MovieChat Forums > Politics > $15 minimum wage putting employees out o...

$15 minimum wage putting employees out of work.

posted 5 years ago by krl97a (5619)
33 replies | jump to latest

Some excerpts:

"Things started going downhill for restaurant workers in July 2015 when the New York Fast Food Wage Board recommended the nice-sounding but completely ridiculous $15 per hour minimum wage for restaurants with at least 30 locations."

"According to the New York City Hospitality Alliance’s survey, “The Rising Labor Cost,” the city has experienced the biggest drop in restaurant jobs in almost two decades.

The study revealed “76.50 percent of full service restaurant respondents reduced employee hours, and 36.30 percent eliminated jobs in 2018.” And it’s not going to get any better: “75 percent of limited service restaurant respondents report that they will reduce employee hours, and 53.10 percent will eliminate jobs in 2019 as a result of mandated wage increases that took effect on December 31, 2018.” Also, annual employment growth dropped from 6.67 percent to less than 1 percent even since the “tip wage” (the minimum amount of salary for servers who receive tips) has doubled.

Economist Mark Perry described New York as experiencing a “restaurant recession” due to the politicians meddling into the minimum salary resulting in 3,000 fewer serving jobs."

"As a former café owner, I know owners either had to increase their prices (which means they would’ve sold less food) or cut back on their staff. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that these entrepreneurs cut back on staff to stay competitive. This doesn’t take a genius to understand. Of course, not many of those go in politics, especially on the left. And clearly, not many folks who have ever run a small business go into politics either.

Interestingly, do you know who totally gets this principle? The organized labor and anti-poverty groups who push so hard for $15 an hour minimum wage frequently don’t even pay their own workers $15 per hour.

It’s not hard to understand why. Increase costs and you will decrease hiring and employment. Plus, if you raise the minimum wage, rent goes up in that community, which creates another set of problems entirely.

This, of course, doesn’t fit the Democrat narrative, so they ignore it."

https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/07/meckler-fast-food-unemployment/

[–] Painekiller (355) 5 years ago

Let's not forget how that disingenuous traitor Bezos has used the hypocritical stalking horse of paying his own a nominal $15/hr, in lieu of - no bathroom break allowed whilst simultaneously reducing their hours to temp status as a means of bankrupting his bricks and mortar competition.

Amazon is about 3 rungs up the ladder from the best Chicom slave labor camps.

Typical leftarded workers' "paradise"...

https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-warehouse-workers-share-their-horror-stories-2018-4/

Several Amazon staff members from across the world have described to Business Insider the intense pressure of working in a warehouse, where they pick and pack items for delivery.
One US worker described an "awful smell" coming from warehouse trash cans, saying coworkers would urinate in them for fear of missing their targets because they took too much time to go to the bathroom.
Others said their short, timed breaks were reduced further as they waited in lines to go through security.

[–] brux (14666) 5 years ago

bathroom breaks are law ... more right-wing lies.

[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

That fact they are law does not mean that employees are intimidated into not taking them - think, please.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/16/17243026/amazon-warehouse-jobs-worker-conditions-bathroom-breaks

Amazon warehouse workers are forced to pee in bottles or forego their bathroom breaks entirely because fulfillment demands are too high, according to journalist James Bloodworth, who went undercover as an Amazon worker for his book, Hired: Six Months Undercover in Low-Wage Britain. Targets have reportedly increased exponentially, workers say in a new survey revealed over the weekend, and as result, they feel pressured and stressed to meet the new goals.

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/world/amazon-warehouse-workers-skip-bathroom-breaks-to-keep-their-jobs-says-report-2550795.html

Amazon warehouse workers skip bathroom breaks to keep their jobs, says report
About 50% employees said they have lost weight after starting work at the Amazon warehouses. Few of them even said they have contemplated committing suicide

[–] Cuthbert (732) 5 years ago

I agree. It’s funny though that you lecture someone and with a grammatical error in the same sentence telling them to please think. 🤣

[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

I think it's a hoot that you seek to inveigle, obfuscate and generally distract with a complete non sequitur regarding alleged grammatical malfeasance.

