Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MillCreek on August 16, 2015, 12:21:44 PM
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/08/12/the-crippling-problem-people-who-eat-at-restaurants-havent-noticed-but-chefs-are-freaking-out-about/
They are just doing the jobs that Americans will not do.
-
Especially hard hit are Chinese take-outs and haute cuisine French restaurants.
stay safe.
-
Declining illegal immigration? In what fanciful land is this occurring?
-
Declining illegal immigration? In what fanciful land is this occurring?
Correction:
Declining illegal immigration of folks who work. Given many place's policies, the more illegals that can get benefits, the less they need to illegally work.
-
The glitz and glamour of rising through the ranks in the restaurant industry isn’t what it used to be.
When was this a thing? I don't remember ever hearing about the "glitz and glamour" of the restaurant industry. I always figured if you didn't own it, you ain't getting anywhere.
-
One of the clearest obstacles to hiring a good cook, let alone someone willing to work the kitchen these days, is that living in this country’s biggest cities is increasingly unaffordable. In New York, for instance, where a cook can expect to make between $10 and $12 per hour, and the median rent runs upward of $1,200 a month, living in the city is a near impossibility. As a result, people end up living far from the restaurants where they work. Add to that how late dinner shifts can end, causing people to arrive home well into the night.
Here we go. High cost of living and wages that aren't all that great. I would guess most who want to work are finding there are other jobs that pay better.
My cousin worked up to wait staff manager for a chain of Italian restaurants then the same at other jobs. He eventually got out of it and got a job as a sales rep for a alcoholic beverage outfit which let him work better hours. Sales was a good fit for him.
-
Places will need to find someplace to save money so they can bid more for cooks. I see an opportunity here for outsourced customized prep services with just-in-time delivery.
I've spent more time than I care to remember in restaurant kitchens as an outsider and I've noticed that prep takes a lot of people a lot of hours to do. So if you can outsource that there might be some real savings.
You'd hire a prep place and give them your requirements and then they order in and process the food and deliver it to you as you need it for the day.
The prep place can get to an economy of scale by having dozens of restaurants that it services, ordering in massive bulk, automating as much of the process as possible, and eliminating duplication. That is much of the veggies that get used in restaurants are prepped the same way so instead of doing it in dozens of small batches it can be done in one big batch.
So there's labor savings, plus not having to be in the place hours before opening, the food cost might be less, and there may well be a savings on the power bill.
-
If you can't take the heat, Get out of the kitchen! =D
-
So, they can't afford to pay enough to have an ample supply of applicants to choose from? Then, they're either flushing extra money down the toilet, or the public won't pay enough for the food for the restaurants to be able to afford to operate without some sort of "subsidy". i.e. illegal pay-em-under-the-table labor.
Sounds like more of a supply and demand problem instead of a "let 'em all in" problem. Some folks need to learn what those appliances in the kitchen do. And some restaurants need to fail.
-
I have known some culinary school grads who had stars in their eyes, and the reality of restaurant work, with the long hours, crappy pay and crappy working conditions, was a real eye-opener for them. But they had to pay back those school loans. Apparently, some people think restaurant work really is like the Food Channel.
-
Amusingly, in my experience, it's the hated middle-value (Applebee's etc.) chain restaurants that have the most space and better conditions.
Of course it's hard to do the assembly line thing they do in a cramped space.
-
The glitz and glamour of rising through the ranks in the restaurant industry isn’t what it used to be. Long hours, low pay and a series of other cultural and economic factors have made lower-tier restaurant work a much less desirable path than it once was, leaving many kitchens chronically understaffed.
One of the clearest obstacles to hiring a good cook, let alone someone willing to work the kitchen these days, is that living in this country’s biggest cities is increasingly unaffordable. In New York, for instance, where a cook can expect to make between $10 and $12 per hour, and the median rent runs upward of $1,200 a month, living in the city is a near impossibility. As a result, people end up living far from the restaurants where they work. Add to that how late dinner shifts can end, causing people to arrive home well into the night.
Top it all off with the fact that culinary school graduates are often working through significant amounts of debt, and the burden can be insurmountable.
And here we see the insidious result of bringing in Mexicans (and other furriners) who are willing to work for less than what constitutes a fair wage for the work. For awhile, restaurants were able to enjoy easy profits. There had to be a time/day when the chefs in American restaurants were mostly Americans. Then we opened the doors to the immigrants (legal and illegal) who were willing to work for less, thereby pushing Americans out of that type of work.
So now we've run out of Mexican chefs, and Americans aren't interested in working for peon wages. Now who could have predicted that? It seems to me that the restaurants have created their own problem. Now they need to pay more to get chefs, and to pay more they'll have to raise prices because there isn't a lot of margin to absorb a significant uptick in kitchen salaries.
