Wage Strikes Planned at Fast-Food Outlets

[TakeAStepBack]

Seeking to increase pressure on McDonald’s, Wendy’s and other fast-food restaurants, organizers of a movement demanding a $15-an-hour wage for fast-food workers say they will sponsor one-day strikes in 100 cities on Thursday and protest activities in 100 additional cities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/02/b...-at-fast-food-outlets-in-100-cities.html?_r=0

No doubt to help pay for condoms and pills for the poor and dispossesed pieces of shit who think we owe them everything.

Looks like McDonald's will be hiring in the very near future....

 

[The Rabbi]

...won’t impose any increased costs. The costs are, by every metric, minimal...

Wow, in the time it took to read eight words the costs went from nothing to minimal. I figured I'd better stop reading because they'd be hitting the excessive level if I went much further, but I didn't--

...Firms can adjust...

Of course they can, by laying off workers that that can no longer pay their keep.

See, everyone's different, and our labor all comes with different market prices based on how much profit we bring in. Companies got no problem with an employee only able of bringing in 6$/hour profit, so long as they don't have to pay more than $5.99/hr. Make it illegal to hire for $5.99 and the poor guy gets laid off.

This really isn't rocket science.

His post is a good illustration that a little knowledge is an absurd thing.

 

[expat_panama]

...won’t impose any increased costs. The costs are, by every metric, minimal...

Wow, in the time it took to read eight words the costs went from nothing to minimal. I figured I'd better stop reading because they'd be hitting the excessive level if I went much further, but I didn't--

...Firms can adjust...

Of course they can, by laying off workers that that can no longer pay their keep.

See, everyone's different, and our labor all comes with different market prices based on how much profit we bring in. Companies got no problem with an employee only able of bringing in 6$/hour profit, so long as they don't have to pay more than $5.99/hr. Make it illegal to hire for $5.99 and the poor guy gets laid off.

This really isn't rocket science.

His post is...

--not the point. We were talking about wage laws and the layoffs they cause, although I can understand why you'd want to change the subject...

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow, in the time it took to read eight words the costs went from nothing to minimal. I figured I'd better stop reading because they'd be hitting the excessive level if I went much further, but I didn't--Of course they can, by laying off workers that that can no longer pay their keep.

See, everyone's different, and our labor all comes with different market prices based on how much profit we bring in. Companies got no problem with an employee only able of bringing in 6$/hour profit, so long as they don't have to pay more than $5.99/hr. Make it illegal to hire for $5.99 and the poor guy gets laid off.

This really isn't rocket science.

His post is...

--not the point. We were talking about wage laws and the layoffs they cause, although I can understand why you'd want to change the subject...

Why would I want to change the subject?

 

[Wry Catcher]

...When economists have analyzed the data, many have found few, if any, negative effects of a minimum wage on employment...

--and the other economists who're not on the payroll of Marxist ideologues know it's obvious minimum wage laws don't raise wages, they just make it illegal to hire the bottom segment of the labor pool.

Work with me on this; making illegal the hiring of a group people has simply got to increase the employment level of that group of people.








Am I still going too fast for everyone here?

Not a bit. Had you read the link above (Wash. Post) you would have noticed that not everyone is covered by minimum wage laws. Take a peak at the link. Don't be scared, a bit of cognitive dissonance is healthy now and then.

 

[expat_panama]

His post is...

--not the point. We were talking about wage laws and the layoffs they cause, although I can understand why you'd want to change the subject...

Why would I want to change the subject?

You don't know?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Was that supposed to be some kind of refutation?
I posted proof for both things. Teens overwhelmingly make up min wage workers.
Rises in min wage cause rising unemployment for teens.
This isn't hard, really.

Define teen. I simply pointed out in red how misleading simple stats can be and usually are.

Five myths about the minimum wage - Washington Post

You are playing semantic games. And losing.
Posting crap articles from lib outlets does not change that.

Mark Twain was thinking of people like you when he wrote, "there are liars, damn liars and statistics".

You attempted to comport 25,24,23, 22, 21, and 20 year olds as teens to 'prove' a point. In another thread you complained that the PPACA allowed 26 year old adults as too old to remain on their parents health insurance policy.

 

[The Rabbi]

...When economists have analyzed the data, many have found few, if any, negative effects of a minimum wage on employment...

