Minimum wage: $15 NOW!; or 15... eventually

[Undertoad]

Sorry, it's an annoying line of conversation, online. I will shorten the transaction.


In your budget, what would you now not pay for, in order to eat there?

It's because you said, "Instead, I think they will just pay the new minimum wages, and move on."

I think the "move on" part is unacceptable. That's what a lot of this thread is about. Can't just throw away one side of the equation.

Now you have paid $10 more for your ribeye at Texas Roadhouse and your server was well-compensated. So far so good. But you can't just "move on", because now there are $10 fewer dollars in your billfold. So, what will you now not pay for, now that you have paid more for a steak?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

We already do.

From your link, what the hell is the difference between the duties of a Host vs a Hostess? Different pay and different pay range.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

From your link, what the hell is the difference between the duties of a Host vs a Hostess? Different pay and different pay range.

It's gender discrimination

[Lamplighter]

Since "minimum wage" varies across the US, maybe the following pic's and table will add some perspective:

While the individual states set their own "state minimum wage" levels,
these levels must meed or exceed the "federal minimum wage" each year.

The 2015 "federal minimum wage" will bring some state levels up to $8.05, and others up to $8.50.
Other states (in green) will exceed this federal mark.



If I use the "I Love It" McDonalds wage scale in the US, their "team" average is ~ $8.16 / hr.
At 8 hr/day, 5 days/week/ 50 weeks/yr, this amounts to $16,320 per year.



Then I compare that yearly income with the Federal Poverty standards:



As I read all this, a household of 2 parents, each working full time for McDonalds,
falls below the poverty line as soon as they have their first child,
(and without zero-cost child-care it means they are working separate shifts)
and essentially each employee on the McDonalds "team" is Medicaid-eligible from the git-go.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

If I use the "I Love It" McDonalds wage scale in the US, their "team" average is ~ $8.16 / hr.
At 8 hr/day, 5 days/week/ 50 weeks/yr, this amounts to $16,320 per year.

Then I compare that yearly income with the Federal Poverty standards:

Attachment 50251

...and essentially each employee on the McDonalds "team" is Medicaid-eligible from the git-go.

Not the single, your calculation of $16,320 just misses the $16,105 threshold... unless he takes some sick days.

[Lamplighter]

Oooops... you're right.

How about saying the bloak got no pay for the days he stayed home sick with the measles ?

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

...In your budget, what would you now not pay for, in order to eat there?<snip>
So, what will you now not pay for, now that you have paid more for a steak?

UT, I think we have each misunderstood one another.

...Instead, I think they will just pay the new minimum wages, and move on.

In my post, by "they" I meant the "employer" would move on.
Obviously the employer has several options ... taking a smaller profit is one, raising meal prices is another, or reducing other costs (menu, portion size, ingredients, etc.) are within the purview of the employer.

The employee has only 2 options... continue at currently offered wage or look for work elsewhere.

Within your meaning, whatever I would do if I had $10 less in my billfold would depend on my level of income and assets.
At some level downwards, I would not be able to pay for the meal.
At some level upwards, $10 would not make any difference at all.

My view of the minimum wage is that a (relatively) small increase in wages can make a much more significant improvement in the life of employees than the same sized decrease in profit will make in the life of the employer.
But all that is for a different posting

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Sorry, it's an annoying line of conversation, online. I will shorten the transaction.


In your budget, what would you now not pay for, in order to eat there?

It's because you said, "Instead, I think they will just pay the new minimum wages, and move on."

I think the "move on" part is unacceptable. That's what a lot of this thread is about. Can't just throw away one side of the equation.

Now you have paid $10 more for your ribeye at Texas Roadhouse and your server was well-compensated. So far so good. But you can't just "move on", because now there are $10 fewer dollars in your billfold. So, what will you now not pay for, now that you have paid more for a steak?

Now that the waiter, et al, have more money, they will go to Lamplighter's Emporium and buy $10 of his stuff. Yes, it's a shell game, but results have shown that unemployment is lower when the minimum wage is higher.

The way it should work is that if you make more than $3ook (let's say), you don't get to charge more. You just make less, until you get to the point that you make less than $300k. Then you can raise prices. Should.