off welfare and better themselves. I'd rather pay on the back end. Either way we are going to pay. I just would like the effect of having more people better themselves.

I agree with you that I would prefer that people aspire to better their lives. However, in the interest of fairness, our society must enable ladders of upward social mobility in order for people to have the opportunity to improve their fortunes.

I also think the optimal solution would be for employers to pay their employees more by way of the employer's own volition. There are several companies who pay far above the minimum wage of their own volition. Whole Foods, for example, though they do it to take advantage of that "hippie" vibe, let us not ignore the motivation.

Given that employers have, historically and presently, not been willing to pay their employees a wage consistent with even meager means, we have the minimum wage. The debate on the necessity of a minimum wage was settled in 1938 with the FLSA. The question is how high should it be? Obviously it should be enough such that a single fulltime employee can literally sustain themselves, and as expected the minimum wage actually is around 130% of poverty. Should it be higher to allow the minimum wage worker some disposable income to try to better themselves?

Just a thought on providing ladders of upward social mobility.

I agree there should be ladders of upward social mobility. My point is that its better to go around or through obstacles in the mean time. Raising the wage on people that do not aspire to do better is not going to help them in the long run. They will quickly spend up that extra cash to meet their income level as 90% or more of people in the US do. A curious phenomenon of money is that the more there is in circulation (surplus) the higher the inflation rate goes. This will effectively put us all back in the same boat as your dollar will be able to buy less and less as time goes on. When people start educating themselves and striving forward without sitting around waiting for a government provided wage they tend to do better as human beings.

You made some excellent points.

Concerning the real wage of the minimum wage worker, let's start with an equation:
Z<X<Y
If we increase the money wage from some value X to some value Y (Y>X), eventually as prices increase we know that Y will buy the same amount of real goods that X could not so long in the past and we're back to the beginning again. I do agree with you.

However, by not increasing the minimum wage each minimum wage employee earns a lower real wage over time, every day.
Consider that if we abandoned this debate and left the minimum wage at X, but inflation continued, that minimum wage X would buy fewer and fewer goods as time goes on because of the inflation in prices. That minimum wage X would normalize with respect to inflation to a value Z lower than X. Ergo, freezing the minimum wage for years and not compensating for inflation does in fact lower the minimum real wage even the minimum money wage remains constant. We are making poor people poorer by doing nothing.



You're right, raising the minimum wage would increase demand for consumer goods. From the CBO

On balance, according to CBO’s analysis, raising the minimum wage would increase demand for goods and services because, taken together, the second, third, and fourth direct effects would shift income from business owners and consumers (as a whole) to low-wage workers. Low-wage workers generally spend a larger share of each dollar they receive than the average business owner or consumer does; thus, when a dollar from business owners or consumers is shifted to low-wage workers, overall spending increases.​

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf

So we see that the "velocity of money" will increase.
Let's use the equation of exchange, MV=PQ, and what we want to grow is Q.
Keeping M (Money Supply) constant, and noting that V will increase, the product PQ must also increase.
Minimum wage represents a price control, meaning that the government dictates that an hour of labor cannot be purchased for less than X amount. Raising X to Y will inflict an increase in P (price).
So we know V will increase and we know P will increase, but we do not know if the increase in V will exceed the increase in P.
The question is: will Q (real GDP) increase? We want Q to increase.

 

[Andylusion]

I agree there should be ladders of upward social mobility. My point is that its better to go around or through obstacles in the mean time. Raising the wage on people that do not aspire to do better is not going to help them in the long run. They will quickly spend up that extra cash to meet their income level as 90% or more of people in the US do. A curious phenomenon of money is that the more there is in circulation (surplus) the higher the inflation rate goes. This will effectively put us all back in the same boat as your dollar will be able to buy less and less as time goes on. When people start educating themselves and striving forward without sitting around waiting for a government provided wage they tend to do better as human beings.

And the only exception to that, is when people are replaced with machines.... which will cut down on inflation, but the people the minimum wage was meant to help, will end up unemployed.

So either way, it doesn't help. Either the minimum wage drives up inflation, or it causes people to lose their jobs.

Both result in people being just as bad, or worse off than before.

