Minimum Wage

About Minimum Wage and Today's Strikes at Fast-Food Chains

|

In a Daily Beast column yesterday, I wrote about a labor action planned for today in which protesters show up outside fast-food outlets and clamor for a $15 minimum wage (the current federal minimum wage is $7.25). Events are planned for 100 or more cities and some have already taken place.

Here are some things to think about:

  • Fewer than 3 percent of all workers in the United States make the minimum wage. The percentage drops further if you're talking about full-time employees.
  • 77 percent of minimum wage earners belong to households above the poverty line.
  • 51 percent of minimum wage earners are 24 years or younger. Of the minimum wage earners over 24, less than a quarter are below the poverty line and 62 percent live in households that are at or above 150 percent of the poverty line.
  • Even economists who question whether hiking the minimum wage causes significant unemployment for low-skilled workers tend to agree that doubling wages will reduce jobs.
  • A recent New York Times story titled "Life on $7.25 an Hour" centered on a man who had a job paying $13 an hour and who owned a $500,000 house.
  • The protests are organized by groups affiliated with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and inlcude calls for unionizing fast-food workers along with the demand to double the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

As I write in the Beast piece, none of this is to minimize the difficulties faced by many minimum wage earners and fast-food workers. But most minimum wage earners are not supporting families and in fact, most move up from the minimum wage with their first year on the job. As important, doubling wages isn't feasible from either a political or an economic angle. The whole program reeks of cynicism coming from the SEIU, which has a history of organizing workers in high-turnover, low-skilled industries and then failing to deliver on contracts that radically improve things for its members.

Read the full Beast story here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Scientist Tells House Panel Chance of Alien Life "Very High"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A recent New York Times story titled “Life on $7.25 an Hour” centered on a man who had a job paying $13 an hour and who owned a $500,000 house.

    Uh. Um. Er.

    1. How does even pay the property taxes at $13 an hour?

      1. How does he get a loan?

        1. I’m guessing it was pre-2008 when income verification was not required.

          1. Or perhaps he inherited it. But, yeah, the property taxes would be exorbitant.

            1. Not really, if the house was in Queens – and 500K for a house is really low in the good neighborhoods – property taxes would be around 6K. Probably less than that.

        2. He also made like $100/day in tips (tax free?) and had a second job IIRC.

      2. He’s making $1300 an hour working from home! Doctors hate this one weird trick!

        1. Biblical Money Code! Duh!

            1. And his wife is 57 and looks 27.

  2. Is anyone actually doing this? I’m sure the union is supplying “protestors” to make it look like people are participating, but are employees actually involved?

    In any event, this whole business is, of course, insane. If they could somehow force through a law like that, how many fast-food chains would keep the same work force? After all, more money means more experienced/able employees, so they might as well get something better than high school kids and the like. Not to mention that automation is coming in that industry and will come all the faster if labor costs get out of whack with reality.

    1. Bingo – that is why I believe the job opportunities for kids are so meager.

      1. This is also why unemployment rates for 20somethings is so high in Europe.

        1. Judge Napolitano doesn’think the issue is worth freaking out about.

        2. Actually I think it has a lot more to do with difficulties in hiring firing, paperwork, etc, rather than min wage laws.

    2. I’m sure the union is supplying “protestors”

      And you can be sure they aren’t being paid $15 an hour.

      You can be sure they aren’t even being paid $7 an hour. More like $5, in cash; no W-2, no 1099.

    3. The Burger King I go to once in a while is 50% staffed by the family that owns it. Force a wage increase on them and it will be 100% staffed by the family that owns it.

      1. Our betters have a solution for that. Tax it away from the family that owns it when the parents try to pass it on to the next generation.

    4. I am curious too. I’ve seen nothing in the previous articles about these “strikes” that gave a number or % of strikers vs. actual workers.

      I guess that would take too much reporting effort.

