We'd like a living wage with that order [[McDonald's on Gratiot Picketed)

[313WX]

I'll take a Big Mac, medium fry and a large coke to go. "That'll be $18.50 sir. Would you like a hot apple pie for an extra $5.00?"

That's coming rather the minimum wage is raised or not, thanks to good ol' Benny at the helm of those printing presses.

[nain rouge]

Let's be clear on one thing. Minimum wage laws have not demonstrated that they do anything useful for workers in general. Removing the bottom rungs of the ladder of success harms workers more than it helps.

If McDonalds wants to pay $2.00 -- good luck to them. Let them fail like DPS.

Sure, maybe at first companies like McDonald's would face problems, but over time they'd break workers down and the U.S. would just be another China in terms of wages. I know, for many of you, that sounds like paradise, but I'm not so sure I want to go in that direction.

I'll take a Big Mac, medium fry and a large coke to go. "That'll be $18.50 sir. Would you like a hot apple pie for an extra $5.00?"

That's the problem with America. Everyone wants everything for nothing, but they think they should personally get paid a bunch. It doesn't work that way, which brings me to:

One point of data: my family runs a small retail business. When minimum wage was $4.25/hour, they could afford to hire a dozen extra seasonal employees, mostly college kids. When it was increased to $5.85/hour, they could only afford to hire 6. When it was increased to $7.25, they could afford 3.

Well, we've transitioned to a service economy. If that's gonna work, service sectors have to pay more or are economy collapse. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone is set out to be a computer coder or banker.

[Wesley Mouch]

I'm in favor of McDonalds paying a living wage. I would be willing to pay a little more so workers could make more income and at the same time reduce their need for government benefits. If the price of the burgers went up too high, most of us would cut our consumption but I've never seen an estimate of how much prices would have to increase to pay a living wage. There are big unknowns in this discussion.

The higher the wage is raised, the more it will benefit family owned stores that hire relatives. Automation and self-service technologies would also probably get a boost.

I don't think you'd see prices increase much Mostly you would see less employment. If the cost of front-line staff goes up, companies will find it rewarding to reduce that cost by investment in technology or procedures or whatever.

Minimum wage laws make people feel better, but reduce employment.

[Downriviera]

We need more companies like American Apparel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Apparel

[Bham1982]

I agree with others that $9-$10 sounds like a more reasonable goal. That's a livable wage, and sounds achiveable while not raising prices on goods.

$15 is pretty close to the average wage in the U.S., and fast-food is supposed to be a temporary-type position. It isn't intended to be a lifelong career, and if it is, there are opporunities to move up within the restaurant [[assistant manager, then manager, etc.).

I know an assistant manager at a fast food location, and the salary is ok. She started as a regular minimum wage worker.

It would reduce employment, though. I think most economists agree on this.

[TKshreve]

One point of data: my family runs a small retail business. When minimum wage was $4.25/hour, they could afford to hire a dozen extra seasonal employees, mostly college kids. When it was increased to $5.85/hour, they could only afford to hire 6. When it was increased to $7.25, they could afford 3.

Cost of labor goes up, their profits don't go up accordingly and their prices are stuck [[they are competing with cheap on-line sales) then employment goes down.

Doesn't this fly in the face of capitalism though? Not one inkling of your case study suggests that the company's operating needs directed the amount of people it required to operate. It's akin to saying they would have hired 30 workers @ $0.75/hour. See anything wrong with this logic?

[TKshreve]

I don't think you'd see prices increase much Mostly you would see less employment. If the cost of front-line staff goes up, companies will find it rewarding to reduce that cost by investment in technology or procedures or whatever.

I will guarantee you one thing. These companies will crunch the numbers and if there is room, they will shape-shift the wage increase into a bottom-line increase in the guise of "helping the little guy". I have personally seen it happen in the service sector.

[JBMcB]

Doesn't this fly in the face of capitalism though?

Capitalism is just a system of economic exchange, it doesn't dictate how a company should be run. Maybe you're thinking of a particular area of microeconomic theroy?

Not one inkling of your case study suggests that the company's operating needs directed the amount of people it required to operate.

You assume there is a hard and fast equation for the number of staff you need. The difference is my family doesn't get a break now. Instead of doing paperwork during the day they stay late and do it after the shop closes. They basically don't leave the store for anything during the busy season. You could say it has improved their productivity, but they'd be willing to forgo some profit for not having to work ten hour days, seven days a week constantly for five months. That value proposition makes sense at $4.25 an hour, but not at $7.25 an hour.

