When were you on the other side of that? I’ve been seeing this happen for decades. It’s not like this increase made companies come up with this idea?
You mention having two part time workers instead of one full time one. When my daughter’s friends graduated from college, they had a terrible time getting a 40 hour a week job with benefits - this was about 20 years ago. Again, nothing new, and less likely to happen now thanks to low unemployment.
If this makes people abandon fast food and eat at home, which is cheaper and healthier, good. If it drives business to independently owned restaurants, also good. They may or may not be more exploitive than the chains, but the money stays in the community at least, and there is more diversity of food options.
I live in Europe, specifically in Luxembourg, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, with some pretty high cost-of-living metrics.
When I go to a typical restaurant, the bill will be reliably 25-30% higher than I would expect to pay for an equivalent meal in the States. The primary reason is simple: we pay our workers living wages.
But now consider this: we don’t tip here, pretty much ever. We don’t even have the German custom of rounding up by a euro or two (“Trinkgeld,” literally “drinking money”). We aren’t expected to make up the difference for underpaid workers. So at the end of any given spending period, most — not all, but most — of the excess in our household restaurant budget fades away.
But wait, you say, there’s no tipping in fast food! Am I saying the five dollar Big Mac is an outrageous seven euros here in Luxembourg?
Let’s take a look.
The price in the US varies by market, but the overall average is $5.35.
Luxembourg? The dollar equivalent price is $6.15.*
And this includes not just a higher labor cost but more stringent food-quality regulations.
“But the US is different!” the free-marketers will squawk vaguely.
It’s true. The US is indeed different. But not in the flattering ways they imagine.
The layoffs are about sacrificing pawns and making people suffer in an effort to prevent any requirement that the corporatists compromise on their fattening margins. But if there is a demand for these kinds of economical food services, then either they will figure it out and resume business, or other entrepreneurs will enter the market and, as is said, eat their lunch.
The proof is all around me, and it’s around you, too, if you lift your eyes beyond your own back yard.
*Yes, the Big Mac is almost eight bucks in Switzerland, but then everything is stupid expensive in Switzerland.
I believe this to be true. And I also believe it to be more than possible. Every McDonalds franchise owner does not need to make $200k per year (Especially if they are not actually working at the franchise). Too much is given to profit these days, and not nearly enough to workers. It’s time for a massive correction.
“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level. I mean wages of decent living.”
-Franklin D. Roosevelt
Yeah, that seems weird to me. What’s the rationale?
Indeed. The cost of living varies so much by location, that any minimum wage is going to be unlivably low for some areas (which is not a problem if market forces make the actual wages in that area enough higher) and/or it’s going to be unreasonably high for some areas (which, it seems to me, can’t help but be a problem; although even without such a high minimum wage, businesses that depend on a cheap labor market would have trouble there).
How will you be proven right or wrong? I’m willing to accept that all of the fast food restaurants closing and being replaced by Michelin-starred restaurants would constitute a win on your part. But I expect more or less the same number of fast food restaurants.
Googling for restaurants in Huron, California, I find only a few. The only chain restaurants seems to be a location of Straw Hat Pizza. So I don’t think that town will be affected.
You’ve said this twice and I agree completely. But I’d say it a little differently:
Quite frankly, if your business model relies on exploiting people you
don’t deserveshould not be allowed to be in business.
Exploitative employers are thieves no different from shoplifters, burglars, or muggers. And frankly resemble muggers more than the other two lesser kinds of stealers.
Okay, but (relative to the specific issue in this thread) how do you determine that paying workers less than $20 an hour (or any other set amount) is exploitation but paying more than that amount is not?
(And, how do you determine that the source of the exploitation is the employers paying that amount and not the various other economic factors that make it impossible to live on that amount?)
It’s possible that they are using this to set a floor and carve them out of the CA workforce as a whole, so they are set & done when they go to raise all other rates (See @Darren_Garrison 's link where CA candidates debate a $50 minimum wage)
Is that because they’re earning minimum wage?
As I understand it, CA’s minimum wage is now $16 an hour. If it rises to $20/hr, that means a minimum-wage full-time worker will end the week $160 richer.
That family that considered Arby’s to be a treat? Maybe now they’ll be able to consider Olive Garden as a treat instead.
Montana minimum wage just went up to $10.35. Fast food restaurants ALL have signs up advertising $18-22/hr to start. Housing here is tough, but not Bay area tough.
Why? There aren’t necessarily compelling economic arguments for that.