But that's what libs do...

Just as Amazon workers skip bathroom breaks due to perceived pressure from above.

Next!

[–] Cuthbert (732) 5 years ago

HAHA!! I LOVE when you use big words incorrectly. It’s hardly a subterfuge though when your error completely reverses the point you’re trying to make.
NEXT !
PLEASE use more big words you don’t know the meaning of, please!

[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

How many would you like?

Enough to avoid discussing Amazon's toxic warehouse situation?

[–] Cuthbert (732) 5 years ago

Why on Earth do you assume I don’t acknowledge Amazon's toxic labour practices?

[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

Because you've been decoupling from that discussion into non sequiturs.

I find Amazon to be rather predatory, ftmp.

They've got 1984ish active spyware in Alexa and Ring and they treat their warehouse employees like human robots.

If Bezos does make it to Mars or the Moon - don't follow...

[–] Cuthbert (732) 5 years ago

Oh, like when I responded to your comment with “I agree.”

[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

Followed by the needless grammatical flame...

Glad we agree though, nothing wrong with that.

[–] Cuthbert (732) 5 years ago

Your error completely reversed the meaning of your point in a sentence in which you attempted to upbraid someone for faulty logic. It’s ironic and funny; hardly a flame.

[–] brux (14666) 5 years ago

companies that cannot pay their workers a living wage should not be companies and are not deserving of tax subsidies from taxpayers.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

brux shouldn't be king, dictating his whims about how other people should live their lives. Companies that don't pay enough to attract workers won't attract workers. Fortunately our system is still voluntary and not socialist. Hopefully it stays that way.

[–] brux (14666) 5 years ago

Not socialist you say ... I'd say you should shut up and spend a few years looking at the military-industrial complex sh&&***d.

Capitalism + Democracy = Socialism
Capitalism = Democracy = Fascism

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

brux + keyboard = idiocy

A military isn't socialist. In fact it's an inherent part of any type of government. And maybe you committed a typo but your moronic equation just stated that capitalism, democracy, and fascism are all the same thing.

[–] Cuthbert (732) 5 years ago

No it doesn’t.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Yes it does.

[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

That's a wildly inaccurate equation.

Capitalism + Statism = socialism first, then communism when the state becomes all.

See: Venezuela and Cuber.

[–] CharlotteXavier (2357) 5 years ago

Companies that don’t pay enough to attract workers won't attract workers.

Except for those pesky financially despondent people trying to get by under an oligarchy.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Central planning is the oligarchy, like forcing a one size fits all "minimum wage" on everyone; a few people far removed ordering you what to pay anyone you hire and making other decisions about your daily life for you. It also destroys jobs, making people even more desperate as the op shows.

People flee from socialist countries to free ones, not the other way around. People vote more honestly with their feet than their rhetoric.

[–] Cuthbert (732) 5 years ago

People flee from corrupt socialist countries, not all socialist countries.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

They flee from expansive governments that trample people's freedom and ruin their economic prospects, not just "corruption". They've even migrated away from, on net over the past half century, the stifling taxes and regulation of the US northeast for the freer and more dynamic US south and west (sans California in recent years).

[–] Cuthbert (732) 5 years ago

Oh! Sounds like the Scandinavian migrants fleeing their countries looking for work. Lol.

Who are “they” btw? Americans yes, but which income bracket?

So the NE is thriving with good wages and prospects for everyone? Is that why taxes are so high there??

[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

Oh! Sounds like the Scandinavian migrants fleeing their countries looking for work. Lol.

The defining trait of Scandinavia WAS homogeneity of populaces.