[antongast]

You assume there is a hard and fast equation for the number of staff you need. The difference is my family doesn't get a break now. Instead of doing paperwork during the day they stay late and do it after the shop closes. They basically don't leave the store for anything during the busy season. You could say it has improved their productivity, but they'd be willing to forgo some profit for not having to work ten hour days, seven days a week constantly for five months. That value proposition makes sense at $4.25 an hour, but not at $7.25 an hour.

Too bad labor isn't free, amirite? We should repeal that awful job-killing Thirteenth Amendment so your family can take breaks all the time.

[Honky Tonk]

Too bad labor isn't free, amirite? We should repeal that awful job-killing Thirteenth Amendment so your family can take breaks all the time.

"they'd be willing to forgo some profit for not having to work ten hour days, seven days a week constantly for five months"

How you managed to pull "all the time" out of that is beyond me.

[bailey]

You assume there is a hard and fast equation for the number of staff you need. The difference is my family doesn't get a break now. Instead of doing paperwork during the day they stay late and do it after the shop closes. They basically don't leave the store for anything during the busy season. You could say it has improved their productivity, but they'd be willing to forgo some profit for not having to work ten hour days, seven days a week constantly for five months.

not trying to be snarky here, but I don't get it. It would appear your family actually does value profit over time off. Which is fine, but let's not blame the minimum wage. That is, if by "profit", you mean excess in revenue after all operating expenses [[which would include your family's salary).

if by "profit" you mean: what they get as salary...then I understand your point. However, if that is the case...the business isn't really "profitable". right?

[Wesley Mouch]

;385814]Doesn't this fly in the face of capitalism though? Not one inkling of your case study suggests that the company's operating needs directed the amount of people it required to operate[/B]. It's akin to saying they would have hired 30 workers @ $0.75/hour. See anything wrong with this logic?

JBMcB explained it well. His logic also works for larger companies Let's say you can buy one of those order-taker machines for $6,000/yr, $10k w/ repairs and operating costs. If you face a $3/hr. cost increase in minimum wages, you can assume your McD order taker will go up around $12k a year. [[$3 x 80 hours a week open for business x 1 position). Decision: its worth the investment. This is essentially the same as the Big 3 and robots.

To look at your '30 workers @ $0.75' argument, you are actually right. They would hire 30 workers if they could [[ignoring regulatory and bureaucratic costs). But few would work at that wage. Its the market.

[JBMcB]

not trying to be snarky here, but I don't get it. It would appear your family actually does value profit over time off.

They do when "profit" means "being able to eat." Profit isn't extra money when you own a business, it's what you live on. It's whatever is left over after expenses. Their 'salary' is whatever they manage to make in profit.

[trotwood]

I'm just curious, was this the McDonalds on 7 Mile and Gratiot or French Road and Gratiot?

From the photo from the article it looks like this is the McDonald's at 7&Gratiot.

[oladub]

JBMcB explained it well. His logic also works for larger companies Let's say you can buy one of those order-taker machines for $6,000/yr, $10k w/ repairs and operating costs. If you face a $3/hr. cost increase in minimum wages, you can assume your McD order taker will go up around $12k a year. [[$3 x 80 hours a week open for business x 1 position). Decision: its worth the investment. This is essentially the same as the Big 3 and robots.

McDonalds won't have to provide Obamacare expenses for order taking machines either. Banks, large groceries, Wal-Marts, and airlines already employ such technologies.

Another alternative would be for unions, political parties, and other well meaning groups or individuals, maybe some of the posters here, to open up their own living wage no profit restaurants so we won't continue to have to patronize McDonalds dollar menu. The living wage idea probably won't work at all though, to the extent it does, unless every establishment has to pay the same wage.

[Wesley Mouch]

They do when "profit" means "being able to eat." Profit isn't extra money when you own a business, it's what you live on. It's whatever is left over after expenses. Their 'salary' is whatever they manage to make in profit.

JB: Thanks for illuminating how business actually works. Profit here means an extraction of wealth. Corporate America has really made itself into an evil beast with their absurd CEO wages and capture of the ballot box. Its hard to remember that profits are good. Greed is not, but profit is. To a great extend, a corporations profit gets returned to its shareholders through dividends. These dividends fuel wealth creation in those who participate in the stock market and fund most retirement plans.

[TKshreve]

I think the fact of the matter is big business would suppress wages as far as legally possible [[see: China + friends). They would even spend copious amounts preventing a rise in MW. Face it, that's how money walks.