But let's be honest. What's all this talk about culinary school graduates? There just aren't a lot of Mexicans who graduated from any culinary school, either here or in Mexico. The restaurants haven't been hiring Mexicans because they graduated from the CIA (no, the other CIA, the Culinary Institute of America). No, they've been hiring Mexicans because they'll work cheap.
Break out the violins.
It's time to build that wall, and start deporting large numbers of illegals. Once we get back to where the majority of the work force is comprised of legal workers, maybe the economy can begin to correct itself and we can get back to being the United States of America instead of the United States of Mexico.
-
It would be easier to remove payroll and SS taxes and whatever local taxes there are so there's more money for raises and it reduces the advantage an illegal has in setting the price for his labor.
It's not just they charge less, that's the only cost. Employers don't pay taxes or insurance for these guys so there's a huge gap they can exploit. Narrow that gap and their advantage slips away proportionally.
-
What Hawkmoon said plus eliminating welfare/foodstamps/Section 8 housing after 12 months. (with a lifetime maximum of 24 months).
Bet that will get more people back in the workforce...
-
Because of an improving economy Uganda is also facing a chef shortage. They used to fill the gaps with people from other countries but all the new hotels and restaurants want higher quality people that have a pedigree.
So culinary schools are popping up and on the video I watched on one the facility looked low rent but the training was sharp and they all had proper uniforms and everything.
So their illegals are going to have a hard time once a sufficient number of professionally trained chefs get into circulation.
None of this is relevant to the problem here but I thought it was an interesting contrast and compare case study.
-
I figure the problem will solve itself eventually.
They'll have to pay more money and advertise/recruit a bit to get more cooks, which will lead to somewhat increased prices on the menu, which will lead to people eating out a little less, and a few restaurants will go out of business. Or more acurately - the failure rate of restaurants will kick up a notch until a new stability point is reached, given that something like 30% of new food places fail within 2 years or such.
-
This article is a sign of the difficulty of writing "crops rotting in the fields because not enough illegals" propaganda articles in the middle of a california drought.
-
Not so hard writing those stories
http://www.wsj.com/articles/on-u-s-farms-fewer-hands-for-the-harvest-1439371802
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
I figure the problem will solve itself eventually.
They'll have to pay more money and advertise/recruit a bit to get more cooks, which will lead to somewhat increased prices on the menu, which will lead to people eating out a little less, and a few restaurants will go out of business. Or more acurately - the failure rate of restaurants will kick up a notch until a new stability point is reached, given that something like 30% of new food places fail within 2 years or such.
More like 80 percent once you factor out the sure things like macdonalds
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
I have known some culinary school grads who had stars in their eyes, and the reality of restaurant work, with the long hours, crappy pay and crappy working conditions, was a real eye-opener for them. But they had to pay back those school loans. Apparently, some people think restaurant work really is like the Food Channel.
I read the article and laughed. They hit on the same point. If you want someone to work long hours, do high skill/talent work, mildly to moderately dangerous and deal with crappy working conditions, you have to pay for it. I am always mystified when bosses/owners expect people to work long grueling hours for peanuts but with an insane laundry list of skills and experience. I've seen it happen enough times that I'm not shocked, but I'm still mildly... surprised? disgusted? at how common this attitude is. And the reaction to saying "Did you try offering above market wages for above market performance?"
-
Not so hard writing those stories
http://www.wsj.com/articles/on-u-s-farms-fewer-hands-for-the-harvest-1439371802
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
I stand corrected. There could be zero actual harvest to bring in and there would still be "crops rotting in the fields" articles written by those who desire a society more like Brazil and less like the USA.
Despite Drought, Crops Rotting in the Field Right on Schedule
http://www.unz.com/isteve/despite-drought-crops-rotting-in-the-field-right-on-schedule/
http://www.vdare.com/articles/pearanoia-latest-scam-from-the-cheap-labor-lobby
An annual autumnal tradition here at iSteve is the crops-rotting-in-the-field stories about why we’re all going to die unless farmers get to import more peasants from Latin America to work cheap for them from such agriculture-savvy outlets as the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. In 2015, it’s still summer, but from today’s WSJ:
On U.S. Farms, Fewer Hands for the Harvest
Producers raise wages, enhance benefits, but a worker shortage grows with tighter border
By ILAN BRAT
Updated Aug. 12, 2015 9:03 a.m. ET
Last year, about a quarter of Biringer Farm’s strawberries and raspberries rotted in the field because it couldn’t find enough workers.