  3. Coming soon, the automated burger-cooking machine. Then you just need one manager guy who can also push a broom.

    1. Then you just need one manager guy who can also push a broom.

      No you don’t

      1. DJ Roomba is a scab? For shame.

    2. You mean This guy: http://www.gizmag.com/hamburger-machine/25159/ (H/T some AM Links a while back)

    3. It’s already happening. The cooking/prep is much less labor-intensive than it used to be at individual locations, and, of course, we’re already seeing automated Coke dispensers.

      1. I was working at a McDonalds when the minimum wage went from $3.85 to $4.15. Interestingly, it was in that very same month that they switched from having an employee make fresh breakfast biscuits to getting them frozen in a box, allowing them to have one less person on the floor in the morning. Correlation or causation?

        1. I mentioned this below, but I’ll say it again here: Price sensitivity in fast food is incredible. Consumers will not tolerate fast-food prices going up much. So if labor or other costs increase, they have to cut costs somewhere else, which often means reduced quality and/or centralization of prep work.

          1. Precisely why you never see the “Time to Make The Doughnuts” ad campaign from Dunkin Donuts anymore. Not-so-fresh donuts really killed their business for a while, they had to get into packaged coffee and other food items to attract different clientele since the people that went there for fresh donuts stopped going.

          2. less than 5 years ago, Whoppers were $3, doubles $4, triples $5. Now a Whopper single is going for $4.65.

            About 8 years ago I could get a sausage egg and cheese biscuit for under $2, now it’s over $3 and the biscuits are like rocks. Hello Chick-fil-A.

            1. but not on Sundays…. your choice…

        2. So that’s why the biscuits aren’t as awesome as they used to be.

          I’ve also noticed that fast food priced jumped up a bit right after the recent minimum wage rise.

        3. Correlation or causation?

          Dude, what does that have to do with the FEELZ?

    4. Wait, with CPA’s broom bot, the hamburger machine and the automated coke dispensors, we can make an unmanned burger joint. just have a delivery guy load new imgredients every so often for a bunch of kiosks.

      1. We’ll have drones to deliver fresh ingredients!

        1. There’s a disconnect that needs to be bridged that would allow the drone to load the machines. Once we engineer a solution, we can run a burger empire from one warehouse.

          1. This is starting to sound like a real business plan.

            1. I’ll be the first to invest in ReasonBurgers!

              *waves a wad of $100 bills*

              1. Wait wait wait, I got another one: Burger Drone…Strike your Hunger…Pre-emptively!

          2. Suspect that the delivery drone would be a wheeled vehicle given the weight and bulk of the stock items. Also the need for refrigeration.

            The loader bot could travel with the delivery vehicle or stay at the restaurant depending on what was more efficient.

            But, yeah, totally doable.

          3. Not really, modern cars have parallel parking programs. You don’t need that kind of sensitivity to land on a helipad. Then, just get an automated “forklift” type bot to unload the drone. All existing technology that just needs fit together.

            1. ok, picture this:
              even with a human driving the truck, (at least as far as version 2.5…), he or she backs the truck up to the McAutomat, engages the back of the truck to lock onto the receiving equipment in the “store,” and sterile, hermetically sealed containers are moved from the truck into the “burger and fries and soda- making and dispensing equipment.”

              Empties are offloaded into the truck and it goes home to swap for refills.

              Inside the store, automatic equipment moves the sub-containers to the appropriate making-and-dispensing machines, where customers queue up, press “buttons” on a touch screen to order up what they want, swipe (or wave) their payment card, and a few minutes later, pick up their order. From an Automat-style delivery box (remember Horn & Hardarts?) unlocked only by their ID card (or retinal scan, in v5.2).

              If they’re fast enough and cheap enough and strong enough, individual supply boxes could be Amazon-dronelifted to receiving equipment on the roof of the shop, too, “shipped” from a central “manufacturing and processing” plant to all of the burger outlets in the area.

              Jetsons, here we come!

      2. Reminds me of the Carl’s Jr. in “Idiocracy”.

        1. Perhaps this is the progress in progressive.

        2. “Carl’s Junior has determined that you are an unfit parent.”