As previously stated, MW jobs were not designed to be primary careers for people who wanted to work. Yet they have become exactly that. Why? What has constituted this paradigm shift in our way of life? EITR

We can debate the concept of how minimum wage affects practical hiring principals all day long. The argument that a machine can effectively replace a worker [[or thousands) is defeatist IMO and says a lot about our economic motives as we proceed through the technological boom. And others question as why the current under-employed labor pool lacks morale, motivation and a willingness to "own the job" when their value is constantly weighed against technological options.

I'll add one last thought to officially make this a rant. Regarding our country's working population, many arguments are based off the way things were from the dawn of the industrial age to ~1980. We live in a very different time. Technology has had a notable impact on just about every aspect our American way of life. We need to accept that what was the case in 1975 is no longer applicable. What once made sound business sense will now have very different implications when applied in the same manner. And if I were to wrap this thought up, I would say that business has more of an obligation now than ever to take care of the common folk who buy from and work for these companies. We are destroying ourselves and it feels like we don't even know or care.

[poobert]

McDonalds won't have to provide Obamacare expenses for order taking machines either. Banks, large groceries, Wal-Marts, and airlines already employ such technologies.

Another alternative would be for unions, political parties, and other well meaning groups or individuals, maybe some of the posters here, to open up their own living wage no profit restaurants so we won't continue to have to patronize McDonalds dollar menu. The living wage idea probably won't work at all though, to the extent it does, unless every establishment has to pay the same wage.

Frankly I'm just not sure why people go to McDonald's. The food is garbage - it even smells like garbage. The service is garbage, and the wages are garbage. I'd rather cook for myself- takes about as long as frying in your car in the drive-through - or go sit down at an actual restaurant that doesn't smell like feet and give the cute waitress a nice tip. Maybe if Americans started voting with their dollars we wouldn't have giant piles of shit like Wal-Mart and McDonald's running this country.

And Wal-Mart - seriously? Am I the only person who can afford to spend the extra five cents on my grocery bill to not subject myself to that abomination? It's barely above dumpster-diving.

[Honky Tonk]

Frankly I'm just not sure why people go to McDonald's. The food is garbage - it even smells like garbage. The service is garbage, and the wages are garbage. I'd rather cook for myself- takes about as long as frying in your car in the drive-through - or go sit down at an actual restaurant that doesn't smell like feet and give the cute waitress a nice tip. Maybe if Americans started voting with their dollars we wouldn't have giant piles of shit like Wal-Mart and McDonald's running this country.

I'm lovin' it...

[bailey]

They do when "profit" means "being able to eat." Profit isn't extra money when you own a business, it's what you live on. It's whatever is left over after expenses. Their 'salary' is whatever they manage to make in profit.

Ok. I get the overall point...and I think WM addresses this as well, but generally "profit" is not understood to be what we pay ourselves so we can eat.

As you say, profit is what's left after ordinary expenses are paid. Salary is an expense. If they can't pay themselves wages and are just taking what [[if anything) is in the till at the end of the day, then there is no "profit" as it's generally understood...right?

What they took were wages and what you're saying is that they can't hire another employee at the current minimum wage because then they'd not be able to pay themselves the salary they require to make it worth while for them to run the business. So instead of hiring, they work extra. Perfectly understandable.

The difference I think that get's lost is places like McDonalds, net of everything[[salaries, costs of goods..etc), made over 5 billion in just profit. when that 5 billion in profit is made in large part because they pay a sub living wage for a huge segment of their employees, then there is going to be a discussion about the equity of that arrangement.

Especially when we look at how the MW has not kept pace with overall inflation. IIRC if it had, MW would be about 10-11 bucks an hour right now.

Personally, I think they should organize and collectively bargain or STFU. Further I think a MW should be sliding based on some factor like total revenue or something like that. 100 billion a year company? MW is 15.00 for you. 250k Mom and & Pop? you can pay whatever the market will allow.

[Wesley Mouch]

Ok. I get the overall point...and I think WM addresses this as well, but generally "profit" is not understood to be what we pay ourselves so we can eat.

As you say, profit is what's left after ordinary expenses are paid. Salary is an expense. If they can't pay themselves wages and are just taking what [[if anything) is in the till at the end of the day, then there is no "profit" as it's generally understood...right?