Ultimately it comes down to the fungibility of low wage workers. That’s kind of the problem- if you’re so unskilled/inexperienced that virtually anyone else could step in and do that job without any training, there’s zero upward pressure on wages for those jobs.
But there’s no obligation to pay more; it’s a good thing to do from a moral and ethical standpoint, but it doesn’t necessarily benefit your company all that much. Especially when you have low-priced items and a large labor component. That’s where the lower wages really matter from a business perspective - they’re a disproportionate component of the cost of those items. Raising the minimum wage/paying more than you are required to directly impacts the price of your goods and by extension, your competitiveness in the marketplace.
I would expect them to invest in automation, honestly. When minimum wage goes up like that, it makes things like a patty-cooking robot a lot more attractive.
You can’t compartmentalize this. Look at the big picture. Tens of millions of unskilled laborers are going to drive wages down and keep them down overall. Bigtime. Wages have been stagnant since 1974.
I want people to make living wages too, but people here seem to want what never was and never will be. “Fast, cheap, and good restaurant food” and “living wage” for burger flippers is not going to happen.
Wages are not the only factor. From what I read, working in a customer-facing job in the US can be pretty bad. If prices rise as a result of this, I suspect it might make things worse.
Were there even any businesses 50 years ago … when the ratio of CEO pay to ‘line worker pay’ was a small fraction of what it is today?
I can’t recall any.
Is there any way to infer whether or not more equitable pay will make or break a national economy? Are there any other nations that serve as examples from which we might learn?
Or is the exploitative model the only one that will keep this nation afloat??
I mean … has anybody even heard of any of those “shithole countries” who narrow the gap between worker pay and CEO pay relative to the US of A??
/s
Yep. Already a done deal practically. Robots don’t call in sick, don’t need a health care program, workers comp, OSHA, none of that.
The only good thing to come out of this mess is people learning to cook again. Like everybody used to do before everything went off the rails. I don’t know where the notion comes from that fast food was supposed to be cheap or affordable to poor folk. It used to be a little cheaper than a sit down “real” restaurant, but it was still expensive. Families cooked at home, because they had to, and McDonald’s was a special once in a while treat for many middle class people. I enjoyed McDonald’s, because at our home this allowed for what I call “relaxed grooming standards”. Going to a restaurant was a treat, but tempered by the fact we were required to put on nice clothes, and probably take a bath.
This has been the goal since the inception of the modern fast food restaurant. Over the decades, they’ve streamlined production of food with the specific goal of removing as much skill as possible from the labor needed. Not having to provide training makes things cheaper overall and much easier to replace any given worker. Automation was always coming though maybe this will speed up the process. Maybe.
I think this is a fair assessment. I was born in 1976, and while I went to fast food places more than my parents had at my age, it was still a treat. I remember when ordering a pizza was a treat.
It’s a garden variety vicious cycle.
The inflationary effects of the ever increasing wealth and income gaps in the US mean that more people in the middle and at the bottom (income) work longer hours and/or more than one job.
Which makes the time it takes to shop and cook … a luxury that’s out of reach for many.
And – even as we’ve seen in our own SDMB ranks – there’s the added Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of any worker who even thinks they could be made obsolete by AI, automation, or offshoring of their job/industry.
If there is a wage at which that’s no longer an issue, it’s quite likely not even remotely a ‘living’ wage.
True, but they may have bought into the franchise in the first place because of an expected level of profit. If the profit is lower, they may chose to invest their money in some other opportunity that has a higher potential for profit. I think it’s like $1-2M to open a new McDonalds location. If a greater profit can be achieved by investing that money somewhere else, then they may put the money there rather than into a new McDonalds. Perhaps they would branch out into more of the mid- or upper-range restaurants which could deliver a higher return than a fast-food restaurant.
So how is this supposed to work, then?
(a) Fast food employees should be subsidized by family members working elsewhere: parents, spouses, etc.
(b) Fast food employees should be poor, wearing newspapers in their clothing for insulation and stealing kitchen supplies from Walmart to get by
(c) People should just suck it up for the first couple years, drawing from their trust funds if they have to
(d) Fast food employees aren’t really people—we’ll just have minorities work these jobs. They don’t need money the way that other people do.
(e) Fast food employees should always have a second job. Rest is for the weak: how much trouble can a chronically fatigued food service worker cause, anyway?
Seriously, though, what is the argument for full-time employment anywhere that pays less than a living wage? SOMEBODY will have to subsidize that person, and therefore their employer: either the general public through taxes and the services they provide, or some other poor schmoe that takes them on through love or guilt.