--and the other economists who're not on the payroll of Marxist ideologues know it's obvious minimum wage laws don't raise wages, they just make it illegal to hire the bottom segment of the labor pool.

Work with me on this; making illegal the hiring of a group people has simply got to increase the employment level of that group of people.








Am I still going too fast for everyone here?

Not a bit. Had you read the link above (Wash. Post) you would have noticed that not everyone is covered by minimum wage laws. Take a peak at the link. Don't be scared, a bit of cognitive dissonance is healthy now and then.

Obviously you didnt read the article. If you did, you didnt understand the article. If you t hink you understood the article, you are sadly mistaken.
In any case the author worked for the Obama Administration so fits the definition of "on the payroll of Marxist ideologues" that Expat set.

 

[Kimura]

...won’t impose any increased costs. The costs are, by every metric, minimal...

Wow, in the time it took to read eight words the costs went from nothing to minimal. I figured I'd better stop reading because they'd be hitting the excessive level if I went much further, but I didn't--

...Firms can adjust...

Of course they can, by laying off workers that that can no longer pay their keep.

See, everyone's different, and our labor all comes with different market prices based on how much profit we bring in. Companies got no problem with an employee only able of bringing in 6$/hour profit, so long as they don't have to pay more than $5.99/hr. Make it illegal to hire for $5.99 and the poor guy gets laid off.

This really isn't rocket science.

His post is a good illustration that a little knowledge is an absurd thing.

The NJ/PA fast food study demonstrated that an an increase in the minimum wage (.80 cents) in NJ resulted in a 2.76 full-time equivalent rise in employment. It did not cause an increase in unemployment.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Seeking to increase pressure on McDonald’s, Wendy’s and other fast-food restaurants, organizers of a movement demanding a $15-an-hour wage for fast-food workers say they will sponsor one-day strikes in 100 cities on Thursday and protest activities in 100 additional cities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/02/b...-at-fast-food-outlets-in-100-cities.html?_r=0

No doubt to help pay for condoms and pills for the poor and dispossesed pieces of shit who think we owe them everything.

Looks like McDonald's will be hiring in the very near future....

Really, and that's good for the owner of a McDonald's Franchise. I'm taking your comment to mean such employers will fire those who strike, correct? Take a guess which is more cost effective, making employees feel valued and paying them a little more, or recruiting, interviewing, doing background checks and training new employees (who will soon be asking for higher pay and benefits)?

 

[Wry Catcher]

--and the other economists who're not on the payroll of Marxist ideologues know it's obvious minimum wage laws don't raise wages, they just make it illegal to hire the bottom segment of the labor pool.

Work with me on this; making illegal the hiring of a group people has simply got to increase the employment level of that group of people.








Am I still going too fast for everyone here?

Not a bit. Had you read the link above (Wash. Post) you would have noticed that not everyone is covered by minimum wage laws. Take a peak at the link. Don't be scared, a bit of cognitive dissonance is healthy now and then.

Obviously you didnt read the article. If you did, you didnt understand the article. If you t hink you understood the article, you are sadly mistaken.
In any case the author worked for the Obama Administration so fits the definition of "on the payroll of Marxist ideologues" that Expat set.

Thanks for sharing [ad hominem alert] Please leave me out of the discussion and post a rebuttal to the argument made in the link you discredit solely because the author worked in the Obama Administration for one year.

 

[Spiderman]

Wow, in the time it took to read eight words the costs went from nothing to minimal. I figured I'd better stop reading because they'd be hitting the excessive level if I went much further, but I didn't--Of course they can, by laying off workers that that can no longer pay their keep.

See, everyone's different, and our labor all comes with different market prices based on how much profit we bring in. Companies got no problem with an employee only able of bringing in 6$/hour profit, so long as they don't have to pay more than $5.99/hr. Make it illegal to hire for $5.99 and the poor guy gets laid off.

This really isn't rocket science.

His post is a good illustration that a little knowledge is an absurd thing.

The NJ/PA fast food study demonstrated that an an increase in the minimum wage (.80 cents) in NJ resulted in a 2.76 full-time equivalent rise in employment. It did not cause an increase in unemployment.

You cannot tie the rise in employment to the rise in minimum wage.