They do have a reason to leave now though - a rapey criminal Mudslime invasion.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/03/01/yes-violent-crime-spiked-sweden-since-open-immigration/
In 1975, the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the former homogeneous Sweden into a multicultural country. Forty years later the dramatic consequences of this experiment emerge: violent crime has increased by 300%.
If one looks at the number of rapes, however, the increase is even worse. In 1975, 421 rapes were reported to the police; in 2014, it was 6,620. That is an increase of 1,472%.
Sweden is now number two on the global list of rape countries. According to a survey from 2010, Sweden, with 53.2 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants, is surpassed only by tiny Lesotho in Southern Africa, with 91.6 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants.

Twenty-one research reports from the 1960s until today are unanimous in their conclusions: Whether or not they measured by the number of convicted rapists or men suspected of rape, men of foreign extraction were represented far more than Swedes. And this greater representation of persons with a foreign background keeps increasing:
1960-1970s – 1.2 to 2.6 times as often as Swedes
1980s – 2.1 to 4.7 times as often as Swedes
1990s – 2.1 to 8.1 times as often as Swedes
2000s – 2.1 to 19.5 times as often as Swedes
Even when adjusted for variables such as age, sex, class and place of residence, the huge discrepancy between immigrants and Swedes remains.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

LOL at socialists always being reduced to citing Scandinavia as the one supposedly good example in a world awash in socialist nations. Those Scandinavian countries are mostly capitalist, with Sweden itself being governed successfully by a center-right government for much of this century that's engaged in rounds of tax cuts, privatization, and deregulation (Norway's fortunes mostly ride on the oil market like an Arab Sheikdom's). They're more socialist leaning than the US, but the Muslim countries that have produced most of their recent immigrants are even more socialist than Scandinavia. No one but those Muslims are fleeing to Scandinavia. Certainly not Americans who are better off.

The NE US is rich due to the inertial inheritance of centuries of conservative/libertarian governance (aka freedom). It didn't go leftist until a few decades ago. Since then the previously poor South, which adopted more conservative, business friendly policies has had the fastest growing incomes in the country while the NE has stagnated. If these trends continue it won't be long before the South passes New England in cost adjusted living standards. In short, people have been fleeing the North East for places with more opportunity.

[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

We try not to worry about the UK too much.

[–] WickedStorm (405) 5 years ago

I do customer service for a distribution company. Daily, we have to deal with angry customers because:

They ordered 5 of an item, only received 3.
They ordered 5 of item "a" and 5 of item "b'. Received 2 of item "a" and four of item "b"
They ordered 5 of item "a" and 5 of item "b'. Received 2 of item "a" and four of item "b" and three of unordered item "c"
They ordered an item and it was left completely out of the order.
They ordered an item, received something completely different (ordered pliers, received glue)
Only one item on order, ordered 2 pieces, only received 1.
Clear instructions said "do not send any blue ones", they received all blue ones
They were supposed to receive a box of 12 pieces. Picker ripped box open, took out 3 pieces, sent 3 pieces
Next picker grabbed open box (that now had only 8 pieces because one fell out of open box )and sent it
Next picker sent that 1 loose piece instead of box of 12
And various other screw-ups.

People think they deserve $15 an hour for that?

[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

Are you blaming the workers or management, or process?

I think the buck stops at the top = executive management - the rest are underlings to the system.

[–] WickedStorm (405) 5 years ago

Well, it's the workers making all those mistakes. And whoever hires them without checking to see if they have basic counting and reading skills.

Anyway, the question remains: If they can't count and have that much trouble with simple instructions, how do they deserve $15 an hour?

[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

I believe the answer is comprised of some basic concepts:

~ Training

~ Oversight

~ Best practices

~ Floor management

Master those and even chimps can get the product out.

[–] Cuthbert (732) 5 years ago

Maybe they’re too hungry and stressed out to get it right.

[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

Which would come under "best practices". Clearly a hungry and stressed work force is inefficient at best.