In April fast-food workers in Cali will get $20 an hour

[cottagecheesefan]

I wonder if this is going to hurt or help them. I know it would just make me switch to any other pizza chain that delivers. They will 100% lose business because of this. Will it be enough to change their minds I guess is the bigger question.

I dunno if you saw my post after that responding to @44nutman wondering same question, and how capitalism will work itself out

Part time delivery driver seems like one of the easiest jobs to hire an illegal migrant for. Pay under the table and/or promise enough via tips. Problem solved.

That is actually one of the reason major corporations favor globalist, open border policies. Perfect to keep wages down.

 

[method115]

I dunno if you saw my post after that responding to @44nutman wondering same question, and how capitalism will work itself out

Part time delivery driver seems like one of the easiest jobs to hire an illegal migrant for. Pay under the table and/or promise enough via tips. Problem solved.

That is actually one of the reason major corporations favor globalist, open border policies. Perfect to keep wages down.

I think the only issue with that is you have this illegal immigrant out there delivering pizzas and you know eventually someone will call to report the company. IME most of these companies like to keep their illegals in the back and away from customers. A restaurant I worked at hired almost all illegals but they only did stuff in the back and never went out front.

I thought a bus boy was an illegal but I found out he was here legally.

 

[44nutman]

I dunno if you saw my post after that responding to @44nutman wondering same question, and how capitalism will work itself out

Part time delivery driver seems like one of the easiest jobs to hire an illegal migrant for. Pay under the table and/or promise enough via tips. Problem solved.

That is actually one of the reason major corporations favor globalist, open border policies. Perfect to keep wages down.

Once again, until the first accident and then they lose Rudy money in court.
No large pizza chain would use an illegal to deliver pizza, the risk/reward is not worth it. There would be lawyers fighting Anchor Man style to get the case of an illegal killing someone in an accident.
You have an illegal in the back slinging pizza's if you get caught it is just a fine, and usually since politicians are paid by the big chains, the fine is not too large.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

I think the only issue with that is you have this illegal immigrant out there delivering pizzas and you know eventually someone will call to report the company. IME most of these companies like to keep their illegals in the back and away from customers. A restaurant I worked at hired almost all illegals but they only did stuff in the back and never went out front.

I thought a bus boy was an illegal but I found out he was here legally.

A delivery person doesn’t have much interaction though. Here in south FL, most of the Uber drivers both for taxi and for delivery don’t speak English and I assume are migrants from Cuba, Venezuela, etc

Plus the locations are franchises, so it is like a meat processing plant or farm with dozens of them, and easier to crack down on. Enforcement gonna worry about a pizza shop with 2 or 3 illegals doing deliveries? Don’t think so

 

[sickc0d3r]

Corporatism is a cancer to society but it's always tricky to tax corporations because they can easily move countries for tax purposes in lots of cases.

Not sure what exactly the right approach would be but in theory I obviously support taxing them.

The way I see it, redistribution from the highest to the lowest earners, whether by taxation or by forcing corps to pay higher wages, is an investment. Poor people necessarily spend whatever they have. Businesses respond to increased demand from more disposable income with new jobs. And so it goes, with the larger economy at a given time having its say as well.

My biggest problem with raising mw is it is less effective as a tool for targeting the people that we want to target than taxation. The argument that teens and people who don't need such a benefit will be lumped in with people who are trying to support a family is completely fair. Taxes, on the other hand, can be much more precise.

I don't worry so much about giant corps leaving the country, they can be replaced. I'd really like us to focus more on helping small businesses start and thrive than I feel we currently do (and dems tend to be worse than republicans in this regard). Though I get that there can be a negative effect on the consumer. Like I said, this shit is complicated.

 

[Barteh]

The way I see it, redistribution from the highest to the lowest earners, whether by taxation or by forcing corps to pay higher wages, is an investment. Poor people necessarily spend whatever they have. Businesses respond to increased demand from more disposable income with new jobs. And so it goes, with the larger economy at a given time having its say as well.

My biggest problem with raising mw is it is less effective as a tool for targeting the people that we want to target than taxation. The argument that teens and people who don't need such a benefit will be lumped in with people who are trying to support a family is completely fair. Taxes, on the other hand, can be much more precise.

I don't worry so much about giant corps leaving the country, they can be replaced. I'd really like us to focus more on helping small businesses start and thrive than I feel we currently do (and dems tend to be worse the republicans in this regard). Though I get that there can be a negative effect on the consumer. Like I said, this shit is complicated.

For taxation of regular people I've always been a fan of simply having the first 25-30k euros be tax free, after that I'm fine with a flat rate. Might be a bit more complicated in the states though with different states having different costs of living.

Small businesses thriving over corporations also requires a culture change I think. If people are used to going to some shitty fast food place they aren't just gonna go to a mom and pops store (that actually provides real food that's way better) that easily. They'll just go to the next best shitty fast food franchise, and there's hundreds of them.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't worry so much about giant corps leaving the country, they can be replaced. I'd really like us to focus more on helping small businesses start and thrive than I feel we currently do (and dems tend to be worse than republicans in this regard). Though I get that there can be a negative effect on the consumer. Like I said, this shit is complicated.

