Hats Off To This Guy

[Minimalist]

He's a conservatard.  Facts are not his business.

[Hatshepsut]

The only reason some are paid less is because the government subsidizes certain labor costs with food stamps. But for that, no one would work for so little.

Observations do not support your claim.  Food Stamp use is at an all time high and labor participation is way way way down.  If your claim that food stamps allow companies to get away with paying lower wages is true, then we would expect that as food stamp subsidises increase so does labor participation.

The BLS figure on labor force participation is around 63% now, versus 67% in 1999, 66% in 1991, and 61% in 1975. So, I'm not too sure about that way, way, way down. Instead, there was a rise from around 55% in the late 1950s to a peak in the decade of the 1990s, then a smaller decline to now. The rise in the early years was almost certainly due to women entering the workforce in large numbers. Reasons for the more recent decline are less clear but I doubt it is closely tied to food stamps.

For one thing, labor force participation began declining around 2000 when food stamp and welfare benefits were also declining, a trend that had started just before the 1996 PRWORA welfare reform law was passed, the one that set time limits on most forms of public assistance. Food stamps, and for mothers, cash welfare, are distributed per household and not per person. This is important because it means a working spouse can't quit a job simply to collect food stamps while the other spouse keeps the rent paid. Both spouses would have to be underemployed to qualify. They could then lose their housing if unable to make rent. People who don't have children are limited to 3 months on food stamps in any 3-year period. So, disdaining work in favor of getting food stamps isn't a viable strategy even for those who would prefer doing that.

With the onset of recession in 2008, food stamp payments rose again, especially under temporary provisions the Obama Administration enacted in 2009. Payouts reached a high near $75 billion in 2012 and have started to go back down.

On the other hand, it is true that labor force participation would likely go up if food stamps were effectively subsidizing the labor market. Therefore, they are not. This means employers wouldn't pay any better if food stamps were done away with.

*see BLS labor force participation calculator at
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

[Brian37]

Easy for him to offer that kind of money. He runs a business where people just give him money without him having to produce any products or services. I mean, it's so easy, even Donald Trump couldn't fail.

Oh wait, that's what casinos do too, isn't it?

It is definitely not easy for him to offer that kind of money. His self imposed high minimum wage puts him at a competitive disadvantage.  Another recession that causes a significant revenue drop could bankrupt him. It is his money and business....he can do with it what he wants.

I applaud his generosity but question his business sense.

You assume he doesn't have good business sense. There was a guy who used to make cars whose business model included higher than average wages and a product he made that he insisted the cost was low enough that even his employees could afford it. That man's name was Henry Ford.

Billionaire Nick Hanauer might  not take a self cut to that level, but even he agrees employees don't get paid enough. It is a simple feedback loop, the more money in worker's pockets the more money gets circulated into the economy. The real casino bad risk taking is at the top, the bad risk taking is the fake investment gambling at the banking stock market level. That is the real corrosive mafia vegas. This guy is making a bet on his workers stability adding to the economy.

Our current stock market climate is nothing more than a giant ponzy scheme. The investment that built the middle class was a result of investing in people, not scams to benefit CEOs and shareholders. And especially since technology keeps removing more humans from jobs, those people still need to be paid livable wages in order to stay part of that feedback loop.

---

Observations do not support your claim.  Food Stamp use is at an all time high and labor participation is way way way down.  If your claim that food stamps allow companies to get away with paying lower wages is true, then we would expect that as food stamp subsidises increase so does labor participation.  But the opposite is happening.  Food stamp subsidies allow people to work less....not get paid less.

What Min said about you checking your facts before you post. 





A lot of these "moochers" on the public dole ARE working full time. 

I hate that attitude, food stamps are not a subsidy for the poor, they are in reality a subsidy for the rich. The poor don't get rich off it, they are simply gofers who carry the government check to the store where the money ends up in the bank accounts of the companies they shop at. Low wage companies are the real welfare queens. 

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, saves paying the mailmans absurd wages in delivery, eh Brian.

[Heywood]

On the other hand, it is true that labor force participation would likely go up if food stamps were effectively subsidizing the labor market. Therefore, they are not. This means employers wouldn't pay any better if food stamps were done away with.

I agree with this. What is important to note is that McDonalds now doesn't do anything to help its employees utilize government safety nets. Why? Because some libertard clowns tried to spin McDonalds good deeds to its employees as maximizing corporate subsidies. They made McDonald's out to be the bad guy so idiots like Brian would vote for them. No good deed goes unpunished when liberaltards are about.

McDonald's is going to pay the minimum wage or the market rate for labor which ever is lower regardless if government safety nets exist or not. People are only going to work for McDonalds if doing so makes their lives better off. Foodstamps and other government programs only decrease the incentive for people to work at McDonalds.