You might think that, what with the well-known water shortage in California idling part of the country’s most labor-intensive farmlands, that we could skip the crops-rotting-in-the-fields ritual this year, but PR firms need to generate billings whether or not the hysteria makes even less sense than usual.
I read the article and laughed. They hit on the same point. If you want someone to work long hours, do high skill/talent work, mildly to moderately dangerous and deal with crappy working conditions, you have to pay for it. I am always mystified when bosses/owners expect people to work long grueling hours for peanuts but with an insane laundry list of skills and experience. I've seen it happen enough times that I'm not shocked, but I'm still mildly... surprised? disgusted? at how common this attitude is. And the reaction to saying "Did you try offering above market wages for above market performance?"
Seen the same thing. It is like they think it is their right to have highly/over-qualified folk work for crumbs.
Someone totally not related to me running a small business:
Totally Not-Related Person: "I want someone I can trust to watch the kids and drive them to their activities as well as able to [operate particular systems at small business shop] when I don't want them nanny-ing the kids."
Me: "Sounds expensive."
TNRP: "Why would that be? I can just pay them what I would pay for [worker bee job] and they'll be happy to do the less-demanding nanny-ing."
Me: "Have you met your children?"
TNRP: "What?!"
Aside from that point, even assuming everything else is equal and accommodating, that job will be worth less to that employee when they leave they and seek future employment. And TNRP's recommendation, if given, will be worth less.
And TNRP is rather put out that finding someone to do the job(s) requires so much effort and that turnover is so high.
-
Seen the same thing. It is like they think it is their right to have highly/over-qualified folk work for crumbs.
Someone totally not related to me running a small business:
Totally Not-Related Person: "I want someone I can trust to watch the kids and drive them to their activities as well as able to [operate particular systems at small business shop] when I don't want them nanny-ing the kids."
Me: "Sounds expensive."
TNRP: "Why would that be? I can just pay them what I would pay for [worker bee job] and they'll be happy to do the less-demanding nanny-ing."
Me: "Have you met your children?"
TNRP: "What?!"
Aside from that point, even assuming everything else is equal and accommodating, that job will be worth less to that employee when they leave they and seek future employment. And TNRP's recommendation, if given, will be worth less.
And TNRP is rather put out that finding someone to do the job(s) requires so much effort and that turnover is so high.
In my experience, they can and do find folks that are desperate. If the gig pays more than unemployment, someone will apply. If the person is actually worth a damn, they'll also leave as soon as possible.
The economy has sucked for the last ten years, and will suck for the next 5 years at least. So, yeah, you can get away with paying peanuts as long as you're willing to accept high turnover and dubious applicants.
-
Perhaps it's time to call illegal immigration what it truly is:
Semi-Legalized slavery. (only instead of the Massa providing food, clothing and shelter. He simply provides a small st end.)
Edited to add Semi. What with the Sanctuary Cities and ICE's catch and release program*, several states issuing them drivers licenses, we have amnesty in everything, but name only.
-
I am always mystified when bosses/owners expect people to work long grueling hours for peanuts but with an insane laundry list of skills and experience.
The one I remember? Offering $7.50 an hour for a job. Skill requirement? 3 years welding experience & certification required. No, that wasn't a probationary wage. He was so 'generous' that he offered a $0.10 raise after 6 months. Dude was complaining that he couldn't find enough workers, so obviously we need to change things.
Places offering $20/hour mysteriously didn't have any problems what so ever finding welders. Any welders that the first guy could find that were worth anything were easily 'sniped' by these companies whenever they had an opening, I wonder why?
Personally, I think that we need to get out of the idea that many of these jobs 'aren't worth the money'. If a job can't be economically automated, maybe it's worth more than $7.25/hour. Even if it is considered classically 'unskilled labor'.
-
The one I remember? Offering $7.50 an hour for a job. Skill requirement? 3 years welding experience & certification required. No, that wasn't a probationary wage. He was so 'generous' that he offered a $0.10 raise after 6 months. Dude was complaining that he couldn't find enough workers, so obviously we need to change things.
Places offering $20/hour mysteriously didn't have any problems what so ever finding welders. Any welders that the first guy could find that were worth anything were easily 'sniped' by these companies whenever they had an opening, I wonder why?
Personally, I think that we need to get out of the idea that many of these jobs 'aren't worth the money'. If a job can't be economically automated, maybe it's worth more than $7.25/hour. Even if it is considered classically 'unskilled labor'.
I've always found it amusing how much time, effort, and money companies will spend trying to perfect the art of the reach around. When any sane person recognizes the reach around wouldn't be needed if you weren't bending your employees over in the first place.
I think most reasonable employees understand that sometimes *expletive deleted*it happens, but no one particularly likes being *expletive deleted*ed with for the sake of it.