      3. But if we automate everything how are the next generation of teen moms going to get knocked up in the stockroom?

        1. Automated, walk-in insemination shops?

    5. McDonald’s burger press cooker, touch of a button operation.

      Does Burger King still use that flame broiler conveyor? Thought those were cool when I was a kid.

    6. I’d rather my burgers be made by a robot. That way when I say “NO GODDAMN ONIONS”, they won’t put any goddamn onions on my burger. And when I say “Hot Mustard”, I won’t get “Honey Mustard”.

      1. Is it any surprise that they can’t get orders right? It’s the lowest possible denominator of employee, which is why they make shit.

        1. It’s the lowest possible denominator of employee, which is why they make shit.

          They haz a right to a living wage!
          /derp

  4. AC_646
    12 hours ago
    Gillespie is like that angry right-winger who stinks up the party before somebody punches him and puts him in a headlock while everyone cheers

    Nowhereman
    12 hours ago
    people that work 40 hours should not be in poverty, so FU Gillespie…you add nothing to humanity you selfish d!ck…you add nothing to society you worthless F()ck…and Christianity wouldn’t let your Cain-like personality in the door…you love America for as much as you can plunder from it’s people and if asked by America to contribute your share, you would quickly leave with your plunder.

    vi-lontano
    17 hours ago
    Since republicans have completely locked up the gov, and the corps have just gone Insane with greed
    STRIKES are the only way forward…

    ; )

    I would also encourage MASS Boycotts – just the threat of one shut up that Pappa’s Pizza guy when he threw a tantrum over BO care – threatening to FIRE people rather than provide healthcare – while he was GIVING AWAY TWO Million Free Pizzas

    Know your enemy.

    1. Know your enemy.

      I live in The People’s Republic of Portlandia. I just have to throw a rock.

      1. The People’s Republic of Portlandia

        “It’s where young people go to retire.”

      2. I just have to throw a rock.

        Please do.

        A big one.

        Fast.

    2. News of the stike makes me want to buy fast food today in support of the corporations instead of going with what’s in my fridge.

      1. Haven’t the progs been saying for the last few years how fast food places create “food desserts” and need to be shut down and banned in poor areas?

        1. The people around the places I planned to visit are anything but poor.

        2. OT, but didn’t they also complain about factories being soul crushing, carpal tunnel causing misery buildings?

          Yet now you can’t get them to shut up about reviving manufacturing.

          1. Yes. But they are also the same people who have spent the last forty years suing to ensure the government never built anything, anywhere, near anything but were convinced Obama could bring back the economy by funding all of these “shovel ready projects”. It is not that they are wrong. Lots of smart people are wrong about things. Everyone is wrong about something. It is that they are bat shit insane and can’t even maintain a coherent world view right or wrong. For them every issue exists in a vacuum and every position taken based on which one feels good and is convenient with no regard to anything that has happened previously.

            1. I’ve seen this in action when they point to roads as a government success story/necessity.

              I then point out that by building highways, etc. the gov’t effectively made the car the default transportation method, resulting in the sprawl and pollution they claim to be against.

              1. They see no need to be consistent. Once, I pointed out to a Team-Blue-bot how the Maryland Democratic Party was telling voters in different parts of the state the exact opposite things. He responded that it was wonderful that the party could be all things to all people.

                1. He responded that it was wonderful that the party could be all things to all people.

                  *facepalm* What the fucking hell? That’s… I don’t even…

              2. And by the actions of the FHA, the shitty-ass public education system and the war on drugs, govt killed the inner city, necessitating white flight…

            2. I have posted this many times here, because it is so accurate:

              “Of course I have no doubt that they will tell you that their mission is to hear of grievances and to obtain their redress. Yes! but a party whose mission is to live entirely upon the discovery of grievances are apt to manufacture the element upon which they subsist.”
              ? Lord Salisbury, speech in Edinburgh, November 24, 1882

              Progressives are not for “progress” per se, but manufacturing and exploiting grievances. That is why they can make a 180-degree turnaround on an issue within a generation.

        3. That’s why they want burger joints to employ 100 people per shift at $15/hr., but not sell anything, or sell only what they dictate.

