Minimum Wage Study

Gern Blansten

http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Purdue-calculates-the-consumer-cost-of-increased-minimum-wage-318713581.html

So your $3 greaseburger would cost $3.13

http://www.indystar.com/story/money/2015/07/28/purdue-university-study-calculates-cost-paying-living-wage/30771179/

Last-12-Exit

Gern Blansten said:

http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Purdue-calculates-the-consumer-cost-of-increased-minimum-wage-318713581.html

So your $3 greaseburger would cost $3.13

http://www.indystar.com/story/money/2015/07/28/purdue-university-study-calculates-cost-paying-living-wage/30771179/

As many times as I partied at Purdue, I'm not sure I can trust their studies...

That's a joke. Not the partying.

rr165892

Didn't Purdue give us QBs Griese,Brees and Dawson??? Wait they also gave us Mike Alstott.

Ok now I'll listen to what those guys are saying.

Last-12-Exit

Griese was a Michigan guy. But brees is a boilermaker.

rr165892

Last-12-Exit said:

Griese was a Michigan guy. But brees is a boilermaker.

Old man Griese ? Not Brian ? That sounds right.

Jason P

Why wouldn't my local McGreaseburger be charging $3.13 right now if it theoretically would mean it would offset the cost of their labor force?

But the study did come from Purdue, and Boilermakers are goddamn masterminds.

bootlegger10

Jason P said:

Why wouldn't my local McGreaseburger be charging $3.13 right now if it theoretically would mean it would offset the cost of their labor force?

But the study did come from Purdue, and Boilermakers are goddamn masterminds.

Probably because they don't want to raise wages and either don't want to raise their prices due to competition with other fast food joins or they want to raise the prices gradually and not raise their wage cost (increase profit).

Gern Blansten

bootlegger10 said:

Jason P said:

Why wouldn't my local McGreaseburger be charging $3.13 right now if it theoretically would mean it would offset the cost of their labor force?

But the study did come from Purdue, and Boilermakers are goddamn masterminds.

Probably because they don't want to raise wages and either don't want to raise their prices due to competition with other fast food joins or they want to raise the prices gradually and not raise their wage cost (increase profit).

Exactly....if people that are savvy about economics and business would be honest they would tell you that the min wage increase will have little effect. If Burger King is willing to absorb the increase in wages and accept a lesser net profit (5 billion vs 4.5 billion) and McDonald's isn't, the competition between the two will force McDonald's prices down.

THis transfers billions in corporate profits into the economy....those workers spend that money and directly benefit everyone in the economy rather than letting the corporate giants hide it in the Caymans.

dignin

http://magazine.good.is/articles/organize-fight-win


Fast food workers in NY just won a $15/hr wage.

I'm a paramedic. My job requires a broad set of skills: interpersonal, medical, and technical skills, as well as the crucial skill of performing under pressure. I often make decisions on my own, in seconds, under chaotic circumstances, that impact people's health and lives. I make $15/hr.

And these burger flippers think they deserve as much as me?

Good for them.

Look, if any job is going to take up someone's life, it deserves a living wage. If a job exists and you have to hire someone to do it, they deserve a living wage. End of story. There's a lot of talk going around my workplace along the lines of, “These guys with no education and no skills think they deserve as much as us? Fuck those guys.” And elsewhere on FB: “I'm a licensed electrician, I make $13/hr, fuck these burger flippers.”

And that's exactly what the bosses want! They want us fighting over who has the bigger pile of crumbs so we don't realize they made off with almost the whole damn cake. Why are you angry about fast food workers making two bucks more an hour when your CEO makes four hundred TIMES what you do? It's in the bosses' interests to keep your anger directed downward, at the poor people who are just trying to get by, like you, rather than at the rich assholes who consume almost everything we produce and give next to nothing for it.

My company, as they're so fond of telling us in boosterist emails, cleared 1.3 billion dollars last year. They expect guys supporting families on 26-27k/year to applaud that. And that's to say nothing of the techs and janitors and cashiers and bed pushers who make even less than us, but they are as absolutely crucial to making a hospital work as the fucking CEO or the neurosurgeons. Can they pay us more? Absolutely. But why would they? No one's making them.

The workers in NY *made* them. They fought for and won a living wage. So how incredibly petty and counterproductive is it to fuss that their pile of crumbs is bigger than ours? Put that energy elsewhere. Organize. Fight. Win.

Jason P

In 2012, 4.7 % of hourly workers earned at or below the federal minimum wage (approx 2 million workers). By doubling the minimum wage, that would put around 60 million workers earning the minimum wage, or approx 40% of the hourly workers.