I think there is a tradeoff in that it's worse for both workers and consumers to use gov't policy to favor small businesses. We should try to encourage new businesses, but not small ones (where there is a conflict).

You're right on the politics. One rightist ideal is an economy based on stable, small businesses, and liberals tend to prefer more pro-growth policy, with creative destruction (and a safety net to help people deal with that).

 

[Spounman]

Places are going to want $23 for a "value" meal

 

[Mohawk Mauler]

They'll require masters degree for fastfood workers in a year's time.

If this is what it takes for these goofs to get our order right im all for it!

 

[emefer]

I’m seeing this sentiment that if we pay poor people a living wage, then it will make everyone poor because the corporations have all the power, yet the people saying this undoubtedly vote for the Republican Party that has been fighting to increase corporate power and waging war against the working class for like 4 decades.

 

[Two Crows]

I am curious 6 months down the road if those 1200 drivers are still laid off. I mean you still have to deliver pizzas. The demand has not decreased so you either lose even more money and ruin your business or you pay the wage.
Capitalism is a beautiful thing because if there is money to be made someone with business savvy will fill the role PIzza Slut abandoned if there are frog hides to be made.

Econ suggest Supply will only meet Demand where they both intersect with Price.

Given this bill, I'd expect more small, "mom & pop" pizza places to show up to meet any demand they can, with two important notes: 1. The cost of pizza is virtually guarantied to rise at least a little and 2. Their employees won't necessarily get the $20/hr. minimum because they have less than 60 locations.

 

[Two Crows]

Good for them. Big corps can support their employees instead of tax payers.
10 year high profits the last two years at places like Mickey D’s.

You know those are corporate profits and not indicative of individual restaurant earnings, right?

Micky D's (the corporation) only actually owns & runs ~5% of their locations. They all say "McDonalds" on the sign, but small business owners actually pay the corporate business for use of the name and model.

IOW, the only thing that will hurt the corp. is too many small owners going out of business. Wages literally will barely effect them, because they aren't really in the business of running restaurants. They are in the business of franchising locations to small investors, and THOSE investors will have to pay the wages.

(When I type "small investors", I mean smaller than the company with stock for sale. Some franchisees own dozens or hundreds of locations and are very wealthy.)

 

[44nutman]

You know those are corporate profits and not indicative of individual restaurant earnings, right?

Micky D's (the corporation) only actually owns & runs ~5% of their locations. They all say "McDonalds" on the sign, but small business owners actually pay the corporate business for use of the name and model.

IOW, the only thing that will hurt the corp. is too many small owners going out of business. Wages literally will barely effect them, because they aren't really in the business of running restaurants. They are in the business of franchising locations to small investors, and THOSE investors will have to pay the wages.

(When I type "small investors", I mean smaller than the company with stock for sale. Some franchisees own dozens or hundreds of locations and are very wealthy.)

If you dig into this story it is one franchise owner who owns multiple stores doing the firing. It too me is a short sighted move and totally an emotional move.
it is probably some Boomer owner making a rash decision. The Pizza Huts will now outsource the delivery. If you want a pizza now you have to use Door Dash or something similar. So instead of delivering your Product fresh you have to rely on someone else to come get it and nothing worse after ripping your bong and getting a cold pizza.
I will never understand these announcements that could possibly affect your bottom line. The owner should have made a big announcement about raising the prices but now he could lose customers when a 3rd party vendor fucks up a delivery.

 

[RoastBeast]

I’m seeing this sentiment that if we pay poor people a living wage, then it will make everyone poor because the corporations have all the power, yet the people saying this undoubtedly vote for the Republican Party that has been fighting to increase corporate power and waging war against the working class for like 4 decades.

The Democrats do the same thing. They just throw poor people a bone here and there to keep them voting Democrat. They've had their fair share of governmental power and have yet to fix any large issues. Billionaires still take advantage of tax loopholes, despite the Democrats pretending like they care. Who do you think stuffs their pockets?

Remember, if the Democrats actually get people out of poverty and improve their lives, then they'll no longer vote Democrat because they'll want to keep their money at that point. Neither party works toward helping the common citizen.

If people argue against large minimum wage hikes, it's not because they don't want poor people to have money. It's because they know it doesn't work and just winds up taking a chunk out of the middle class while planting min wage earners right back where they started before the raise.

 

[fingercuffs]

• In April, California fast-food workers are set to get a nearly 30% pay bump to $20 an hour.
• Fast-food chains such as Chipotle say they'll raise prices to offset the state's higher labor costs.
• Two Pizza Hut franchisees are laying off more than 1,200 delivery drivers in California.

I’m all for people making more money, but food prices in Cali are about to skyrocket! It’s already bad as it is, but can you imagine paying $30 for a combo at a fast-food joint?