-
If that's their decision making process in that area what other sub-optimal decisions are they making?
-
Perhaps it's time to call illegal immigration what it truly is:
Legalized slavery. (only instead of the Massa providing food, clothing and shelter. He simply provides a small stipend.)
??? Cognitive dissonance check.
How can something that's illegal be legal?
And what about the temporary visa program we have specifically for migrant farm workers? The problem with that is, the legal way to do it is for the workers to come and work during the harvest season, then they go back. But ... they don't want to go back, so that program doesn't generate enough workers. If they didn't know they could get the same jobs and stay indeinitely (and illegally), they might be more inclined to do it by the rules.
-
Fixed it along with the explanation as to why.
-
. . . If a job can't be economically automated, maybe it's worth more than $7.25/hour. Even if it is considered classically 'unskilled labor'.
Funny you mentioned that - I just saw an article which claims that as more (leftist) cities start implementing a "Living Wage" requirement - typically $15 an hour - there will be a lot more incentive to automate the fast food industry.
-
The problem is with youth and entry level employment, paying a kid a couple bucks to sweep up for an hour or so a day might be all a job is worth. And the kid learns basic employment skills. We all have to start somewhere, but everyone wants that to be the top floor corner office. (which, unless you are looking out over a spectacular view, I never understood).
Minimum wage does nothing more then cut the bottom rungs off the employment ladder.
Let two people decide how much they want to pay and accept as payment. If you want to be an ass (as discussed above), then your consequences are the results of your decisions.
-
The problem is with youth and entry level employment, paying a kid a couple bucks to sweep up for an hour or so a day might be all a job is worth. And the kid learns basic employment skills. We all have to start somewhere, but everyone wants that to be the top floor corner office. (which, unless you are looking out over a spectacular view, I never understood).
Minimum wage does nothing more then cut the bottom rungs off the employment ladder.
Let two people decide how much they want to pay and accept as payment. If you want to ass (as discussed above), then your consequences are the results of your decisions.
My town doesn't have any McDonalds (or Burger Kings, or Wendy's). The adjacent town, where I go for the supermarket, has a Mickey D's. A friend who grew up in my town now lives in that town. A few years ago his two teen-age kids (one son, one daughter) applied for jobs at the McDonalds. Historically, that's what McDonalds did -- hire local high school kids and give them a chance at a first job.
No more. Both kids were rejected. The McDonalds instead hired a bunch of Latinos. And that town doesn't have any significant Latino population at all. At shift change time, you see all the kitchen workers and half the counter workers walking three blocks to the train station and catching a train to the larger city 20 miles away.
That ain't right.
-
No more. Both kids were rejected. The McDonalds instead hired a bunch of Latinos. And that town doesn't have any significant Latino population at all. At shift change time, you see all the kitchen workers and half the counter workers walking three blocks to the train station and catching a train to the larger city 20 miles away.
That ain't right.
I don't know your kids, and neither does that Mickey D's. But at the corporate aggregate level they have enough anecdotes about teenagers with bad attitudes, almost non-existent work ethic, failure to show up on time, rude behavior, goofing off with and giving away food to their friends, and a whole lot more to make the decision that they are a bad hiring risk. 25 years ago the former daughter was told that the local Mickey D's would only hire kids who had been on the honor roll for two consecutive years and would be let go if they fell off that wagon. So older teens with a few things to lose. She got cocky and took a few days off without following the 1-week notice rule and although she was a minority worker* she got canned the moment she stepped back in the place.
Latino/Hispanic/Messican (depending on the flavor of your racial bias) seem to have a better track record.
It isn't fair, it isn't right, and it seems to make good business sense at least at the corporate level.
stay safe.
* - being a paleskin in a barely moderate size Southron city surrounded by suburbs full of white flight makes you a minority.
-
I don't know your kids, and neither does that Mickey D's. But at the corporate aggregate level they have enough anecdotes about teenagers with bad attitudes, almost non-existent work ethic, failure to show up on time, rude behavior, goofing off with and giving away food to their friends, and a whole lot more to make the decision that they are a bad hiring risk. 25 years ago the former daughter was told that the local Mickey D's would only hire kids who had been on the honor roll for two consecutive years and would be let go if they fell off that wagon. So older teens with a few things to lose. She got cocky and took a few days off without following the 1-week notice rule and although she was a minority worker* she got canned the moment she stepped back in the place.
Latino/Hispanic/Messican (depending on the flavor of your racial bias) seem to have a better track record.
It isn't fair, it isn't right, and it seems to make good business sense at least at the corporate level.
stay safe.
* - being a paleskin in a barely moderate size Southron city surrounded by suburbs full of white flight makes you a minority.