Godfather.

why is this wage bump concern about burger flippers ? when the wage increases goes into effect it goes to all jobs dosen't it ? besides those people flipping burgers work just as hard as anybody, also the wage bump will level out in the end anyway ...the price of a burger will go up so that corprate giants won't lose any money on this deal and you and I will cover the cost but thats how it has always worked, I remember when the minimum wage was $1.25 an hour and a burger was about $.60 , point is we can't move up if we don't move forward.

Godfather.

Gern Blansten

Godfather. said:

why is this wage bump concern about burger flippers ? when the wage increases goes into effect it goes to all jobs dosen't it ? besides those people flipping burgers work just as hard as anybody, also the wage bump will level out in the end anyway ...the price of a burger will go up so that corprate giants won't lose any money on this deal and you and I will cover the cost but thats how it has always worked, I remember when the minimum wage was $1.25 an hour and a burger was about $.60 , point is we can't move up if we don't move forward.

Godfather.

or....what is more likely....is that competition will keep prices down. If Burger King is willing to accept slightly lesser profit margins to keep their burger prices lower than McDonald's then McDonald's will follow suit....and Hardee's, and Wendy's and Whataburger, etc.

Godfather.

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

why is this wage bump concern about burger flippers ? when the wage increases goes into effect it goes to all jobs dosen't it ? besides those people flipping burgers work just as hard as anybody, also the wage bump will level out in the end anyway ...the price of a burger will go up so that corprate giants won't lose any money on this deal and you and I will cover the cost but thats how it has always worked, I remember when the minimum wage was $1.25 an hour and a burger was about $.60 , point is we can't move up if we don't move forward.

Godfather.

or....what is more likely....is that competition will keep prices down. If Burger King is willing to accept slightly lesser profit margins to keep their burger prices lower than McDonald's then McDonald's will follow suit....and Hardee's, and Wendy's and Whataburger, etc.

true but prices always rise even if it's just a few cents per item, look at how the price of a burger climed before the wage hike and the ones that didn't rise in price fell in size, or in other items outside of food service quality suffered...not on everything but on some items, I agree that compition in food service will help to keep prices lower but it wont last as long as it takes to raise the min. wage again.
believe me these food service corp's as with any business will do everything they can to increase profit's and those dollars come directly out of consumer pockets...that's just the name of the game, strip the public of every dollar they can, free interprise and profit is the American way and more importantly the way of the world, gas in my area is over $4 a gallon and a few states away it's under $3, burgers,gas,houses,clothing you name it...they have it and we need it.

Godfather.

Jason P

One note on the paramedic story ... that person isn't going to be making $15 / hr or near that for the rest of their life if they stay in that trade. That profession has a career path.

rgambs

Godfather. said:

why is this wage bump concern about burger flippers ? when the wage increases goes into effect it goes to all jobs dosen't it ? besides those people flipping burgers work just as hard as anybody, also the wage bump will level out in the end anyway ...the price of a burger will go up so that corprate giants won't lose any money on this deal and you and I will cover the cost but thats how it has always worked, I remember when the minimum wage was $1.25 an hour and a burger was about $.60 , point is we can't move up if we don't move forward.

Godfather.

We are in agreement!
I hear a chorus of angels praising the unity lol

Godfather.

rgambs said:

Godfather. said:

why is this wage bump concern about burger flippers ? when the wage increases goes into effect it goes to all jobs dosen't it ? besides those people flipping burgers work just as hard as anybody, also the wage bump will level out in the end anyway ...the price of a burger will go up so that corprate giants won't lose any money on this deal and you and I will cover the cost but thats how it has always worked, I remember when the minimum wage was $1.25 an hour and a burger was about $.60 , point is we can't move up if we don't move forward.

Godfather.

We are in agreement!
I hear a chorus of angels praising the unity lol

THE LIGHT !....DO YOU SEE THE LIGHT ?? HAHHAHHHAHHAHHAH

Godfather.