As a project, I have been thinking about attempting to train the squirrels that inhabit my property to pick up pine cones and deposit them into a receptacle. I'm thinking that each time a squirrel deposits a pine cone into the receptacle, they are rewarded with a some nuts or other high value food. Suppose I do this and I am successful. Further suppose my neighbor doesn't like the fact that I am taking advantage of the poor squirrels by paying them peanuts. My angry neighbor decides to simply give the squirrels nuts with no strings attached. If that happened, I suspect the squirrels would stop picking up pine cones for me.

When the government subsidies the existence of laborers, the laborers have less of an incentive to work for peanuts. The employer must compensate by actually paying the laborer more.

[The Grand Nudger]

You say that is if it were a bad thing......even if it were true?  Is there some problem with discouraging the acceptance of exploitative labor practices?  Do they grow you guys in a vat somewhere?

[Brian37]

The welfare we have today really is no different than the coal mine company script scam that took place in the first half of the last century. The coal mine company would buy up all the land in a location, basically own everything including the stores and housing, pay workers way less than a livable wage, but not with federal currency, but company script, forcing them to be constantly in dept. It was legalized slavery. Our slave wages in this country really is a result of big corporations writing our laws. It is good for CEOs and shareholders, but makes workers slaves to dept.

---

No Haywood, money equals power, do not tell workers are evil and Corporate CEOs who live in penthouses who can afford fleets of lawyers are victims, that is utter fucking bullshit.

[DeistPaladin]

McDonald's is going to pay the minimum wage or the market rate for labor which ever is lower regardless if government safety nets exist or not.  

Um, no. Even the most conservative economists of the 19th century, the heyday of deregulation and fuck-the-poor, acknowledged there was a natural minimum wage: base subsistence. 

The idea is so simple even you should be able to understand it: people won't work for so little that they starve to death anyway. If people are going to starve to death anyway, they'd rather do so in leisure.

The only reason McDonald's can pay so little is that their labor costs are subsidized by government safety nets. Take them away and McDonald's would either have to pay more or lose their workforce and thus their business. 

Clear?

[Brian37]

McDonald's is going to pay the minimum wage or the market rate for labor which ever is lower regardless if government safety nets exist or not.  

Um, no. Even the most conservative economists of the 19th century, the heyday of deregulation and fuck-the-poor, acknowledged there was a natural minimum wage: base subsistence. 

The idea is so simple even you should be able to understand it: people won't work for so little that they starve to death anyway. If people are going to starve to death anyway, they'd rather do so in leisure.

The only reason McDonald's can pay so little is that their labor costs are subsidized by government safety nets. Take them away and McDonald's would either have to pay more or lose their workforce and thus their business. 

Clear?

He wont get this, he has swallowed all the GOP cold war Cuba Stalin Fuxs News crap. It is totally foreign to him that liberals can an do value the private sector. Where we disagree is how to make it work effectively. 

He advocates the same "fuck the poor" attitude that caused the great depression. He is just too blind to see that.

Work should be easy, not hard. It is why we invent things. The emotional, physical and economic stability of the worker, allows them to focus and be more productive at work. You put in slave wages, that worker will either be too worn out, unhealthy or simply not give a fuck.

The amount of hours you spend at work are not as important as how effective you are while at work. It is unhealthy to have someone be physically stressed out, emotionally stressed out, and subject to a poor diet because they have to chose between bills or food. 

You provide workers a life outside 40 hours a week, and vacation time, and the ability to pay rent, mortgage, utilities and car payment, allowing them a life outside the job allows them to focus when they are on the job.

The type of productivity we have now is only a short term benefit that goes to the top. Healthy productivity is creating stability, not indentured slavery.

[Brian37]

The funny thing is prior to my last owner buying the place I was ultimately fired from 3 years before I got fired. I hated the original owner's son. The son of the family who owned the place when I started working there in 05. He was obnoxious threw his weight around and everyone thought he was a dolt. But the view I didn't have that his parents did was that with all his flaws and bluster, he still was in that kitchen getting dirty with all of us, and when we had a good weekend or week or month we got rewarded. He was the biggest pain in the ass to us, but he really did have a huge heart which I did not see until the Walmart style new owner who bought the place from them was the real asshole.

That new dick of an owner upon our first meeting started his introduction with "Hi my name is, you don't have to worry nothing is going to change", I knew he was full of shit after his next sentence which was "I want several of these", meaning he wanted to Xerox the joint like McDonalds. He had no clue my work history of working for big companies who have middle management living in cubicles and CEOs 5 states away whom really are nothing but glorified bean counters, that I knew I was fucked right at that moment. I was surprised I lasted 3 years after that though. But it didn't take long to know what he was about because the cuts came within that year, and tons deeper than the old owners would have done because of a slow period in the season.

He even claimed he was going to learn to cook and run the kitchen, but that never materialized. It really amounted to him as nothing more than an investment. If anyone knows the history of KFC, the original founder regretted selling out to see what he created to become nothing more than a ATM machine.