Fast Food Strike 5-December-2013

When you mandate higher wages. Corporations respond by raising prices, or laying off employees we will get more unemployment with higher costs of living.

All you've done is moved the goal posts. $7.25 isn't a livable wage today. $15.00/hour may not be a livable wage tomorrow.

The "One Percenters" will remain untouchable and the "wealth gap" will continue to increase.

Who are these so called strikers paying union dues to anyway?

It is even more complicated than that, but the REASON you don't raise the min wage is simple. The two parties in the relationship are adults and an outside party has no business telling them what to do.

I brought up the $45 to point out that a relationship does exist between wages and the net effect folks are going for, even if it is immoral to fix prices away from market value. There are only a few possibilities, no matter who chooses the wage.

1. There is no effect on society by changing wages. This would imply no need to decide on a wage. This we all know is not true.

2. If you increase wages, society does better, no limit. This would imply that we should make the wage as high as possible at all times and everyone would benefit. There is no need to go to $15 when $20 is higher and we can do that, and so on. This is what I joked about previously to make the point that there are only a few options and this is also known by most not to be true, even those that want a min wage, as pointed out by Bob's radio host.

3. As you increase wages, everyone society does worse (opposite of 2). This would imply that we should pay the least and everyone will do better. Go to $5 then $2 then a penny and the world will get better. This is also widely accepted not to be true.

4. This leaves one option, there is an idea wage for society in general. This is the option that most accept as true even if little understood. So now if there is an idea wage, that means if you pay too much or too little, you have damaged society and cost us all extra. THE ISSUE, this changes by the day, person, location, task, technology, etc. There are not enough central planners to figure this out for everyone in enough time to not cost us all a lot in terms of pay, let alone paying these folks and determining their pay and the pay of those that determine their pay etc.

A cool things happens though, something that cannot be accomplished by 300,000,000 people working full time (even OT), can be accomplished by two people by barely talking. These two people can figure out a real market wage and the right ideal price for society in less than 30 seconds. If the two people cannot determine this price, one party will not keep playing. Such simple elegance.

Yet all you do when you put a min price on the table for these two is in some cases, take the employee who is worth very little and tell them not even to come to the table to talk. You mandate that they are no longer in the workforce due to lack of value. You have not increased the value, you have increased the minimum value that can enter the market. You created employment trash, the people you were previously trying to help.

On a side note, if I mandate that you buy a car for $50,000, you don't go find a car that was previously worth $15,000 and pay $50,000 for it, you buy a nicer car. McD's will hire college grads and the striking workers can stay on the streets. It is worth noting that I bet most of those who are currently in the position to make more laws likely have failing college age kids who need or are going to need jobs after they are done their overpriced educations.

on that note wrote: It is even more complicated than that, but the REASON you don't raise the min wage is simple. The two parties in the relationship are adults and an outside party has no business telling them what to do.

That sums it up very well. The employer is not required to hire anybody at a wage higher than the employer feels is worth that cost. The same thing goes for the employee... it's a contract between the two and both have their interests to satisfy.

And why are these minimums only mandated for businesses who hire and not for private parties who hire? For example, if I hire a man to mow my lawn every week and I'm only willing to pay him $10 when it takes 2 hours to do the job, shouldn't the government step in and force me to pay what the people in our government think is fair? Does my cheapness keep the man from making a good living, or does he have other choices?

Rick wrote:

on that note wrote: It is even more complicated than that, but the REASON you don't raise the min wage is simple. The two parties in the relationship are adults and an outside party has no business telling them what to do.

That sums it up very well. The employer is not required to hire anybody at a wage higher than the employer feels is worth that cost. The same thing goes for the employee... it's a contract between the two and both have their interests to satisfy.

And why are these minimums only mandated for businesses who hire and not for private parties who hire? For example, if I hire a man to mow my lawn every week and I'm only willing to pay him $10 when it takes 2 hours to do the job, shouldn't the government step in and force me to pay what the people in our government think is fair? Does my cheapness keep the man from making a good living, or does he have other choices?