Seems like you want to find a way to turn 'profit' into a word for 'excess'. It is not excess. Its the return made for your efforts above and beyond the actual cost. Sure, owners wages should be included. But we're picking nits. McDonalds makes a fair profit for their investment. Their 5 billion profit is part of what is growing the US economy right now as it returns to shareholers [[meaning pensioners and investors in addition to a few scum sucking greedy bastards). Its not obscene. [[Why its only about 5 times the size of the debt of a decaying American city.)

...snip...The difference I think that get's lost is places like McDonalds, net of everything[[salaries, costs of goods..etc), made over 5 billion in just profit. when that 5 billion in profit is made in large part because they pay a sub living wage for a huge segment of their employees, then there is going to be a discussion about the equity of that arrangement.

I believe you will find that McDonalds is widely praised as a good place to work. They promote from within and train their employees well. They are usually rated as one of the best employers. I was blown away when I read their website on their employee benefits.

The following information highlights McDonald's benefits and compensation for Staff employees located in the United States. Highlights of McDonald's Corporation benefits for U.S. Restaurant Management and Crew employees can be found on the USA Careers site. McDonald's benefits and compensation program is designed to attract, retain and engage talented people who will deliver strong performance and help McDonald's achieve our business goals and objectives. Our benefits and compensation: Medical Dental Profit Sharing Vacation Sabbatical Program Employee and dependent life insurance Incentive Pay Recognition Programs

I can't confirm all this applies to front-line employees. Perhaps someone can enlighten?

[TKshreve]

The difference I think that get's lost is places like McDonalds, net of everything[[salaries, costs of goods..etc), made over 5 billion in just profit. when that 5 billion in profit is made in large part because they pay a sub living wage for a huge segment of their employees, then there is going to be a discussion about the equity of that arrangement.

Especially when we look at how the MW has not kept pace with overall inflation. IIRC if it had, MW would be about 10-11 bucks an hour right now.

Personally, I think they should organize and collectively bargain or STFU. Further I think a MW should be sliding based on some factor like total revenue or something like that. 100 billion a year company? MW is 15.00 for you. 250k Mom and & Pop? you can pay whatever the market will allow.

Sounds like you may have heard the debate surrounding this issue on WDET which just aired roughly 40 minutes ago. Good opposing viewpoints. I cannot find it online [[yet) but when I do I'll be sure to post.

I also like your idea of a sliding MW. It's an objective solution to an issue that obviously needs some additional attention.

[oladub]

TKShreve wrote, "The argument that a machine can effectively replace a worker [[or thousands) is defeatist IMO and says a lot about our economic motives as we proceed through the technological boom."

Computerization makes much of this possible. It is reality rather than defeatism to embrace new technologies when practical whether that of EV cars or self service restaurant options. There isn't going to be any sort of a working class renaissance with a combination of job displacing technology, international trade agreements putting Asian and US workers on the same playing field, while legalizing 11M illegal aliens plus many of their realatives to compete for remaining jobs. Maybe, though, if we instead opened doors wider for immigrants able to help us keep on top of computerization and robotics development and protected US workers from toe to toe competition with Chinese prisoners we could manufacture the new technologies here.

Poobert wrote: "Frankly I'm just not sure why people go to McDonald's. The food is garbage - it even smells like garbage. The service is garbage, and the wages are garbage. I'd rather cook for myself- takes about as long as frying in your car in the drive-through - or go sit down at an actual restaurant that doesn't smell like feet and give the cute waitress a nice tip. Maybe if Americans started voting with their dollars we wouldn't have giant piles of shit like Wal-Mart and McDonald's running this country.

And Wal-Mart - seriously? Am I the only person who can afford to spend the extra five cents on my grocery bill to not subject myself to that abomination? It's barely above dumpster-diving."

Re McDonalds: I like the breakfast burritos, fish sandwiches, coffee, prices, fast service, casual atmosphere, late hours, clean bathrooms, free wi-fi, knowing what to expect when making time down the interstate, and often free newspapers. That said, when I have the time and money, I would often rather eat elsewhere.

Re Walmart: It is 30 miles closer than Target or anything similar in my case, it is usually cheaper, open 24 hours, and why should I want to pay more for chips, a plastic storage box, and other identical items elsewhere? We also have a Costco membership for once a month or so when we travel 80 miles. Otherwise, Wal-mart is 15 miles away. Those, are the reasons, I suspect, a lot of people shop at Walmart.

[bailey]

Seems like you want to find a way to turn 'profit' into a word for 'excess'. It is not excess. Its the return made for your efforts above and beyond the actual cost. Sure, owners wages should be included. But we're picking nits.

