welfare vs wages

[dellinger63]

Simon Rojas, who earns $8.07 an hour working at a McDonald’s in South Central Los Angeles, said he would join Thursday’s one-day strike.

“It’s very difficult to live off $8.07 an hour,” said Mr. Rojas, 23, noting that he is often assigned just 20 or 25 hours of work a week. “I have to live with my parents. I would like to be able to afford a car and an apartment.”

Mr. Rojas said he had studied for a pharmacy technician’s certificate, but he had been unable to save the $100 needed to apply for a license.

Hey Simon, if you took a 2nd job at say Wendy's and worked just 2 and a half days you'd have the $100 bucks. But go ahead and join the strike, see how that works out for you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/02/bu...00-cities.html

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Hey Simon, if you took a 2nd job at say Wendy's and worked just 2 and a half days you'd have the $100 bucks. But go ahead and join the strike, see how that works out for you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/02/bu...00-cities.html

Dell, he can't take a second job because these fast food places only assign hours a week at a time and are very inconsistent in how they do it, so it's not like he even knows when his days off will be so he could apply somewhere else to work on those days. It was that way when I worked fast food back in the 1980s and it hasn't changed, as far as I know. You get your hours the week before. During the summer, some weeks I'd work 10 hours, some weeks I'd work 39. There was absolutely no rhyme or reason. I was 16, so it wasn't a big deal, but by 23 I'd been living on my own for years and there's no way I could have survived on the schedule I got when I worked fast food.

I imagine this guy would be thrilled to work 40 hours every week for one company. Or at least work a set schedule so he could get a second job. But fast food offers neither of those options. Ergo, the strike.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Dell, he can't take a second job because these fast food places only assign hours a week at a time and are very inconsistent in how they do it, so it's not like he even knows when his days off will be so he could apply somewhere else to work on those days. It was that way when I worked fast food back in the 1980s and it hasn't changed, as far as I know. You get your hours the week before. During the summer, some weeks I'd work 10 hours, some weeks I'd work 39. There was absolutely no rhyme or reason. I was 16, so it wasn't a big deal, but by 23 I'd been living on my own for years and there's no way I could have survived on the schedule I got when I worked fast food.

I imagine this guy would be thrilled to work 40 hours every week for one company. Or at least work a set schedule so he could get a second job. But fast food offers neither of those options. Ergo, the strike.

i really think that fast food workers, and others such as those at wal-mart, need to seriously consider joining a union. many of us in the middle and lower classes have no one to speak for us. we can't buy politicians, can't afford to pay lobbyists. but if they joined together, those many individual voices become one pretty loud one.

i don't think corporations realize what they'd accomplish by paying more. that means people spending more, which increases demand, which means you'd have to increase supply, which means more jobs. more spenders, more demand, etc
also, if one guy has a million dollars, he'll probably save most of it-he'll add it to the millions in the bank.
if a thousand people had a $1000, they'd all spend it. so, who does more for the economy?

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i really think that fast food workers, and others such as those at wal-mart, need to seriously consider joining a union. many of us in the middle and lower classes have no one to speak for us. we can't buy politicians, can't afford to pay lobbyists. but if they joined together, those many individual voices become one pretty loud one.

i don't think corporations realize what they'd accomplish by paying more. that means people spending more, which increases demand, which means you'd have to increase supply, which means more jobs. more spenders, more demand, etc
also, if one guy has a million dollars, he'll probably save most of it-he'll add it to the millions in the bank.
if a thousand people had a $1000, they'd all spend it. so, who does more for the economy?

This is pure speculation. The fact is that they are not just going to "overpay menial workers out of the goodness of their collective hearts for the betterment of the community"; They are going incrementally raise the prices of everything across the board when forced to do so.

The notion that if they just "pay it forward" so to speak, that the money would then come back to them exponentially due to the fact that these employees would have * more money* is preposterous and completely unfounded.

You do not need a labor-funded report to know that while yes, obviously a rise in the minimum wage would technically provide them *more money*, but the repercussion of this rise in the cost of labor is exactly what??

Food costs that much more, gas costs that much more, clothing cost that much more, etc. It is a zero sum gain at the absolute best - and in practical application, would actually drive inflation levels amok and rob them of any "perceived value" that they received.

In essence, they would be even poorer.

Again, the market drives these wages. In areas where there are a low volumes of theses workers, they are already getting paid 11.00-13.00 an hour.
You can't and should not force employers to overpay for services without objectively quantifying what its impact to the overall economy would be.

[Danzig]

the change in wages and what the outcome would be is lined out in the economic policy paper i linked to. including the gains to the economy, new jobs added, etc.