Cover Sheet for Fast Food Employment App.

[dales]

‘"Are there no prisons?”

‘Plenty of prisons,’ said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.’And the Union workhouses.’ demanded Scrooge. ‘Are they still in operation?’

‘Both very busy, sir.’

‘Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,’ said Scrooge. ‘I’m very glad to hear it.’

‘Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,’ returned the gentleman, ‘a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?’

‘Nothing!’ Scrooge replied.

‘You wish to be anonymous?’

‘I wish to be left alone,’ said Scrooge. ‘Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.’

‘Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.’

‘If they would rather die,’ said Scrooge, ‘they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”

[Econoline]

In addition to the above, I'd like to ask dgs and oldr (and maybe Jim?) a question, since they are the ones who keep saying that most people who work at minimum wage do so for "only a year or two": are you comfortable with the rest of us picking up the slack (in the form of food stamps, Medicaid, emergency medical services, EITC, AFDC, etc., etc.--not to mention, as rubato pointed out, MW employees' share of the taxes that the rest of us pay to support things such as schools, police, fire depts., libraries, parks, etc.)--for certain employers because it's for "only a year or two"?

We are picking up the tab regardless. Be it higher prices for burgers and fries or higher taxes for those making minimum. Do I mind? of course I mind paying more for whatever. But that is the way it is. Pay here or pay there, somehow they will make me pay.

You say that as if "they" are all the same. To me, it seems fairer for the business to raise prices slightly to pay a slightly higher wage (or to absorb the cost by way of decreased profits, decreased executive pay, etc.--but I realize that this may not be feasible for smaller businesses) than to expect the general taxpayer rather than the customers to take up the slack.

These are for the most part, "starter" jobs, a way for the young to make some money while they still live at home (thus the parents provide shelter and food and whatever) and make some money to fund their extranious purchases. And in my house they also paid (pay) rent. Not much but enough so that they have to budget. unknown to them is the "rent" they paid goes into an account that they eventually get back. I did not want the money but I did want the lesson to be learned.

Go into McD's, and BK, do you see middle aged people other than the manager or manager in training? No, they are the young in thier first/second job or the old supplementing their SS income.

I worked at Roy Rogers and at the Rossevelt Field mall game room when I was yngr_n_dmber. I lived at home and got gas and going out money. I also saved a few bucks for later in life as that was taught to me. Save some of what you earn.

I don't see the great amount of "cost" to society in these people. They are most likely on their parents health insurance, and are still living at home and are going to school to better themselves which in the long run they will pay their own way in payroll taxes, property taxes and any other taxes that gov seems to come up with.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2010, 51% of the workers paid at or below minimum wage were over the age of 25. That's a lot. And besides fast-food restaurant workers, there are a lot of other jobs that pay minimum wage, including many store clerks and cashiers, Certified Nursing Assistants, day-care workers, income tax preparers (I know that for a fact because I worked for one season for H&R Block a few years ago), and low-level factory/warehouse workers. It's not helpful or realistic to keep thinking, "Who cares, they're all just teenagers living at home and working at McDonalds and they don't really need the money."

[dgs49]

When I was in retailing (Hill's department store, Bridgeport, WV, 1974/5), we employed a small army of women (yes, all women) whose job it was to keep the shelves stocked and neat (it was a self-service, discount department store). Some worked back in the stockroom opening boxes, and the others put stuff on the shelved of the store. Their schedule was intended to ensure that they were perpetually part-timers with essentially no benefits. It was possible for them to apply for full time work with us, but during the time I was there, none of them did. They came in at 10:00am and worked until 2 pm, Monday through Friday, and were paid at essentially minimum wage.

We had NO TROUBLE filling these positions, and very little turnover. They were perfect for young moms (who could drop their kids off at school in the morning and pick them up afterward), "housewives" (remember them?), and semi-retired women. Generally speaking, they considered the money they made to be "extra," and often used it to buy stuff for themselves and their homes that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford. In fact, they considered their employee discount to be a big part of their compensation. Although they were kept busy, it was a casual atmosphere, and they all seemed fairly content with the arrangement.

In the minds of most Libs, these women were "oppressed," because of the low wages and lack of benefits. But if we raised their pay and made them full time (which would not have worked well with the way the store operated), then instead of, say 50 of them, we would have employed 10. But almost none of the women who worked their as part-timers would have been interested in that full-time gig. In fact, their alternative would have been not to be employed at all.