Nothing wrong with a minimum wage hike, but just as long as it is not used for a living wage instead of a minimal entrance pay hike when it is done. The living wage thing can be handled as a sperate issue in my honest opinion.

The minimum wage thing is just being used I think to satisfy the masses for political reasons, and to give corporations the excuse to pay equal pay across the board to labor. These issues are not being understood as they should be, and that is ashame really.

No, the primary driver of the minimum wage is Unions. It's not those 25 and younger, that work at Wendy's. Those people are not likely to vote anyway.

Voter turn out, for those under the age of 24, is less than 48%.
Voter turn out, for those unmarried, is less than 53%.
Voter turn out, for those earning $20K or less, is less than 51%.

In each category, these are the lowest voter turn out rates, of any group.

Minimum wage laws, are most likely to effect, those that are least likely to vote.

The only reason the minimum wage is EVER made into a political issue, is because of Unions.

Unions hate cheaper labor undercutting their membership base. They hate the idea of companies providing cheaper goods to the public, with a lower cost labor. They hate that people without education, without training or skills, can make a living doing what Unions do, at a lower cost point.

In short, the Unions want to grow and become larger, and more political powerful, and lack of wage laws, prevent that.

So they vote democrap, donate to democraps, and organize media campaigns for democraps, anything to get these wage laws passed so they can screw unskilled workers, screw the consumer, and protect themselves.

 

[Andylusion]

And the only exception to that, is when people are replaced with machines.... which will cut down on inflation, but the people the minimum wage was meant to help, will end up unemployed.

So either way, it doesn't help. Either the minimum wage drives up inflation, or it causes people to lose their jobs.

Both result in people being just as bad, or worse off than before.

Thats only if people chose to remain at the market value of a minimum wage employee. You cant really help someone that flat out refuses to help themselves. If you see the market is changing and robots are taking over your job that should be a clue for you to acquire more skills prior to that happening. I have a problem making employers pay higher wages because ultimately they will hire less employees and work the hell out of them. You cant win or get ahead looking for someone to gift you more than you are worth as an employee.

No one is saying for anyone to gift someone more than what they are worth (your words), but rather to just pay them what they are worth in a structural pay system that they these companies should have intact in all of them. What is about to happen is Obama and company is about to give them (big companies/corporations) something that is right in line with what they wanted the whole time anyway, and that is for minimum wage to turn into a socialistic styled living wage across the board for all labor. Man talk about giving the wealthy a huge gift, and I mean wow. They will say next that the wage is a living wage, and therefore it won't be raised again for another 5 years, and that will be the next raise that the labor forces will get when government raises it again instead of them.

Talk about socialism/communism operating in America now. WOW! This is what happens when you mix it up with the world to much, and then you start becoming corrupted as a nation by it all. Obama wants to be a world leader, and not just the American President.

Well first off, Obama is not trying to benefit the companies.

Doesn't matter. All regulation benefits the large companies. This is why no matter how much the left scream about right-wingers being in favor of big companies and the super wealthy, the truth is, the left-wing is the biggest support of the super wealthy, and always has been.

Here's what's going to happen. Let's pretend in magic world, that Obama passes a $15/hr minimum wage.

McDonald, which has billions of dollars, will replace their workers with robots. Thus, they can keep their prices low enough to stay in business.

What happens to all the Competition which do not have the money to automate?? Well they go out of business. They'll close. Thus McDonald and other super large companies with the money to automate their stores, will be the only stores still open. All the competition will disappear.

Meanwhile, all the employees will lose their jobs, and of all the employees of the competition will lose their jobs.

In short, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. McDonald's and the very few other massive fast food companies, get a defacto monopoly, and all the poor are now unemployed.

We've seen how liberal regulation works over and over and over again. In the 1960s, there were dozens, nearly a hundred independent auto makers. Then they regulated the hell out of the auto industry. By 1980s, there were only the Big Three.

The left is always benefiting the rich, at the expense of the poor. Whether they do it intentionally, or by accident, is irrelevant. This is the result.

Back to your first claim

No one is saying for anyone to gift someone more than what they are worth (your words), but rather to just pay them what they are worth in a structural pay system that they these companies should have intact in all of them.

Fail? Who determines how much someone is worth?

