Lack of Mexicans is killing the restaurant business in big cities

[just Warren]

If that's their decision making process in that area what other sub-optimal decisions are they making?

[Hawkmoon]

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.

[Scout26]

Fixed it along with the explanation as to why.

[HankB]

. . . 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. 

[Scout26]

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.  

[Hawkmoon]

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.

[vaskidmark]

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.

[makattak]

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.

[MechAg94]

Even if they are great workers, teenagers are generally part time, short term employees. 

[wmenorr67]

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.

[Firethorn]

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'.

[Scout26]

 

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.

[Ron]

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.

 

[Firethorn]

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.

[lupinus]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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

[brimic]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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

[Firethorn]

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.

[MechAg94]

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.

[Scout26]

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).

[Firethorn]

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...

[Scout26]

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. 

[Firethorn]

Name one problem solved or made better by .gov.  I'll wait.

Anarchy.  Law Enforcement.  Defense from foreign aggressors.  Contract enforcement. Etc...

[RoadKingLarry]

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.