Would that have been, in any rational way, better? Were the taxpayers supplementing our low wages? Not at all. They all had more than adequate household incomes.

Libs seem to focus on the very rare situation of a head of household struggling to support the household on one 40-hour minimum wage job. In a country with 300 million people there are undoubtedly some poor individuals like that, but certainly not enough to make that rare set of circumstances be the basis for a major public policy initiative. It's like a part-time state legislature (like the one we have in PA) saying that because there are a couple legislators who don't have a "real" job outside the legislature, we need to pay them a FTE's. It was and remains horse-shit.

[Grim Reaper]

In the minds of most Libs, these women were "oppressed," because of the low wages and lack of benefits.

More strawman nonsense.

But if we raised their pay and made them full time

Why not just increase their pay? You sound like the only option was to increase pay and make them full time.

They all had more than adequate household incomes.

All of them? Every single one of that "small army"? Did you know them all or are you just guessing here? Because I"m going to bet on the latter.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Back in the day, most households were "single earner" and anything earned by the other spose was extra. Growing up in the 60's and early 70's this was the way of most households, at least in my area of the world (Long Island NY, the first suburb ). Husband worked all week, wife may have had a part time job but was pretty much home when the kids got out of school.

[dales]

Fast Forward 40 years........

Real wages have declined when measured against inflation, workers are working harder, earning less, and much less job stability.

We have had an influx of illegal aliens and H1B workers who have taken away jobs that Americans used to do.

The great American "middle class" is being winowed away by forces from the left and right and is being attacked from all sides.

Not a good picture.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Fast Forward 40 years........

Real wages have declined when measured against inflation, workers are working harder, earning less, and much less job stability.

We have had an influx of illegal aliens and H1B workers who have taken away jobs that Americans used to do.

The great American "middle class" is being winowed away by forces from the left and right and is being attacked from all sides.

Not a good picture.

I do not disagree with what is happening now. My kids are 27 and 23 and are finding out the world sucks. The world sucked when I first went out looking for my first job way back in 1976. I got a skill and then a degree and so far have held my own. I can only wish for that for my children as I think the country/world is worse off now.

[rubato]

effect




meet cause






yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

When I was in retailing (Hill's department store, Bridgeport, WV, 1974/5), we employed a small army of women (yes, all women) whose job it was to keep the shelves stocked and neat (it was a self-service, discount department store). Some worked back in the stockroom opening boxes, and the others put stuff on the shelved of the store. Their schedule was intended to ensure that they were perpetually part-timers with essentially no benefits. It was possible for them to apply for full time work with us, but during the time I was there, none of them did. They came in at 10:00am and worked until 2 pm, Monday through Friday, and were paid at essentially minimum wage.

The minimum wage in 1975 was $2/hr., which in today's dollars would be around $9/hr....which is what Obama is asking the current MW to be raised to. Another way of looking at it is that in 1975 that $2 would buy 3½ gallons of gasoline; one hour of minimum wage labor today would buy around 2 gallons.

Exactly why do you believe that the lowest paid workers in the U.S. are entitled to *LESS* now (in real terms) than in the '60s and '70s?????


(edited to correct the typo that dales noticed....)

[dales]

Exactly why do you believe that the lowest pad workers in the U.S. are entitled to *LESS* now (in real terms) than in the '60s and '70s?????

Because dave has no heart or compassion for those who are not as well off as he perceives himself to be. He has no understanding of people who work for very little money in a very trying economy. It is somehow "their fault" that they somehow didn't "apply themselves" and found themselves out of work or working for peanuts in 2013.

I hope all your dreams come true, dave...........I really do.

[Econoline]

I get the impression that Dave thinks that everyone at (or near, or above) his income level deserves every penny of that--and then some, since they should be paying less in taxes on that income.

OTOH, he obviously thinks that anyone making significantly less than his income is getting paid too much now and should get even less--plus they should be paying more in taxes.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I was about to start working for $8 an hour stocking shelves at the local supermarket. I am not "above" doing manual work for little pay. I needed to earn something (thankfully we have always been frugal and had some money saved) and more importantly had to do something. The call came on the thursday or friday before I was to start (overnight shift on sunday) and I was offered an EE job for much more than stocking shelves paid. Still, I was ready to take the stocking shelves job.