Answer? The customer. We determine how much someone's labor is worth.

If McDonald's could get customers to pay $480 for a big mac, they would be more than willing to pay a burger flipper $1 Million a year.

For example, a high end Flair Bartender in Las Vegas, can pull $100,000 a year, for essentially pouring drink, and putting on a show doing it.

How the heck can he earn that much when the average Bartender earns $20K? Customers. The Customers going to Las Vegas are willing to pay for it. The minimum wage didn't magically change to $100K in Las Vegas.

Companies do not have one single penny that doesn't come from the Customer. Every dollar that an employee is paid, comes from a Customer paying for it.

Only the customer determines how much labor is worth.

Say you hired someone to mow your lawn for $25 a mow, twice a month. If the guy came to you the following year and said "I deserve $50,000 a year, so you need to pay me $100 a mow" would you do it?

Heck no. For $200, you could by a law mower, and all the gas to mow your lawn for the entire summer. Forget that... for a years worth of mowing, you could buy a Lawn Bot, and have a robot mow your lawn for the next 10 years.

Well if the government steps in and puts on a Minimum Lawn Mower wage, and the guy says "you have to pay me $100 to mow your law. Federal Law" what will you do?

Same thing. You'll either mow it yourself, or buy a robot.

HELLO!?!? It's the same thing with a fast food joint. A cheap fast food burger, is not worth $20. It's not. Hello.... it's not.

If the customer isn't willing to pay $20 for the burger, than the company can't pay $20 an hour to the employee. The employees labor isn't worth that much, because the customer isn't willing to pay that much.

Thus, either the customer will simply stop buying the labor, and cooking their own food..... or the company will replace the employee with robots.

In either case, the employee is not going to get paid more than they are worth. And what they are worth, doesn't change because you passed some law.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Salary should be relative to skill and ability. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[RKMBrown]

Salary should be relative to skill and ability. Nothing more, nothing less.

There are a lot more factors than just skill and ability.

For example, amount of effort applied for each work hour, number of hours, results, availability, like-ability with employees and customers, loyalty, retention issues, ....

For a lot of jobs what you get paid is also going to be based on your ability to negotiate with whomever is hiring you when you start, which goes to ability and like-ability but also negotiation experience which are not normally useful for every job, so is another skill set entirely.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Here's what's going to happen. Let's pretend in magic world, that Obama passes a $15/hr minimum wage.

McDonald, which has billions of dollars, will replace their workers with robots. Thus, they can keep their prices low enough to stay in business.

That is a terrible leap in logic. This is not a situation where someone can "make it cheaper in China" because you are talking about cooked hamburgers served hot. There is no foreign competition. The cost increase would be inflicted upon every fast food restaurant in the United States. Given the fact that all competition McDonald's faces would suffer the same increase in cost, this is not a situation where McDonald's would need to keep prices low in response to competition. So, given that competition is not driving the price in the model you propose, a price increase is more realistic. That price increase may yield to a lower volume of sales. It is the lower volume of sales that would reduce jobs!

Furthermore, if McDonalds had the option to replace their workforce with robots, why wouldn't they just replace the workforce? It does not follow that anyone should fear a wage hike because MickeyDees might start investing in robots. If robots could be used (and actually are used in some small capacity to pour drinks in drive-thrus) McDonalds has an obligation to its stockholders reduce labor costs and implement the cheaper more efficient robot solution.

Look up the "Automated Beverage System". McDonalds is already investing in robots,

What happens to all the Competition which do not have the money to automate?? Well they go out of business. They'll close. Thus McDonald and other super large companies with the money to automate their stores, will be the only stores still open. All the competition will disappear.

That automation will happen as soon as the burger-flipper robot is invented. The day someone invents the burger-flipper robot this is going to happen. You do understand that MickeyDees has a responsibility to its shareholders, right? You can abolish the minimum wage all together and robots will still happen.

We've seen how liberal regulation works over and over and over again. In the 1960s, there were dozens, nearly a hundred independent auto makers. Then they regulated the hell out of the auto industry. By 1980s, there were only the Big Three.

Okay, first, could you substantiate the claim "In the 1960s, there were dozens, nearly a hundred independent auto makers" ?

