McDonald's Protest

[Kung Wu]

Anybody want to bet that the vast majority of the 325 in "restaurant uniforms" AREN'T actually restaurant employees? I'll bet that's how the author is determining the number of people protesting that are McDonald's employees -- and I'll bet the vast majority of them are just union thugs.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-21/mcdonald-s-tells-employees-to-stay-home-as-protests-loom.html

[_kai_]

Demanding $15/hr for a person who works at McDonalds in any market other than a high inflation area is just asking for McDonalds to implement robotics. They will get rid of human interaction at McDonalds eventually, and the public will cry "THANK THE LORD. I can now use a screen to push "no ketchup" and it means no ketchup."

[Kung Wu]

McDonald's isn't stupid enough to cave to a 2-bit union and destroy a company that employs 750,000 people at any given time -- the VAST majority THANKFUL to have an income stream available to them in their time of need.

[_kai_]

McDonald's isn't stupid enough to cave to a 2-bit union and destroy a company that employs 750,000 people at any given time -- the VAST majority THANKFUL to have an income stream available to them in their time of need.

My point is that if they're regulated to nearly double their labor expense, it will be an easier decision for them to replace human labor with capital investments in equipment that replaces the human labor.

[Kung Wu]

My point is that if they're regulated to nearly double their labor expense, it will be an easier decision for them to replace human labor with capital investments in equipment that replaces the human labor.

I get your point. And it's spot on. I was just being optimistic it doesn't turn out like that. :)

[SB Shock]

Demanding $15/hr for a person who works at McDonalds in any market other than a high inflation area is just asking for McDonalds to implement robotics. They will get rid of human interaction at McDonalds eventually, and the public will cry "THANK THE LORD. I can now use a screen to push "no ketchup" and it means no ketchup."

another benefit it would cut down on the incidents of workers spitting on your quarter pounder...

[Dave Stalwart]

another benefit it would cut down on the incidents of workers spitting on your quarter pounder...

It's really funny when you realize THIS is who is demanding 15/hr

[Kung Wu]

So Obamacare gets voted in and requires low-income earners to purchase a product that they can't afford and for the most part don't want; wiping out all extra income that these folks make. Otherwise they have to pay a (soon to be) massive tax penalty that they can't afford. Surprise .. we have protests at the employer's location demanding absurd pay increase. That didn't take long.

Why aren't these people protesting at the White House?

[Aargh]

Someone working a 40-hour week at $8 an hour gets insurance virtually free under ObamaCare. A VERY nice policy comes in at around $24 a month in that wage category. Health insurance isn't the only federal benefit available to people earning minimum wage.

It's been reported that WalMart employees qualify for an average of $5,800 a year in federal subsidies. Thtat was before Obamacare. Throw in another $400 a month for insurance subsidies and the government is subsidizing minimum wage earners (potentially) at a rate of about $10,000 a year, which works out to about $5 an hour.

One way or another we are already paying well above minimum wage, but we're doing it through either taxes or government borrowings.

Without the subsidies, we would have a group of people who would eventually end up in communities that are commonly seen as slums in South America. It is simply impossible to live by any US standards with a family with 2 minimum wage earners. Implementing breeding requirements is not feasible, so we have lots of minimum wage earners making lots of babies.

The options are not pretty. Leave things as they are and get rid of the government subsidies because we can't really afford them - and you end up with a lot of communities that make Detroit look like a resort destination. Other than that, you've got to pay more one way or another.

Increase minimum wage and adjust federal subsidies so that minimum wage does not qualify for benefits. Things will cost more and there will be an increase in unemployment while the economy adjusts to the higher pricing. The "trickle-up" effect will raise the price of everything and make US goods less competitive in international markets.

The other apparent option is to leave everything exactly as it is right now and either raise taxes to cover the federal subsidies or increase the national deficit to cover the federal subsidies.

So how would you rather pay for your Quarter-Pounder. $2.50 in the broken way we're doing things now, $2.67 at the drive through window with an increased minimum wage, or $2.50 at the drive-through and $.17 more in taxes out of your paycheck?

[wsushox1]

Am working 50 hours a week for the United States Forest service this summer and don't think I am getting any benefits.

[Kung Wu]

Someone working a 40-hour week at $8 an hour gets insurance virtually free under ObamaCare. A VERY nice policy comes in at around $24 a month in that wage category. Health insurance isn't the only federal benefit available to people earning minimum wage.

It's been reported that WalMart employees qualify for an average of $5,800 a year in federal subsidies. Thtat was before Obamacare. Throw in another $400 a month for insurance subsidies and the government is subsidizing minimum wage earners (potentially) at a rate of about $10,000 a year, which works out to about $5 an hour.

One way or another we are already paying well above minimum wage, but we're doing it through either taxes or government borrowings.

Based on a prior post, I sense that you are somewhat blaming Walmart. That really baffles me.

Any time price controls are implemented, one of the key problems is overuse. When the government creates any system based on price controls (e.g. medicaid and now supercharged by Obamacare), it will become overused and prices will ultimately _increase_, not decrease. This has been proven time and time again.

Price controls do shift the power of the resource into the hands of the pols, so politician bastards continue pushing for them and duping people into going along with them. Every time it's tried, systems of price controls end up _reducing_ the amount of the product or service the people get, instead of increasing them. Again, this is due to overuse, abuse, and jacking with the natural price equilibrium. Obamacare makes the medicaid problem worse, because it puts more people into the failing system, a large majority of which don't want or need to be in the system. So there will be ever more overuse and abuse and everyone in the system suffers because they get less of the resource.

I don't see how you can blame Walmart for hunting for an optimal payroll that assures their employees will obtain the maximum paycheck and the maximum benefits given away by the government. That's just smart business. It's the government that created the horrible rules -- now the government has to live with it, and the truly needy and poor get shortchanged once again.

It seems to me if you are employable and have extraordinary medical needs, you would be _thankful_ that there are companies like Walmart to help optimize your income and healthcare.