Reply With Quote
LOL...
prove it.
the farmers are squeezed by the big ag wholesalers and buyers, wages won't be raised. Burger King refused to add one nickel to FL tomato pickers.
LOL...
prove it.
Not necessarily. Produce is now a world wide commodity. Grow it somewhere cheap, throw it on a 747 cargo plane and it's in the stores the next day.
http://consumerist.com/2008/01/17/bu...hem-elsewhere/
BigFood s over the ag workers and retail workers with ty wages.
True.
I will remind people that this free trade bull is just that. Bull . We need to undo what was done, and impose reasonable tariffs on items in compe ion with US products.
Where would the other source be? USA or foreign?
You know what.
I don't care where they buy their tomatoes. They will probably taste better than those in Florida.
Proof you've never been an employer.
BK's tomato pickers are paid piece work, not hourly, do you think they're slackers?
what manual labors have you employed and how did you prove that paying manual laborers more gets them to produce more? were they hourly or piece work?
Way to move the goalpost Boo. The subject was raising the minimum wage for a specific class of union worker (hotel workers).
As to your piece work interjection I guarantee the same person picking tomatos would pick more per hour doing piece work that he would being paid by the hour.
In a pay by the hour arrangement I guarantee you would get a higher quality worker for $15 per hour than you would get for $10 per hour. The low quality employee that's only worth $10 and hour would soon be unemployed.
I just don't understand why wait for the minimum wage to go up to fire employees. Apparently these employers can make do with less employees, so what's the point of waiting?
Exactly, if I were a shareholder, I would be quite upset with management's altruism.
Same reason they waited until the economy crashed before laying off superfluous workers.
Which is?
Market contraction?
It took a market crash for business leaders to do math? Shareholders should be diving for the exit. Conversely they should be begging for a minimum wage if it'll force management to do math.
Well they are just people. I'm fortunate to have plenty of disposable income so I bought a car I don't need, yesterday I ordered a $250 crossfit weight vest that I probably won't use. If the math ever changes I'll make the necessary cuts.
As far as shareholders, if they are happy with the return why would they dive for the exit?
The math is the same... if 3 workers can do the job of 5, then 3 workers can do the job of 5. The market crashing or the minimum salary being $10, $15 or $100 isn't changing that.
If you're telling me the company needs to close or provide an inferior product due to the inability to pay as many workers, then that's certainly a valid concern... but apparently not the case here.
Market contracts and expands all the time, companies adjust accordingly. Not sure that an increase in the minimum wage has a direct impact on that, but if you have any pointers, I'll be glad to read up on em
3 jobs does not equal 5 jobs.
15 x 40 does not equal 8 x 40.
If you believe raising the minimum wage to $15 will be beneficial then fine but don't try to act like it will have no effect on business owners or the economy and that the math is exactly the same.
google "effect of raising minimum wage on unemployment"
The Impact of Increasing the Minimum Wage on Unemployment: No Evidence of Harm
http://aneconomicsense.com/2013/03/0...vidence-of-it/
Five myths about the minimum wage
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...c63_story.html
Does raising the minimum wage really help workers
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-rai...-help-workers/
Raising the Minimum Wage Is Good for Business (But the Corporate Lobby Doesn't Think So)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-...b_2750336.html
With the 35+ year "war on employees" having stagnated, reduced the incomes of Human-Americans, we can be pretty sure that taxpayer-subsidized-with-public-assistance-to-the-poor Corporate-Americans aren't carry Ms of dead-beat, low-wagers just because they are cheap, but because they really need them.
Firing 10Ks of employees like HP did "to raise corporate profits" richly rewards the management.
That's not the argument presented though... if the argument presented would be "raising the minimum wage will affect our bottom line, product or services because our salary costs will raise" then that's a solid argument (and the one you're making, which I agree with).
But the argument presented is: "If you raise the minimum wage, we're going to make massive job cuts!" (with the implied admission that neither their product/service will take a hit for it). Under THAT argument, the question then becomes: why are you employing superfluous employees in the first place?
My issue is with the treats about cutting apparently already superfluous positions due to the wage increase. In general, I understand a minimum wage hike adds extra costs to any business, and the macro view of that has been debated for many years (more disposable income for people, better for the economy or not, etc). In general, I think unless this is done on a federal level, then it's not going to work.
these fkn clowns complaining about affecting their bottom line profits, when they all defer thei profits to tax havens...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions