[snarf21]

So who gets to decide how much profit this person is allowed to make? Maybe he wants to save for his kids college or against a recession? He is taking the risks (leases, capital tie up, etc.) he should be allowed to decide his payout. Most restaurants run super lean and have high failure rates. The long term effect of these laws is yet to be seen.

It is also unclear to me why we expect an unskilled worker at McDonald's putting fries into a basket to make a "living wage". These jobs are largely for students, retirees and other temporary workers. A high minimum wage isn't the way to end poverty, no taxes under $60K, needs based UBI and other tax incentives are much better options.

The issue is that business that employ unskilled labor will tend to raise prices but rich people don't shop at WalMart; poor people do. So great, they make more but their buying power may have actually gone down. This is the conundrum. Everyone wants $40/hour unskilled manufacturing jobs making throwaway products that they can buy at the dollar store. You can't have it both ways. People really want buying power, not necessarily higher wages.

[coldpie]

> It is also unclear to me why we expect an unskilled worker at McDonald's putting fries into a basket to make a "living wage". These jobs are largely for students, retirees and other temporary workers.

This is utter nonsense and insulting. Go talk to people who actually work those jobs. These people are adults, just like you are, and they deserve to be treated with dignity. If you don't pay them a living wage, then the government will have to make up the gap. Is that your goal?

[snarf21]

I'm not insulting anyone. I actually worked these jobs in the past. I know the people personally. And yes, if you read what I posted, I explicitly stated that the government needs to make up the gap. We can tax high wage earners and redistribute the money to them directly without immediately raising the prices at the stores they use. So I'm saying I'll personally pay more taxes to help raise these people out of poverty. I think that is treating people with dignity, apparently you disagree.

[coldpie]

You really don't see how saying one's job is "for students, retirees, and other temporary workers" and that their work doesn't deserve a living wage could be insulting to someone who does not fall into one of those categories but has chosen to work that job?

[Cederfjard]

I mean, if a "living wage" means that you're not able to provide a net value for your employer, or at least that other options like investing in automation is substantially more profitable for them, it just doesn't work out. Why would you "deserve" for someone to pay you more than what your labor is worth? They just won't hire you then.

I agree that everyone _does_ deserve to live a dignified life and afford all their basic needs, no matter where they work. I'm not sure that the solution is to force employers to pay more than what they get out of you. I don't think I've ever heard of a solution that's entirely convinced me (it seems to me to be a very hard problem), but I'm leaning towards an UBI.

[snarf21]

Honestly, no. There are opportunities at all the fast food chains (convenience stores, etc.) to move up into manager or assistant manager. These jobs usually pay $40K+ and benefits. This is a living wage in most areas. But they invested in themselves and are no longer unskilled. All I am saying is that dumping fries into a basket doesn't create enough economic value for it to pay a living wage. Not all jobs are designed to have a career path. We have much better tools to help those in poverty than minimum wage hikes. I think anyone under some X * federal poverty should pay no state or federal taxes. Trivial to implement and their take home would match a hike to $15/hour mw.

[UserIsUnused]

please don't ignore the rest of the post because of that line. But I do agree about that being insulting

[smudgymcscmudge]

> So who gets to decide how much profit this person is allowed to make?

Their customers get to decide that.

[snarf21]

That's not quite true. Customers get to decide if they accept the profit margin that the business wants. If the business thinks the risks far outweigh the payoff, they decide by closing the business.

[cowpig]

> He is taking the risks

The only kind of risk is a capital risk.

Capitalism as religion

[snarf21]

That is the main one but there is also time, stress, energy, potential family obligations reduction, etc. Is your job devoid of capitalism?

[cowpig]

The point I was making is that every employee invests their life in their work.

I think time is more valuable than money. The whole point of money is to give me the resources to do better things with my time.

The idea that the person who invests money is the only one making an investment (aka taking a risk) is the owner is Capitalism as religion