Correlation and causation and all that

 

[Spiderman]

Seeking to increase pressure on McDonald’s, Wendy’s and other fast-food restaurants, organizers of a movement demanding a $15-an-hour wage for fast-food workers say they will sponsor one-day strikes in 100 cities on Thursday and protest activities in 100 additional cities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/02/b...-at-fast-food-outlets-in-100-cities.html?_r=0

No doubt to help pay for condoms and pills for the poor and dispossesed pieces of shit who think we owe them everything.

Looks like McDonald's will be hiring in the very near future....

Really, and that's good for the owner of a McDonald's Franchise. I'm taking your comment to mean such employers will fire those who strike, correct? Take a guess which is more cost effective, making employees feel valued and paying them a little more, or recruiting, interviewing, doing background checks and training new employees (who will soon be asking for higher pay and benefits)?

There ain't a whole lot of training needed to work at MCds.

 

[expat_panama]

...When economists have analyzed the data, many have found few, if any, negative effects of a minimum wage on employment...

--and the other economists who're not on the payroll of Marxist ideologues know it's obvious minimum wage laws don't raise wages, they just make it illegal to hire the bottom segment of the labor pool.

Work with me on this; making illegal the hiring of a group people has simply got to increase the employment level of that group of people.








Am I still going too fast for everyone here?

Not a bit. Had you read the link...

--then the minimum wage law still would make it illegal to hire low value labor. The reason I know that for a fact is becuase I did and it does. Unless of course my reading it changed the law while I wrote this. I'll check the law online here....



...no, same law. Let me know if there's a delay maybe, this would be great!
--and please let me know if I can repeal another laws this way...

 

[The Rabbi]

--not the point. We were talking about wage laws and the layoffs they cause, although I can understand why you'd want to change the subject...

Why would I want to change the subject?

You don't know?

tell me.

 

[The Rabbi]

Define teen. I simply pointed out in red how misleading simple stats can be and usually are.

Five myths about the minimum wage - Washington Post

You are playing semantic games. And losing.
Posting crap articles from lib outlets does not change that.

Mark Twain was thinking of people like you when he wrote, "there are liars, damn liars and statistics".

You attempted to comport 25,24,23, 22, 21, and 20 year olds as teens to 'prove' a point. In another thread you complained that the PPACA allowed 26 year old adults as too old to remain on their parents health insurance policy.

Again you are playing semantic games. Teenagers are overwhelmingly represented among min wage workers. Which makes sense of course. I posted proof of that. Your niggling does not change the fact.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow, in the time it took to read eight words the costs went from nothing to minimal. I figured I'd better stop reading because they'd be hitting the excessive level if I went much further, but I didn't--Of course they can, by laying off workers that that can no longer pay their keep.

See, everyone's different, and our labor all comes with different market prices based on how much profit we bring in. Companies got no problem with an employee only able of bringing in 6$/hour profit, so long as they don't have to pay more than $5.99/hr. Make it illegal to hire for $5.99 and the poor guy gets laid off.

This really isn't rocket science.

His post is a good illustration that a little knowledge is an absurd thing.

The NJ/PA fast food study demonstrated that an an increase in the minimum wage (.80 cents) in NJ resulted in a 2.76 full-time equivalent rise in employment. It did not cause an increase in unemployment.

It failed to consider survivor bias. And that correlation-causation thing.

 

[Pop23]

Be a rebel. Start a fast food joint on your own. Assume the risk and pay your people $15.00 an hour.

Market it that way.

We pay our employees $15.00 per hour

Report back here with your results

Why are you all waiting for others to run with this brilliant idea?

There must be a sound reason

 

[Mac1958]

Be a rebel. Start a fast food joint on your own. Assume the risk and pay your people $15.00 an hour.

Market it that way.

We pay our employees $15.00 per hour

Report back here with your results

Why are you all waiting for others to run with this brilliant idea?

There must be a sound reason

I love it.

Should be no sweat!

And just think -- you won't even have to build it! Someone ELSE will! The collective! Because you drive on ROADS and BRIDGES 'n stuff!

.

 

[expat_panama]

...an increase in the minimum wage (.80 cents) in NJ resulted in a 2.76 full-time equivalent rise in employment...

Smart of you not to show a link because a follow up study showed that the new jobs were all in Pennsylvania across the river.

Look --if some guy's labor results in a loss to the company above a certain level, there is no minimum wage law that can possibly make the hiring worth while. If it could, then hey --why wouldn't you want a $million/hr min. wage?