Here's what fast food will cost with $17 an hour wages

I guess you could say that, but more than anything, it's a reminder that realistic expectations need to be maintained. There's a difference between hoping for "a minimum-wage increase," and suddenly getting a $5 or $6 an hour raise for no apparent reason in comparison to your last pay period.

Sure, everyone would like that big a jump in pay despite doing nothing more or different than they did last week. But is it realistic, or right? I'm not so sure.

 

Well, that strikes me as kind of a pathetic, self-loathing and self-defeating attitude for people on the lowest rung of the employment ladder.

 

To me, if you're against raising the minimum wage, I don't want to hear you complain about people being on welfare.

 

Apples-and-oranges.

 

I would also think it has to do with the corporate culture in terms of how the employees feel they are valued. Money and profits aside, employees also want to feel like what they do is important.

A family owned paper that encourages good journalism can make the employees feel good about the work they're doing. A company like Gannett, which sees employees primarily as people to to be forcefed the useless shit on the wall initiative of the month to allow the newsroom/Information Center/Newsroom of the Future executives an excuse to look busy makes the employees feel contempt for the next latest, greatest idea.

 

I would think the lesson is that if you're of those generous, thoughtful, caring souls who worry about the working poor, the best thing you can do is come up with some scheme to make some of them unemployed. Then the ranks of the working poor will be smaller! Success!

 

If you bump up most fast food workers, the "one percent" will just get richer... down the road.

This would be a thinly-veiled stimulus plan for some business owners as many of these workers would likely blow this money on more lottery tickets, more cigarettes, Twinkies at gas stations, maybe a new car instead of a used one. More money spent on items that depreciate.

It's a win-win for these places. They'll have to pay their workers more but this gives justification to raise prices and that extra money will get spent... buying items from the people who already have the money.

If going $8 to $17 means people are moving from an apartment to a first house, great. If this means trimming a 30 year mortgage to a 15, even better.

But we all know that probably won't happen.

More money makes a person more of what he or she already is.

And most people are idiots.

 

Gratuities aside, is there anybody here who, out of the goodness of their hearts, pays a worker more than he has to?

If that plumber charges you $180, do you give him $220 because "better for the economy!"? When the Walmart cashier tells you "That'll be $25.10," do you hand over $30 and tell her to keep the change because "better for the economy!"? When that low-paying DirecTV retention worker gives you Sunday Ticket for free, do you ask for their name and send them a $25 thank you because "better for the economy!"?

Of course you don't. Because it's coming out of your pockets. And that makes all the difference in the world.

You buried the lead.

 

I would guess most businesses pay workers more than they have to so that they can attract good workers.

Technically, anyone who makes more than minimum wage or is not part of a collective bargaining agreement would fall into this group.

I am sure you could hire someone to work as a CPA or SID for $20,000 a year. But is the person who accepts that who you want handling your money or image?

 

That's not paying more than they have to. That's paying what they have to pay to get the kind of workers they want.