This was exactly my thought. Given that teenagers are less and less likely to have been taught a work ethic, choosing adult minorities is likely a much more cost-effective solution. It may take more effort per worker to train the minorities (often there is a language barrier), but the costs of training are far less likely to go to waste, and you're paying that cost far less often.
-
Even if they are great workers, teenagers are generally part time, short term employees.
-
Even if they are great workers, teenagers are generally part time, short term employees.
Ding, ding, ding, such the reason that minimum wage shouldn't be $15 hour.
-
Anybody here interested in a more diversified minimum wage?
I mean, we already have a number of variations: Tipped waitstaff, student workers(75-85%), disabled, prisoners, etc...
Personally, I find the existence of businesses that deliberately hire people 'part time' to avoid paying benefits, then dick with their hours so they can't consistently work 2 jobs to make up for it, to be somewhat offensive.
My take on that is to encourage full time work by basically including 'benefits' in the minimum wage. If you're providing them(primarily medical), minimum wage is $7.25/hour. If you're NOT it's $2.60/hour more, or $9.85/hour.
Note: $2.60 was found by finding the annual average cost of medical coverage for an employee, then dividing by 2k. Depending on study, it could be as low as $2.15.
This would absolutely take the wind out of the sails of companies that attempt to have as many part time workers as possible in order to avoid paying benefits. The increased employment efficiency for workers would be beneficial - working 2 part time jobs is more 'expensive' than working one full time position, even if it doesn't provide 'benefits'.
-
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
The whole "benefits" thing is a .gov created nightmare. Between Social Security, Medicare, the WWII era healthcare tax deduction, and Obamacare the cost of an employee is almost double what employee is paid in wages.
Your "solution" is more .gov interference that will not solve the problem.
Let people manage their own retirement.
Let people manage their own health insurance. (Just like they do with their life, homeowners/renters, and car insurance).
The move to part-time employment is simply a market response to .gov interference, and more .gov interference won't fix it.
-
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
The whole "benefits" thing is a .gov created nightmare. Between Social Security, Medicare, the WWII era healthcare tax deduction, and Obamacare the cost of an employee is almost double what employee is paid in wages.
Your "solution" is more .gov interference that will not solve the problem.
Let people manage their own retirement.
Let people manage their own health insurance. (Just like they do with their life, homeowners/renters, and car insurance).
The move to part-time employment is simply a market response to .gov interference, and more .gov interference won't fix it.
I agree, "we've" compromised on this stuff for so long that the time has come to just say no.
I totally get the impulse and desire to help elevate wages at the bottom. There just is no better way of doing that other than freeing up the market from all the government interference.
-
Your "solution" is more .gov interference that will not solve the problem.
Ah, but I'm being sneaky. You see, by increasing the minimum wage that particular way it creates an *incentive* to not provide benefits. Pay over $X amount, and you don't have to provide benefits to full time workers.
I figure that, in due time, government mandated employee benefits such as healthcare would go away because 'everybody' would simply pay the higher wage. The liberals are more likely to swallow it because of the increase.
Disassembling social security will require it's own program.
-
Ah, but I'm being sneaky. You see, by increasing the minimum wage that particular way it creates an *incentive* to not provide benefits. Pay over $X amount, and you don't have to provide benefits to full time workers.
I figure that, in due time, government mandated employee benefits such as healthcare would go away because 'everybody' would simply pay the higher wage. The liberals are more likely to swallow it because of the increase.
Disassembling social security will require it's own program.
Good luck with that.
-
Ah, but I'm being sneaky. You see, by increasing the minimum wage that particular way it creates an *incentive* to not provide benefits. Pay over $X amount, and you don't have to provide benefits to full time workers.
I figure that, in due time, government mandated employee benefits such as healthcare would go away because 'everybody' would simply pay the higher wage. The liberals are more likely to swallow it because of the increase.
Disassembling social security will require it's own program.
Ahhh if only the others had been smart enough to do it your way
Here's what I see happening. Folks may get paid more. They will not buy insurance with that money. We will still be hearing the same noise
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Anybody here interested in a more diversified minimum wage?
I mean, we already have a number of variations: Tipped waitstaff, student workers(75-85%), disabled, prisoners, etc...
Personally, I find the existence of businesses that deliberately hire people 'part time' to avoid paying benefits, then dick with their hours so they can't consistently work 2 jobs to make up for it, to be somewhat offensive.
My take on that is to encourage full time work by basically including 'benefits' in the minimum wage. If you're providing them(primarily medical), minimum wage is $7.25/hour. If you're NOT it's $2.60/hour more, or $9.85/hour.
Note: $2.60 was found by finding the annual average cost of medical coverage for an employee, then dividing by 2k. Depending on study, it could be as low as $2.15.