People in this town are going nuts about it. McDonalds here is pricey and not good. First time I ate there was after a 6.5 hour drive on an empty stomach, could have eaten a scabby horse I was that hungry and I still only ate half of it. College stoner me of yore did get a McRib a couple of months ago which wasn't bad but I'm not bothering with fast food here again. Thankfully I know my way around a kitchen enough to not need it. There was a woman on one of the Ridgecrest Facebook groups up in arms that all the fast food places in California were going to close because of it. I've never worked fast food but can imagine it's pretty tough, $20 seems pretty fair.

 

[fingercuffs]

100% - I go to In N Out once a week and they have amazingly kept prices down in comparison, and of course their burgers rock compared to most other places.

The McDonalds here in Ridgecrest is more costly than In n Out in San Jose. We've got a small desert town charging more than an arguably decent fast food place in the middle of Silicon Valley.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The Democrats do the same thing. They just throw poor people a bone here and there to keep them voting Democrat. They've had their fair share of governmental power and have yet to fix any large issues. Billionaires still take advantage of tax loopholes, despite the Democrats pretending like they care. Who do you think stuffs their pockets?

Remember, if the Democrats actually get people out of poverty and improve their lives, then they'll no longer vote Democrat because they'll want to keep their money at that point. Neither party works toward helping the common citizen.

If people argue against large minimum wage hikes, it's not because they don't want poor people to have money. It's because they know it doesn't work and just winds up taking a chunk out of the middle class while planting min wage earners right back where they started before the raise.

This kind of hackish and conspiratorial thinking really degrades the group. The reason to raise MW is so that MW workers will have more money. If you're aware of any non-transfer-related solution to poverty, you should publish it, as you'd be the first person to discover it. What we see in reality is that all developed countries have a roughly similar level of pre-transfer poverty levels, and some have more transfers and thus lower post-transfer rates. It's an inevitable result of having half the population--mostly children, the disabled, and the elderly--not expected to or able to work.

 

[RoastBeast]

This kind of hackish and conspiratorial thinking really degrades the group. The reason to raise MW is so that MW workers will have more money. If you're aware of any non-transfer-related solution to poverty, you should publish it, as you'd be the first person to discover it. What we see in reality is that all developed countries have a roughly similar level of pre-transfer poverty levels, and some have more transfers and thus lower post-transfer rates. It's an inevitable result of having half the population--mostly children, the disabled, and the elderly--not expected to or able to work.

Hackish? It's literally what happens when minimum wage is raised. The proof is that minimum wage workers have never been able to support a spouse and two kids in a home they own. Decades of data showing that the market does not support everyone being able to live the American dream. If you want that dream, you have to put in the effort.

There is no solution to poverty in a capitalistic society. Just merely transferring money to poor people does not get them out of poverty. The market does not just stay put while millions of people all the sudden have a bunch of extra of disposable income. This is the kind of stuff I used to believe when I was a teenager.

 

[sickc0d3r]

You know those are corporate profits and not indicative of individual restaurant earnings, right?

Micky D's (the corporation) only actually owns & runs ~5% of their locations. They all say "McDonalds" on the sign, but small business owners actually pay the corporate business for use of the name and model.

IOW, the only thing that will hurt the corp. is too many small owners going out of business. Wages literally will barely effect them, because they aren't really in the business of running restaurants. They are in the business of franchising locations to small investors, and THOSE investors will have to pay the wages.

(When I type "small investors", I mean smaller than the company with stock for sale. Some franchisees own dozens or hundreds of locations and are very wealthy.)

I am aware that corporate McD’s is different from its franchises, yes. Not sure I get your point. Mine was that corporate McD’s is making record profits. If franchises are no longer profitable, corporate will have to respond.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hackish? It's literally what happens when minimum wage is raised.

Well, it's actually not (hint: there are lots of studies of the effects of MW hikes--you should look them up if you have minimal interest in whether partisan talking points are true). But more than that, you argued that people who want to raise MW aren't just wrong on the merits, but that they have some kind of evil, secret plot.

The proof is that minimum wage workers have never been able to support a spouse and two kids in a home they own. Decades of data showing that the market does not support everyone being able to live the American dream. If you want that dream, you have to put in the effort.

That proves your silly conspiracy theory? No. I would agree that there's basically no way to support four people on a single MW salary, and there never will be as long as labor costs are a significant input. But, of course, that isn't the goal of raising MW (and neither is it to keep people poor so they'll vote for the evil Other Party). The only way to address actual poverty in a modern, capitalistic economy is transfer payments. But raising incomes of low-paid workers is a separate, and valuable, goal.

There is no solution to poverty in a capitalistic society. Just merely transferring money to poor people does not get them out of poverty. The market does not just stay put while millions of people all the sudden have a bunch of extra of disposable income. This is the kind of stuff I used to believe when I was a teenager.

Of course transferring money to poor people gets them out of poverty. That's true by definition. And we already do it to a significant degree. Almost half of the elderly population in America has a sub-poverty market income, but post-transfer, the number is less than 10%. And before SS, almost half the elderly population was in actual, post-transfer poverty. There's no magic effect where transfers disappear.