A lot of people are still genuinely afraid to be that close to the public. Others, however, have taken advantage of extended unemployment benefits that make it feasible not to work. To me, that means that, with the nation opening up again, it’s time to stop making it financially feasible not to work. The main demographic for fast food employees is late teens and twenties. If they can go out and party without masks, they can go to work and earn some money.
And as I said, it frankly surprises me that anyone is surprised by this. Would anyone here take a job for $7.25 an hour if they could get another job for $20 an hour?
It’s really not. Who do you think is working their during the day?
-
That’s factually wrong. How many teens do you think collect UE benefits? How many teens do you think work the M-F 8am-4pm shifts?
-
They are working. They just aren’t returning to shit W-2 jobs.
-
I would hope that we can come up with a more moral and capitalistic answer than ‘let’s starve people to force them to work for substandard pay’, hence this thread.
Companies aren’t going to automate where it DOESN’T make sense.
Automation is an inevitability; most of the jobs that have ever existing in human history have been eliminated by machines, and yet to this day most people have jobs. The solution to the disruption crated by technology isn’t to prevent automation, it’s to give people the social safety net, mobility, and education to get past it.
People don’t want to do menial labor for minimum wage: ergo, the government should step in and mess with the market so that more people are forced to work at starvation wages?
How about instead businesses pay employees enough that these jobs actually attract applicants?
This sounds like a great idea. The problem is that, in a real economy, jobs can only be paid what they are worth. If all fast food employees are paid $15 an hour, the prices of the food are going to rise to a point where the food itself is not worth the cost. A burger/fries/coke are already reaching that point, in fact. I, for one, am not paying, say, twelve dollars for a burger/fry/drink meal. I can get a much better level of meal for 2 or 3 dollars more or, heaven for bid, actually make a sandwich and pack a tangerine with it.
Other industries have already shown that, when employees reach the point where management honestly feels they are paying more than is acceptable, they find alternatives. If all fast food employees are raised to $15 an hour, how long before all fast food places resort to kiosks and minimal employee levels?
Now you’re getting into bigger issues. We probably have far too many fast food places for the best interests of the nation. These places are a significant portion of the nations health crisis. So maybe the $15 per hour would have the benefit of improving the overall health of the nation.
I do think minimum wage by Federal level is a little weird as $15 is worth very different amounts by area. But the current minimum wage in too many states is way behind the inflation rate of the last 30+ years.
But then you have fewer jobs which itself is a problem.
Ooh, ooh, let me! Let me!
… closes eyes, begins to recite…
‘The American Innovation Economy will create new jobs for these people, allowing them to work in new fields, doing the same tasks. For example, the guy pressing buttons on the fryer can now press buttons on the Kitch-O-Matic 2100 food ordering processing system. The guy who put on horseshoes in 1908 was working for Ford in 1928. Just like him, today’s restaurant workers will, too, need to adapt. But until then, let’s pay them $300 for 40 hours of their lives, weekly.’
… opens eyes, looks at the classroom expectantly…
Yes, and yes. The fact that, in this society, eating healthy is significantly more expensive than slowly killing yourself disturbs me greatly. It should be the other way around. Isn’t that why, supposedly, cigarettes are so expensive?
Modnote: Jasmine, You removed a lot context with that snipped quote. You didn’t even use ellipses to indicate as such. Please do not do this again. The meaning of what I typed was radically changed by your snipping. We have warned users for this.
And that’s a bad thing how?
Automation isn’t a bad thing. We just need to ensure the gains from increased productivity are spread around (by taxing the owners of the capital)
Why, that’s just… socialism! Oh wait, actually it’s the free market at work.
Never mind.
Now the businesses apparently want socialism. It’s hard to keep up.
And this also translates down into the economics of smaller units.
In a small town, there may be 10 fast food places, all paying shitty salaries. The workers there have to get public assistance benefits to live. This means that the taxpaying public is essentially subsidizing these businesses by helping the workers get enough to live on.
In a true free market economy, without these taxpayer subsidies going to these businesses, there may really only be room for 5 of these fast food places to operate.
And you know what? If 5 of these fast food places shut down because they can’t operate without taxpayer subsidies to their employees, that’s not the end of the world.
Some McDonald’s franchises are offering $50 if you just come in an interview for a job.
Read somewhere that in certain states like Colorado, the current unemployment benefits (Federal and State) that are in place through September, equate to approximately $17 per hour, (around $35k per year). And the traditional requirements of showing proof that you are attempting to find work isn’t being enforced currently.
I see billboards, spinning signage, etc. in front of businesses offering between $14 and $20 per hour for labor. Companies know what their competition is paying (including unemployment benefits) and are attempting to compete.
But you pay either way. If the workers in a household are collectively paid less than what it reasonably costs the household to live, and they end up using food stamps or some other public benefit to make up the difference as sometimes happens, (1) the employer of each of those workers is being subsidized, getting the labor of a whole worker without paying for a whole worker* and (2) you’re still paying the difference, just in your tax bill rather than at the restaurant, grocery, gas station, etc.
*Who wouldn’t do that if they could get away with it, but why would anyone else let them get away with it? 
Also, ninja’d somewhat by Euphonious_Polemic 
- Honestly doesn’t necessarily mean correctly. This thread is in large part about management and management-sympathetic people who extol the free market when they have bargaining power and can dictate low wages but are flummoxed when the market takes some of that bargaining power away (temporarily or indefinitely is a point of debate) and labor can realistically demand higher wages. They convinced themselves that paying less was inexorable, in part to convince themselves they weren’t just being greedy** and now are faced with a market where the “inexorable” isn’t.
**Before COVID disrupted things, large employers weren’t paying any better than smaller employers. Article. So this isn’t about only small businesses with close margins, it’s also about large employers that could very well afford to pay employees more but drove a hard bargain.
- Better to pay one worker a proper wage than two a shitty wage (as others have said in this thread), at least then employers aren’t receiving subsidized labor.
Did you just give yourself a mod note?
Jasmine
It’s not more expensive. Not at all, at least in terms of money. Fresh/frozen vegetables and a lot of types of meat/poultry is not expensive at all.
It is more expensive in the sense that you have to go cook that stuff, and that takes the aforementioned ingredients, skill, equipment (pots/pans/knives/etc…) and most of all, time. But that’s how it ends up healthier- home cooks typically don’t salt things as much as restaurants, don’t use nearly so much butter/grease, and so on.
The tradeoff for a lot of people is one of spending $20 to feed a family of four an entire meal from a fast-food place, versus paying $12 in ingredients, and an hour or more in time (plus dishes) to cook it from scratch. For many, it’s a pretty clear-cut choice, even if it’s less healthy in the long run.