No. not trying to pick nits, just trying to define terms. If the Family buisness pays mom and dad 75k each, covers their medical, and funds a 401k and still has money left... and they are whinging about working without respite because they don't want to lose "profit" and hire a college kid for the summer at MW, then it's a different story. the OPs story makes much more sense if we start from the idea that the business [[like many small businesses) is in fact not "profitable" like a McDs is.

McDonalds makes a fair profit for their investment. Their 5 billion profit is part of what is growing the US economy right now as it returns to shareholers [[meaning pensioners and investors in addition to a few scum sucking greedy bastards). Its not obscene. [[Why its only about 5 times the size of the debt of a decaying American city.)

Well, there is the debate...isn't it? If the "fair" profit is derived only through paying "unfair" wages...

I believe you will find that McDonalds is widely praised as a good place to work. They promote from within and train their employees well. They are usually rated as one of the best employers. I was blown away when I read their website on their employee benefits....

I would agree with you. I have a couple of friends that worked at McDs in college. Made decent money, and they had insurance and tuition reimbursement too [[as well as a way to get us free stuff..which made 2 am walks home nice). IIRC, they don't kick in for a while though. Which is why the protests and walk outs are kind of confusing to me. MW is the entry level....why are there so many stuck at entry level?

Sounds like you may have heard the debate surrounding this issue on WDET which just aired roughly 40 minutes ago. Good opposing viewpoints. I cannot find it online [[yet) but when I do I'll be sure to post.

I missed it. What was it on? they tend to repeat throughout the day.

[TKshreve]

Computerization makes much of this possible. It is reality rather than defeatism to embrace new technologies when practical whether that of EV cars or self service restaurant options. There isn't going to be any sort of a working class renaissance with a combination of job displacing technology, international trade agreements putting Asian and US workers on the same playing field, while legalizing 11M illegal aliens plus many of their realatives to compete for remaining jobs. Maybe, though, if we instead opened doors wider for immigrants able to help us keep on top of computerization and robotics development and protected US workers from toe to toe competition with Chinese prisoners we could manufacture the new technologies here.

First, your point of view basically agrees that technological advancement is forcing people onto unemployment and underemployment. Glad you recognize that. Second, "computerization and robotics development" jobs will never come close to replacing the pre-computer era jobs that fueled our economy for decades. Third, I agree that there will be no impending working class renaissance. That is, unless we do something about it. So the right will continue to point the finger at millions of Americans living on the safety net, and the left will continue to point the finger at those that wish to deplete the safety net. I don't see a lot of "winning" in any of that.

IMHO - A lot of people are going to have to die off in order to reestablish an equilibrium between population [[which is still rapidly rising) and jobs that provide wages equal to or greater than the cost-of-living. This population purge is not all that far fetched either. One shift in the climate or a war over water. I could provide countless other scenarios that would be the catalyst.

Re McDonalds: I like the breakfast burritos, fish sandwiches, coffee, prices, fast service, casual atmosphere, late hours, clean bathrooms, free wi-fi, knowing what to expect when making time down the interstate, and often free newspapers. That said, when I have the time and money, I would often rather eat elsewhere.

Re Walmart: It is 30 miles closer than Target or anything similar in my case, it is usually cheaper, open 24 hours, and why should I want to pay more for chips, a plastic storage box, and other identical items elsewhere? We also have a Costco membership for once a month or so when we travel 80 miles. Otherwise, Wal-mart is 15 miles away. Those, are the reasons, I suspect, a lot of people shop at Walmart.

So how is it that we:

protect[[ed) US workers from toe to toe competition with Chinese prisoners

when buying from Walmart works directly against that? Tariffs? I respect the fact that Walmart is convenient and altogether cheaper, but at what point do you say I should probably find a better, more patriotic option?

WalMart, Meijer, Target, Walgreens, etc. are laden with cheap foreign goods. You would be hard pressed to find anything outside of edible products that are sourced right here in the U.S..

Funny case study of my own: I received some goods from Orvis for xmas. I returned them to the store and picked out a decent pair of shoes from the catalog. It even bumped the amount I had to spend up. Once they arrived, I got a good look at how unbelievably cheap these shoes actually were. High ticket item, big fancy-schmancy brand name - total junk. These shoes probably cost $2 to make. $2 to ship. The rest...... mark up.

At one point will consumers demand the origin of all products sold in the U.S. - outside of food? Will the gubmint mandate such regulations similar to food ingredients/calories/nutritional data? Seems to me we're getting near that point.