Rick, you are mandated to may min wage when that guy mows your lawn. You must also determine if he is an employee or a subcontractor and this may be different in each place (in CO he may function as a subcontractor, same with fed, but in Mass he would certainly be an employee due to laws there (few subcontracting relationships are legal in MA anymore). If a sub, you would likely be required to have him get insurances and your homeowners insurance likely requires this. If an employee, well then the fun starts. Witholding, Unemployment, multiple levels of govt. Liability, Workman's comp, safety protocals. Now who's equipment is he using. When you hired him, did you discriminate. Does he have child working papers. Is the noise ordinance being followed. Does he have safety shoes, Did you provide respitory protection.

By the letter of the law, hiring someone to mow your lawn takes days or paperwork and literally may just be illegal on many fronts in many places.

So be clear, your example is that of you violating the law, I don't agree with this, but unfortunately, it is every clear. If you would like to take the first step in being a legal homeowner hiring a kid to mow your lawn, here is a link to take the first step. I warn you though, in the end, it will be far cheaper to mow it yourself. You will have to break the law to get a value.

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Bus ... %29-Online

At the moment, though, you don't have to buy them health insurance....unless they get hurt. Remember, employee or not, you are also liable for knowing their citizenship status and enforcing the laws associated with that.

All the soccer moms who have hired neighborhood kids have violated more employment laws than they can keep track of.

PS, this also applies to babysitters. But who in their right mind would pay someone less than min wage to take care of their kids? Esp violating dozens of employment laws to do it.

on that note wrote:

Rick wrote:

on that note wrote: It is even more complicated than that, but the REASON you don't raise the min wage is simple. The two parties in the relationship are adults and an outside party has no business telling them what to do.

That sums it up very well. The employer is not required to hire anybody at a wage higher than the employer feels is worth that cost. The same thing goes for the employee... it's a contract between the two and both have their interests to satisfy.

And why are these minimums only mandated for businesses who hire and not for private parties who hire? For example, if I hire a man to mow my lawn every week and I'm only willing to pay him $10 when it takes 2 hours to do the job, shouldn't the government step in and force me to pay what the people in our government think is fair? Does my cheapness keep the man from making a good living, or does he have other choices?

Rick, you are mandated to may min wage when that guy mows your lawn. You must also determine if he is an employee or a subcontractor and this may be different in each place (in CO he may function as a subcontractor, same with fed, but in Mass he would certainly be an employee due to laws there (few subcontracting relationships are legal in MA anymore). If a sub, you would likely be required to have him get insurances and your homeowners insurance likely requires this. If an employee, well then the fun starts. Witholding, Unemployment, multiple levels of govt. Liability, Workman's comp, safety protocals. Now who's equipment is he using. When you hired him, did you discriminate. Does he have child working papers. Is the noise ordinance being followed. Does he have safety shoes, Did you provide respitory protection.

By the letter of the law, hiring someone to mow your lawn takes days or paperwork and literally may just be illegal on many fronts in many places.

So be clear, your example is that of you violating the law, I don't agree with this, but unfortunately, it is every clear. If you would like to take the first step in being a legal homeowner hiring a kid to mow your lawn, here is a link to take the first step. I warn you though, in the end, it will be far cheaper to mow it yourself. You will have to break the law to get a value.

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Bus ... %29-Online

At the moment, though, you don't have to buy them health insurance....unless they get hurt. Remember, employee or not, you are also liable for knowing their citizenship status and enforcing the laws associated with that.

All the soccer moms who have hired neighborhood kids have violated more employment laws than they can keep track of.

PS, this also applies to babysitters. But who in their right mind would pay someone less than min wage to take care of their kids? Esp violating dozens of employment laws to do it.

Actually my point was that the homeowner DOES have the right to make a low offer and the lawn mowing service has the right to say no thanks. There is no law that compells me to pay someone a minimum wage because I also can not force their labor. How would I be in violation of any law if I offered $10 (knowing it would take two hours)? The mowing service would just say "no thanks cheapskate, I will look for other business". No laws broken on either side and I WOULD be forced to mow my own lawn.

But if I'm a McDonalds franchise, I am compelled by law to offer minimum wage and no less or I do break the law. My point is that competiton in the job market will naturally make or break a business without government mandated wages. If the minimum wage was abolished, McDonalds would be competing with Burger King and others for the best employees/service/productivity and they would NEVER get ahead by paying the least, they would eventually fail.