This would absolutely take the wind out of the sails of companies that attempt to have as many part time workers as possible in order to avoid paying benefits. The increased employment efficiency for workers would be beneficial - working 2 part time jobs is more 'expensive' than working one full time position, even if it doesn't provide 'benefits'.
LOL. There is a McD's across the street from where I work.
I'd say that 90% of the workers there have been there for 6+ years, of those, maybe 2 of them are worth $7/hr.
I kid you not, I went through the drive through a few weeks ago, and the girl working the drive through was using some sort of app on her iPhone to figure out change (I'm guessing their computer was down), and was slowing the drive through line down to a grinding halt. A person who can't automatically make change in their head or at least count change correctly when I hand them a $10 bill for a $5.24 order simply isn't worth $7/hr.
-
LOL. There is a McD's across the street from where I work.
I'd say that 90% of the workers there have been there for 6+ years, of those, maybe 2 of them are worth $7/hr.
I kid you not, I went through the drive through a few weeks ago, and the girl working the drive through was using some sort of app on her iPhone to figure out change (I'm guessing their computer was down), and was slowing the drive through line down to a grinding halt. A person who can't automatically make change in their head or at least count change correctly when I hand them a $10 bill for a $5.24 order simply isn't worth $7/hr.
It's worse than that. some in fact many of them will not allow you to teach them how to count back change. They have no desire for learning the machine is supposed to do it for them
All the lamest excuses are prefaced by how someone or something is supposed to do what you want them to do
Someone other than them is supposed to
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
Here's what I see happening. Folks may get paid more. They will not buy insurance with that money. We will still be hearing the same noise
A certain amount of noise is healthy. If the troops aren't complaining you have a real problem on your hands.
A person who can't automatically make change in their head or at least count change correctly when I hand them a $10 bill for a $5.24 order simply isn't worth $7/hr.
Have you kept up with inflation? My standards for a minimum wage employee are low, low, and lower. For example, I don't think that somebody employing a worker at minimum wage should have an expectation of them having a car or any transportation better than public buses.
CSD - on change counting, a lot of businesses won't let their employees utilize such methods either. I mean, I'm out of practice but I still remember my elementary school teaching on the proper way to count change back.
But let's face it: Today rounding to the nearest 5-10 cents is probably cheaper for everybody involved.
-
Ahhh if only the others had been smart enough to do it your way
Here's what I see happening. Folks may get paid more. They will not buy insurance with that money. We will still be hearing the same noise
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Does everyone really need to buy health insurance?
We are talking about govt meddling with income and pay. Govt meddling in the medical market is huge also. Costs are higher in both cases because the Govt keeps trying to solve some problem that doesn't need a govt solution.
-
A certain amount of noise is healthy. If the troops aren't complaining you have a real problem on your hands.
That "noise" represents votes. Then we're back to voting for free stuff from the .gov.
Have you kept up with inflation? My standards for a minimum wage employee are low, low, and lower. For example, I don't think that somebody employing a worker at minimum wage should have an expectation of them having a car or any transportation better than public buses.
CSD - on change counting, a lot of businesses won't let their employees utilize such methods either. I mean, I'm out of practice but I still remember my elementary school teaching on the proper way to count change back.
But let's face it: Today rounding to the nearest 5-10 cents is probably cheaper for everybody involved.
Minimum should be $.01/hr. If you want more, you have to negotiate for it.
And you keep missing the point. .gov is the problem, not the solution to ANY problem. For an example: $7.25/hr in Hawaii is not the same as $7.25/hr in the hills and hollers of WV.
Plus unemployment would be zero and pretty much stay there if there was no minimum wage (barring a Great Depression).
-
Does everyone really need to buy health insurance?
As long as we're not allowing emergency rooms to reject patients, I think a certain level of it needs to exist.
We are talking about govt meddling with income and pay. Govt meddling in the medical market is huge also. Costs are higher in both cases because the Govt keeps trying to solve some problem that doesn't need a govt solution.
Indeed. Introduce a substantial portion of the population that's paying *cash* for their healthcare and you'd see a drastic amount of reform and a huge drop in prices, I think.
We'd still want 'everybody' covered with some sort of catastrophic medical plan, even if all it covers is hospice or a clean exit, I think.
That "noise" represents votes. Then we're back to voting for free stuff from the .gov.
Does it cover enough votes though? It took WWII price freezes to make healthcare expected.
Minimum should be $.01/hr. If you want more, you have to negotiate for it.
No argument from me here.
And you keep missing the point. .gov is the problem, not the solution to ANY problem. For an example: $7.25/hr in Hawaii is not the same as $7.25/hr in the hills and hollers of WV.