          If that sounds crazy, just look at what they want to do with coal mining and logging.

      2. News of the stike makes me want to buy fast food today in support of the corporations instead of going with what’s in my fridge.

        I took it a step further and went to Chik-fil-a.

        1. If only it weren’t 7 blocks away in 15 degree cold…

          I guess Subway will have to do.

    3. They always have a scapegoat don’t they? They are nothing if not predictable. No matter what happens, it is always the fault of some enemy who needs to be punished. What a pissed off and miserable way to go through life.

      1. That, and I’m always dumbfounded by the fact that they always equate profits with plunder. They literally think that doing business is the same as stealing, apparently.

        1. But they would happily sell their house and cash in on an increase in equity. They would never make the connection that selling something for more than you paid for it is a “profit”. For them profits are a mark of Satan only “corporations” and “exploiters” can have.

          1. Only the other guys are plundering. What they do is wholesome and good. They are in complete denial of reality.. that is until their actions come around to negatively affect them. But even then they will still blame it on the other guys likely.

            1. Dr. Milton Friedman example from his 1980 Donahue appearance. “None of us are greedy, it is only the other guy who is greedy.”

        2. In their distorted worldview, then, why do people go into business?

          1. To help people. Nearly all of their insanity and stupidity can be traced back to that one misconception. Progs cannot comprehend that people will work for themselves rather than the collective.

            They really are Marx’s retarded children. The old Marxists understood that the bourgeois wouldn’t work for the collective. Their solution to that was to murder the social classes that wouldn’t work for the collective. That solution was evil and insane. But it at least recognized the problem. Progs can’t even go that far. They can’t or won’t advocate murder. So they go through life pretending people will work for the collective and build their policies based on that assumption.

            1. They can’t or won’t advocate murder.

              as long as we have the guns, that is.

            2. There’s a diagnosis for that: pathological altruism.

          2. To rip everyone off. Duh.

          3. In their distorted worldview, then, why do people go into business?
            In short.

      2. They’re miserable because they hate themselves (for good reason, because I sure hate them too), and they project that hate outward (or else they’d probably commit suicide). The reason we see so much projection from them is that everything they accuse their objects of hate of doing, thinking, or feeling, they actually do, think, or feel. And they realize they’re scum. So they defend their sanity by convincing themselves that everyone is like them, and are in fact worse, so they’re not horrible people, and are in fact fighting the good fight.

        This is why they’re so delusional and irrational. Because their entire existence is a desperate, scrabbling attempt to deny the shittiness of their own nature. Why do you think someone coming along and saying the right words means so much to them, while actions mean nothing? Because the words help them continue their delusion and projection, and so they latch on to them.

        1. This is an accurate description of progressives and bible-thumpers. The New Pope was designed for them.

          1. Yes, good point. Both groups have come to think of a way they are supposed to live (that happens to not correspond well to human nature), and when they cannot live up to it (because it goes against human nature), they hate themselves for it. But instead of just lighting themselves on fire or coming to their senses about human nature, they redirect that hatred outward at everyone else who they project their own failings on, and rail against them as a proxy for railing against themselves.

            The only good thing about this is that they’re miserable. Utterly miserable.

          2. bible-thumpers. The New Pope

            What is the one thing that Catholics generally arent?

            1. Church-goers?

              (Speaking as a lapsed Catholic…)

            2. Still with their original spouse?

        2. The reason we see so much projection from them is that everything they accuse their objects of hate of doing, thinking, or feeling, they actually do, think, or feel. And they realize they’re scum. So they defend their sanity by convincing themselves that everyone is like them

          It’s not always the case. A good many of them have convinced themselves that everyone really is his brother’s keeper and that it should be required to be his keeper.

          My sister-in-law just couldn’t understand why I told her that I owed her nothing and likewise, she owed me nothing, other than not to harm each other. She just couldn’t wrap her head around the concept and this is a woman with a PhD. (I know, shocker).

          Of course, she and her hubby, neither of them dumb by any stretch, have some of the worst decision making skills of anyone I’ve ever known. They just think that (due to their piss-poor decisions with adverse financial results) the world owes them something from their mere existence on the planet.