PJPOWER

Sounds like it would be greatly beneficial, or at least not be very harmful to the corporate giants. I wonder, though, how this would translate to small town businesses. Cost of living in rural communities is substantially lower than cities in many cases. I have relatives that live in a town nearby that own a house double the square footage of mine and their mortgage is about half. They live very comfortable on way less of a wage. That being said, the small town businesses do not bring in anywhere near what a Burger King in a city does and the profit margin is way lower. Many times they only employ one or two high school kids part time and the business runs just fine and everyone is comfortable. If all the small town businesses were forced to double their minimum wage, what would happen to the smaller businesses and their ability to opperate? It would hit small communities substantially harder. Where they have two or three employees and a smaller profit margin, they would have to either jack up their prices or lay off employees....I guess that's when Burger King moves in and puts them out of business, right? I personally favor small local businesses. I guess if you favor large corporations with crappy cheeseburgers, doubling minimum wage is not that big of a deal... Maybe cost of living should be factored into the rate at which minimum wage is increased instead of requiring it doubled across the board like many are pushing for. What is good for Chicago or New York is not always good for everyone.

Godfather.

By Brooke Singman
• Published August 06, 2015 • FoxNews.comFacebook0 Twitter0 livefyre3594 Email Print Now Playing
Most states waive work requirements for food stamps

Most states still are waiving work requirements for those on food stamps, raising concerns that despite an improving job market the Obama administration is feeding government dependency -- and all at the expense of taxpayers.

Forty-four of the 50 states have to some degree eased work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps: 30 states grant waivers state-wide, while another 14 issue partial waivers in areas of high unemployment.

"The explosion of enrollment on SNAP of able-bodied adults without requiring work is a recipe for long-term dependency, and is hurting the country's economic recovery," said Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) Josh Archambault, whose group obtained the numbers.

Supporters of waiving work requirements counter that there still aren't enough jobs out there.

"Work requirements are the wrong diagnoses for the wrong problem," Joel Berg, executive director of the New York Coalition Against Hunger, told Fox News. "States should have the greatest flexibility possible to help people move into living-wage work. Having 'one size fits all' cut-offs will make it more difficult for people to get and keep work."

But fiscal conservatives say the waivers waste millions -- if not billions -- of taxpayer dollars. The total cost of SNAP has increased dramatically, from $54 billion in 2009 to $74 billion in 2014.

Since 1996, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has been able to grant waivers for areas with high unemployment. The practice surged after the recession, as the 2009 stimulus allowed states to waive -- for 18 months -- the requirement that able-bodied adults with no dependents find work within three months of receiving benefits.

Despite the unemployment rate being cut nearly in half since 2009, the numbers from the FGA show nearly every state still opts to partly or fully waive work requirements. Likewise, food stamp enrollment has dipped only slightly after surging to historic levels in 2013 -- from about 47.6 million in 2013 to 46 million now.

States now are required to renew their waivers annually -- governors have until Sept. 1 to decide whether to do so for fiscal 2016, and most are -- raising concerns about fueling government dependency. Archambault said a quarter of enrollees have been on the program for more than eight years, and half the enrollees have been on for four years or more.

"Instead of partnering with enrollees to get them back on their feet, the Obama administration has been complicit in keeping them on SNAP without helping them to become work-oriented," Archambault said.

In 2013, a House bill was introduced that would have eliminated the USDA's waiver authority, restoring federal work requirements in every state. The bill, which the Obama administration opposed, passed the House but died in the Senate.

Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., the sponsor of that legislation, told Fox News that while SNAP provides important support, "it's not meant to keep you at the bottom."

"It's in our nation's best interest to identify ways to get Americans back to work by making programs like SNAP more efficient and accountable," he said in a statement.

A spokesman with the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service told Fox News that SNAP recipients still are expected to seek and accept work, if they are able -- though most states do not make that a requirement.

"We are focused on putting people back to work and reducing SNAP participation and costs in the right way," spokesman Jalil Isa told Fox News.

Governors are the ones responsible for deciding whether their state will accept a federal waiver, and executives of both parties are accepting them.

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, however, has bucked the trend and completely reinstated work requirements -- and says it's working.

"Republicans need to embrace developing a way to get people out of poverty -- not just talking about cutting poverty programs," Brownback told Fox News last week. "It will work. It does work. And it's working here."

In 2013, Brownback's announced he would allow the waiver to expire. Today, able-bodied adults in Kansas with no dependent children between the ages of 18 and 49 are required to work at least 20 hours a week, or be enrolled in a federally approved job training program in order to keep their benefits.

"Getting an education, a job, and working on family structure is the way out of poverty," Brownback told Fox News. "The longer you keep people on public assistance without work, the harder it is to get them off of that public assistance."

Brownback in March signed a $13.5 million agreement with the USDA to expand their employment training program for people with SNAP benefits.

"We need to get people off the programs as fast as we can, and back into the dignity of their own job," the governor said.


you can lead a horse to water...but you can't make em drink.


Godfather.