Then we will have to agree to disagree, I think. There are problems that the .gov is the solution for, or at least the least worse solution. It does indeed CAUSE a lot of problems.
Plus unemployment would be zero and pretty much stay there if there was no minimum wage (barring a Great Depression).
No, it wouldn't. You'd have plenty of people looking for jobs that pay a sufficient amount above costs(such as commuting and work clothing) to justify the hassle.
That being said, getting government OUT of the way such that:
1. People can live cheaply - Mostly out of the hands of the feds, more local. Things like minimum apartment sizes(yes, this is a thing), various other mandates that raise expenses for no real good reason.
2. Hiring is not really that much of a risk(hard to fire them later?)
3. There's enough *consumption* (goods&services) going around that there's work enough for everybody
etc...
-
As long as we're not allowing emergency rooms to reject patients, I think a certain level of it needs to exist.]
Medical care should be available for those that can pay. It is not a right.
Indeed. Introduce a substantial portion of the population that's paying *cash* for their healthcare and you'd see a drastic amount of reform and a huge drop in prices, I think.
We'd still want 'everybody' covered with some sort of catastrophic medical plan, even if all it covers is hospice or a clean exit, I think.
Does it cover enough votes though? It took WWII price freezes to make healthcare expected.
Nope, the FSA has a very loud voice. Trust there's a lot of people out there that expect "somebody else" to pay for their kids, housing, food, rims, smokes, and everything else.
Then we will have to agree to disagree, I think. There are problems that the .gov is the solution for, or at least the least worse solution. It does indeed CAUSE a lot of problems.
Name one problem solved or made better by .gov. I'll wait.
No, it wouldn't. You'd have plenty of people looking for jobs that pay a sufficient amount above costs(such as commuting and work clothing) to justify the hassle
My mother grew up in a small farming community in southern Illinois. She tells stories of men coming to their house during the Depression looking for work. Often their were a few (or more) chores that needed to be done. And once finished with the chores (to my grandparents satisfaction), those men would eat lunch and/or dinner with my mother's family. Hunger can be a mighty powerful incentive to find work.
That being said, getting government OUT of the way such that:
1. People can live cheaply - Mostly out of the hands of the feds, more local. Things like minimum apartment sizes(yes, this is a thing), various other mandates that raise expenses for no real good reason.
2. Hiring is not really that much of a risk(hard to fire them later?)
3. There's enough *consumption* (goods&services) going around that there's work enough for everybody
etc...
Agreed. Get .gov out of the way and let people live and learn.
-
Name one problem solved or made better by .gov. I'll wait.
Anarchy. Law Enforcement. Defense from foreign aggressors. Contract enforcement. Etc...
-
Anarchy. Law Enforcement. Defense from foreign aggressors. Contract enforcement. Etc...
Now list all the things government has *expletive deleted*ed up.....
It's when it gets away from the constitutional functions that government becomes a problem.
-
It's when it gets away from the constitutional functions that government becomes a problem.
Well duh. Now how do we roll it back without collapsing our economy, causing a revolt, etc...?
There's a reason I propose 'sneaky' solutions.
Still, consider that in at least some ways we're winning. Some victories I'm aware of:
1. All 50 states have CCW of some form now (yay!), and a lot more of it is 'shall issue'.
2. The war on drugs is breaking down, at least for marijuana.
3. Several states have relaxed their knife laws.
4. Even in Texas, excessive permit requirements have been shot down by the courts. Requiring somebody who only braids hair to get a permit that requires 500 hours of training that includes things such as the safe usage of toxic/caustic chemicals for things like perms and dyes?
The list is long and massive, and I'd like to go through the federal(and many state) budgets with a chainsaw.
Still, before you excise some government agency, you need to examine it's effects and such. Most should be phased out, not just terminated.
-
Still, before you excise some government agency, you need to examine it's effects and such. Most should be phased out, not just terminated.
For most agencies, we should simply examine the effects after the agency is gone. (Who will do it? Okay, let a 3rd party do the examining.) The agencies that need phasing out are the exception not the rule.
I think any attempt at sneakiness will be destroyed by political bickering and govt bureacracy. It is pointless to try. If the political will exists to get rid of these agencies, do it while you can. A phasing policy will just get changed later and the likelihood of getting multiple bills passed to eliminate an agency are less likely.
-
As you can tell, I tend to favor the straightforward approach in politics over getting fancy (IMO). However, often neither is the best political approach when you have 535 Congressmen and DC power struction to deal with.
-
For most agencies, we should simply examine the effects after the agency is gone. (Who will do it? Okay, let a 3rd party do the examining.) The agencies that need phasing out are the exception not the rule.