[Econoline]

Maybe we should think about reinstating indentured servitude. In the current economic climate, there may well be people who would sell themselves into bondage for three meals a day and a roof over their heads. Hell, throw in paid medical insurance and I'll bet you'd get a lot of takers! After all, in a free market, every business deserves the opportunity to see how much they can get away with....

[dgs49]

Given the fact that I have changed jobs more than a dozen times since getting out of the Army in 1971, I know EXACTLY what my market value is, and that's what I'm making.

I have yet to hear a single argument that justifies setting wages by government fiat. The BEST that Andrew's economists can come up with is that "modest" increases in the minimum wage may not do too much harm. Now there's an endorsement for ya!

The basic economic principles cannot be avoided by wishful thinking. When you artifically raise the price of something beyond its economic value, the consumers use less of it, the seek alternatives to meet their needs, and they look for black market opportunities. When the commodity in question is the price of minimum-value labor, fewer people are hired, employers use other means to fulfill their needs (automation), and they turn to having people work "under the table."

This is why nobody checks your oil when you buy gas, why you have to listen to recordings when you call most businesses, and why the vast majority of retailing is "self-service" these days. The list goes on and on.

And you pretend to be concerned about teen unemployment.

[oldr_n_wsr]

three meals a day and a roof over their heads. Hell, throw in paid medical insurance

Get arrestedand convicted and you have all of that. and more

[dgs49]

Or you could join the military service. It's what I did when I was out of other options. Didn't turn out too badly.

[Econoline]

This is why nobody checks your oil when you buy gas, why you have to listen to recordings when you call most businesses, and why the vast majority of retailing is "self-service" these days. The list goes on and on.

Dave, Dave, Dave. You do realize, don't you, that you've already said that back when the minimum wage was higher than it is now (in inflation-adjusted dollars) the store you were working for had no economic problem with employing "a small army" of workers at that wage? Are you really asserting that the decline of the real economic value of the minimum wage has caused the elimination of those jobs???? If so, you're even more economically illiterate than I thought.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the failure of the minimum wage to keep up with inflation, coupled with the reluctance of (some) businesses to do anything more than is legally required, might be an explanation that makes just as much sense? (Please note that I am NOT asserting that this is the TRUE explanation; I am only saying that as an explanation it makes just as much sense as--or possibly more sense than--yours.) Or the possibility that economics--especially Econ 101 (which from your posts seems to be all you ever took)--is an extremely inexact science, incapable of providing simple explanations for complex social problems?

P.S. BTW...according to your own logic, no, you *DON'T* know exactly what your own market value is: only your employer knows that.

[Grim Reaper]

When you artifically raise the price of something beyond its economic value, the consumers use less of it, the seek alternatives to meet their needs, and they look for black market opportunities

Gas prices keep going up. Phone companies keep finding new ways to bend people over. Banks keep finding new fees to tack on. Cable companies sell "bundles" so you can't just pick the few channels you want.

The only real alternatives are how much you're getting bent over the barrel for the privilege of giving money to these companies.

[dgs49]

Econoline, keep in mind that the Supreme Court decisions that gradually defined "interstate commerce" in ways that brought MW to basically everyone drawing a normal wage did not always exist. When I was in high school there were many employers who did not pay minimum wage, and a deli called "Isaly's" that actually closed a store in Ohio so that it would not be subject.

The women in my store were making the then-current, West Virgina ECONOMIC MINIMUM WAGE, which was, coincidentally, just over the legal Minimum Wage. We set the wage at whatever it took to attract a large number of applicants, and a steady supply of replacements when someone moved on (which was rare). This is how wages are SUPPOSED TO BE SET, not by government fiat.

Reaper, you are such an idiot. As gas prices go up, the people for whom it is a problem DRIVE LESS, the try to BUY MORE ECONOMICAL CARS, the TAKE MASS TRANSPORTATION. For people who value other things more than the cost of fuel (image, driving enjoyment, comfort), they ignore the increases in fuel cost.

[Grim Reaper]

Reaper, you are such an idiot.

And you have nothing of value to add if you're just going to insult people for disagreeing with you.

Gas prices keep going up, people are very slowly working on alternatives, but the oil companies have proven time and again that they can keep prices rising every year. If alternatives really were viable, then the oil companies would be forced to lower prices to be more competitive.

And it's amusing how you ignored my other points in your haste to call me names.