They could but profits would shrink big time.The reason I brought up minimum wage is because upstate asked if people were willing to pay $10 for a head of lettuce if we stopped using immigrant labor.
The same question is posed by people who are against raising the minimum wage. I just find that funny.
The difference between the farmers and fast food companies is that almost all of the large corporations like McDonalds CAN afford to pay their employees more without significantly raising their prices, they simply choose not to.
Not necessarily true.They could but profits would shrink big time.
Would that necessarily be a bad thing? They're a hugely profitable company. Even cutting their profit in half would still give them billions in profit.They could but profits would shrink big time.
If frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butt.Would that necessarily be a bad thing? They're a hugely profitable company. Even cutting their profit in half would still give them billions in profit.
How much profit is enough? There's a balance between wages and profit that is totally out of whack here.
I also don't think we have to take an absolutist approach to the problem. They could spread the hit out between raising prices and taking in less profit.
The way it seems now, it's almost like income redistribution from the working class to Wall Street.
Maybe the frogs should unionize.If frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butt.
And then they wouldn't jump?Maybe the frogs should unionize.
Nah, but maybe they could catch bigger flies and see a doctor for those butt problems.And then they wouldn't jump?
You cant look at overall profit though. That can be very misleading. If I make a billion dollars profit on 100 billion in sales my margins are razor thin.Would that necessarily be a bad thing? They're a hugely profitable company. Even cutting their profit in half would still give them billions in profit.
How much profit is enough? There's a balance between wages and profit that is totally out of whack here.
I also don't think we have to take an absolutist approach to the problem. They could spread the hit out between raising prices and taking in less profit.
The way it seems now, it's almost like income redistribution from the working class to Wall Street.
Never thought I would see the day when union members talk down another worker's wage.They want $15 an hour, because these minimum wage jobs can't support their families. Minimum wage is what it is due to who fills those jobs. Unskilled people with no other options, due to a lack of skills, and are not motivated to improve their positions.
I worked in a body shop for years, startibg at 9 bucks an hour wirh ZERO skills, and worked my way up to maybe 16 an hour by working hard, and bwing able to learn more of the painting process and INCREASING production.
These goofs DO NOT deserve $15/hour to slap a patty on a bun, or drop fries for 8 hours a day. Drop fries, when the buzzer goes off, pick them up. Minimum wage might be TOO much for them
Never thought I would see the day when union members talk down another worker's wage.
They make 1/3 of what we do, and they have no benefits.
And you JUSTIFY it by calling it UNSKILLED.
Hard work is hard work.
It should be compensated fairly with a wage a person can live off of.
Or, keep their wages so low, and they will be on welfare, food stamps and public housing.
I choose paying them a livable wage.
Yes, hard work is hard work.
Dropping frozen potatoes into 350° oil is HARDLY "hard work"
They're on welfare and food stamps because they have crumby jobs and too many kids. So your answer to that is FORCING companies to pay them a higher wage? What's to say that if they get $15/ hour they'll stop there? Why not $20?
The bottom line is that if they want to support a family, perhaps instead of doing the bare minimum, they strive for something better and work harder?
That's crazy talk!!!
I didn't hear him say anything about forcing them to pay a higher wage. In some ways minimum wage laws are a part of the problem. In some circumstances they can have an adverse effect and actually keep wages lower than they should be. There is no perfect solution to this problem.Yes, hard work is hard work.
Dropping frozen potatoes into 350° oil is HARDLY "hard work"
They're on welfare and food stamps because they have crumby jobs and too many kids. So your answer to that is FORCING companies to pay them a higher wage? What's to say that if they get $15/ hour they'll stop there? Why not $20?
The bottom line is that if they want to support a family, perhaps instead of doing the bare minimum, they strive for something better and work harder?
That's crazy talk!!!
I never thought I would agree with realbrown1, but he's right...hard work is hard work. Go into a busy McDonald's sometime and spend 15 minutes observing the staff at work. It's Taylorism and micromanagement together...at a very fast pace. Kind of like UPS with food.
My first job was at a mom and pop fast food shop, believe me, I know how busy it can get when a major rush hits, still, not worth $15/hour.
He didn't say anything about $15, but whenever people "go on strike" their signs that they're picketing with call for $15 bucks.
They don't HAVE to get paid minimum wage, which you guys are stuck on. If they prove to be an invaluable asset to their bosses, then they could ask for a raise and SHOULD get it. They should not, however, just expect to get $10/ hour just because they're there.
I would think that you would be in support of the working citizen. Honestly, in this day and age, it's almost easier for these workers to go on welfare...they wouldn't make as much, but certain things would be 'covered', so to speak.
Raising the minimum wage would give these folks, who are clearly trying to make a go of it, a much better situation.