I think any attempt at sneakiness will be destroyed by political bickering and govt bureacracy. It is pointless to try. If the political will exists to get rid of these agencies, do it while you can. A phasing policy will just get changed later and the likelihood of getting multiple bills passed to eliminate an agency are less likely.
That's why you do it with ONE bill, that sets out the phase-out structure and period. Something like drop the payouts by 10% a year(of the original payouts) for 10 years. In cases of things like a welfare program, in addition to lowering payments, you make the eligibility requirements more stringent.
Though I wouldn't get rid of 'welfare' entirely. Instead, I'd concentrate on getting rid of 'cliffs' and making sure you're always better off working than not. IE you're not turning down that McJob because you'd lose your healthcare, and replacing it would cost more than what McJob pays.
After that, like I said, it's getting rid of barriers that impede business and result in 'not enough' jobs. I want to see as many reasonably competent adults fully and productively employed as possible.
Competition for workers is the real way to drive wages up. Not having workers available for a dime a dozen.
-
But if you accept that McJob you will not, under the current rules, immediately lose your government cheese health care nor will you immediately be switched from Medicaid to Obamacare. You will also get some or all of your childcare costs covered. Depending on where you live and where you work you might have your transportation expenses covered or at least subsidized. Additionally, your basic cable TV and internet connection transfers to a different budget line that does eventually end based on how much money you are making. SNAP eligibility criteria are adjusted to allow you to get more $$ loaded on your EBT card than if you were just getting straight welfare.
And none of this is "new". IIRC it started when the system stopped rewarding you with more money for each kid squeezed out.
The financial incentives are designed to move you from a minimum wage McJob to one that pays a bit more, and then a bit more, and then enough to stand on your own.
It's not everybody on welfare but it is enough that would rather stay on the dole than get off their backsides and improve their situation. SCOTUS says we cannot limit how long they stay on the dole and them just drop them like a hot potato. SCOTUS says they have a right to a certain basic level of care and SCOTUS also says we cannot just pick them up and drop them in the bayous or the Glades with a single-shot .22 and a really fuzzy copy of instructions on how to build a cabin. And besides, if we did where would all the pencil-pushers go and what could thy do to support themselves?
[/Jimmy Durante voice]"It's a viscous circle, I tells ya."[/Jimmy Durante voice]
stay safe.
-
But if you accept that McJob you will not, under the current rules, immediately lose your government cheese health care nor will you immediately be switched from Medicaid to Obamacare.
Which is indeed a benefit and improvement. One thing to realize is that sometimes the 'cliffs' are hidden - You lose the equivalent of $1/hour in housing, $1/hour in medical, $1 in food, etc... Next thing you know, you're working in order to lose money.
In order to combat this, I think that we need to move all these aid categories into as few programs as possible.
The financial incentives are designed to move you from a minimum wage McJob to one that pays a bit more, and then a bit more, and then enough to stand on your own.
That's the way it should work.
It's not everybody on welfare but it is enough that would rather stay on the dole than get off their backsides and improve their situation. SCOTUS says we cannot limit how long they stay on the dole and them just drop them like a hot potato. SCOTUS says they have a right to a certain basic level of care and SCOTUS also says we cannot just pick them up and drop them in the bayous or the Glades with a single-shot .22 and a really fuzzy copy of instructions on how to build a cabin. And besides, if we did where would all the pencil-pushers go and what could thy do to support themselves?
Personally, after a point I'd put them to work in 'government jobs'. Litter patrol, if necessary.
-
that article is slap full of untruths, inaccuracies, and invalid assumptions. Maybe if the one third of Mexico living here now went home, then Americans could get jobs. That Mexicans and other illegals work cheap is no surprise, and it has killed millions of jobs that Americans used to do. At higher wages.
-
Controlling who crosses our borders shouldn't be controversial.
Advocating having an enforceable legal process to enter the US with a clearly defined process to pursue citizenship shouldn't be controversial.
Having standards that foreigners have to be meet to become citizens shouldn't be controversial.
There are plenty of illegal Mexicans in the USA. They don't want to pay high taxes and transportation costs and are finding the burbs a much better deal.
Trump has shown us that the only folks that think this is controversial is our bureaucratic elites and their fifth column propaganda arm (mainstream media).
-
^^^That is very well said, Ron.
-
[/Jimmy Durante voice]"It's a viscous circle, I tells ya."[/Jimmy Durante voice]
Wouldn't Jimmy have pronounced it "soy' cle"?
-
Wouldn't Jimmy have pronounced it "soy' cle"?
A true believer amongst the rabble. Yes, you are right.
stay safe.
-
This OP is from the Washington Post. Where there are 5 of the 10 richest counties in the US.
Panem needs slaves...