I am not aware of "nearly a hundred" or any number close to that. Please remember that to be on this list of independent automakers, the independent automakers must have actually made cars in the United States such that their manufacturing process was subject to regulation in the United States.
Second, you have completely overlooked the oil embargo. The oil embargo and price of gas was devastating to American inefficient cars. You have overlooked the growth foreign competition, and the fact that Germany and Japan had rejoined the world as nations with substantial industry after WWII. You have overlooked the great American Quality Crisis (Quality is Free by Phil Crosby).
You seem to be trying to blame everything on a book Ralph Nader wrote. Ralphie was never so powerful.

If McDonald's could get customers to pay $480 for a big mac, they would be more than willing to pay a burger flipper $1 Million a year.

If McDonalds could get customers to pay $480 for a big mac, then the price of a big mac would be $480, that part is correct. Where you made a mistake is in assuming this translates into wages. If MickeyDees could charge $480 of a big mac, but only give $0.01 per hour to the burger-flipper... why wouldn't they? Why would they deprive their shareholders of the profit?
McDonalds is far more likely to pay just enough to keep the burger-flipper from leaving the job, maybe have some morale when he comes to work, and this will be a function of the supply of labor.

For example, a high end Flair Bartender in Las Vegas, can pull $100,000 a year, for essentially pouring drink, and putting on a show doing it.

Hey now, that is not a fair comparison. How many MickeyDees burger-flippers "put on a show"? A high-end burger-flipper might make the same amount of money if he could figure out a routine and market that routine. That does distinguish the performer from the average burger-flipper.

How the heck can he earn that much when the average Bartender earns $20K? Customers. The Customers going to Las Vegas are willing to pay for it. The minimum wage didn't magically change to $100K in Las Vegas.

You are assuming fungibility in the service provided where none exists. The fact that the two services are different is why the consumer is willing to pay two different prices.

Say you hired someone to mow your lawn for $25 a mow, twice a month. If the guy came to you the following year and said "I deserve $50,000 a year, so you need to pay me $100 a mow" would you do it?

Heck no. For $200, you could by a law mower, and all the gas to mow your lawn for the entire summer.

I assume you do not have a large yard. If you owned several acres, maybe this per-service price would seem more reasonable.

Forget that... for a years worth of mowing, you could buy a Lawn Bot, and have a robot mow your lawn for the next 10 years.

Thank you for making me aware of lawnbott.
LawnBott Robotic Mowers | LawnBott ? Electric Lawn Mower
If I am able to do so, I am going to terminate my landscaping services and start buying robots.
I do not care how much the landscaper will reduce his prices. I like robots a lot. I think robots are neat and the robot will never leave a cigarette butt in my yard.
I'm actually serious, if I could I'd buy a landscaping robot and the minimum wage has very little to do with my decision. See how that works?

HELLO!?!? It's the same thing with a fast food joint. A cheap fast food burger, is not worth $20. It's not. Hello.... it's not.

You sound like Biff speaking to McFly... "Hello! McFly Hello!"
A cheap fast food burger is worth $20 if you can sell it for $20.

If the customer isn't willing to pay $20 for the burger, than the company can't pay $20 an hour to the employee. The employees labor isn't worth that much, because the customer isn't willing to pay that much.

The price of the burger actually does not affect the wage of the worker. If there was a shortage of labor, the wage of the burger-flipper would sky rocket and this would be reflected in reduced profits. The reduced profits would be necessary because in order to stay in business one would have to pay the laborer a rate better than the competition for that labor. In the case of limited labor supply, a laborer can demand an incredible amount of money.

In either case, the employee is not going to get paid more than they are worth. And what they are worth, doesn't change because you passed some law.

The FLSA and history thereof disagrees with you.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Salary should be relative to skill and ability. Nothing more, nothing less.

There are a lot more factors than just skill and ability.

For example, amount of effort applied for each work hour, number of hours, results, availability, like-ability with employees and customers, loyalty, retention issues, ....

For a lot of jobs what you get paid is also going to be based on your ability to negotiate with whomever is hiring you when you start, which goes to ability and like-ability but also negotiation experience which are not normally useful for every job, so is another skill set entirely.

No there's not. Everything you suggested applies to ability.