          1. That’s another aspect to it, but I think that’s actually a form of mild sociopathy. The reason they think you owe them something is because you are not a person to them, you are a puppet in their mental theater. You are there to be part of their world, and your purpose is to provide things for them (entertainment, money, whatever). The reason they don’t take responsibility for their own actions is that they don’t even know what that means.

            When you are sociopathic, there is no personal responsibility, because (and I am using extreme language here to describe something that I think is only moderately occurring) you are the only “human” in your world. In such a case, responsibility doesn’t mean anything.

            So if you look at a lot of the actions and thoughts and statements of these people, you will see aspects of mild sociopathy all over the place.

            1. They love people in the abstract. But they cannot understand or in any way empathize with individual people. This is why they are so bothered by the enormous harm their policies cause.

            2. Lee Harvey Oswald is a text book example of a western leftist. Pathetic loser with no marketable skills but an enormous sense of self importance. In the US people like that lead protests and occasionally kill a President. In places like Cuba or Russia or Latin America they murder millions.

              1. Come on John. Oswald is no more like the typical ‘western leftist’ than James Earl Ray was a typical ‘southern conservative.’

                1. Really? He actually was sympathetic to Communism and the Soviet Union. Just like typical western leftists.

                  1. Perhaps he just thought voters should be able to organize their communities how they see fit?

                    1. Well he did defect to the Soviet Union, choosing to live in a community more to his liking.

                    2. You should love him then!

                2. Oswald is no more like the typical ‘western leftist’

                  Do you criticize everyone who conflates the individual with a group? No? Dont worry, I wont accuse you of a double standard.

                  1. robc, your problem is one of grammar, not conflation.

                    If two libertarians publish a book, is it incorrect to say of the book ‘it is a book by libertarians?’ Of course not. Anyone who thought by that was meant ‘it is a book by all libertarians’ would be the one making the error.

                    That is what you do when I use a phrase like ‘West Virginian SoCons Argue For Obscenity Laws.’

                3. James Earl Ray was a typical Southern White Supremicist, with is not the same thing as conservative.

                  I said “leftist” not “liberal”. And Oswald was most certainly a typical western leftist. He only killed two people. But Western leftists in Latin America killed hundreds of thousands. Had the US been a more dysfunction country and the opportunities for revolution been better, Oswald would have been the same sort of criminal that Che Guvera or Danial Ortega or Fidel Castro were.

                  If you want to defend leftists Bo, have fun. But understand that Leftist own a river of blood flowing through the 20th Century. Being a Leftist is no different than being a Nazi. You can claim you are different all you want. But you can’t deny you advocate the same policies all of those murders advocated and share an association with them.

                  1. Not all leftists are murders or supporters of murder, though I readily agree many have been.

                    1. Not all Nazis are murderers Bo. But so what? If you advocate for the same policies, you are going to be associated with them. And has it ever occurred to you that the things leftists advocate for, when taken to their logical conclusion end in mass murder? If you don’t believe me, show me any place where committed leftists ever took complete power where mass murder didn’t result.

                    2. If you advocate for the same policies that result in murder and misery, you are not just associated with the perpetrators, you are complicit to the resultant crimes.

                    3. Every law and every regulation has a gun at the end of it.

                      Who advocates for more laws and regulations than leftists?

            3. When you are sociopathic, there is no personal responsibility,

              I was listening to a podcast with a scholar specializing in Russian culture and he basically said that The Soviet Union eliminated personal responsibility from the culture for so long that when their government collapsed they literally were incapable of replacing it with anything that could actually function in any other way. Putin was inevitable.

          2. It’s not always the case. A good many of them have convinced themselves that everyone really is his brother’s keeper and that it should be required to be his keeper.

            They’re? CORPORATISTS.

            In the pre-WWII sense of viewing society as an interconnected body (corpus), not the modern sense of businesses controlling society (which, ironically, corporatism was designed to prevent).

        3. One of the biggest piles of bullshit that this society buys into is the idea that people hate because of poverty and oppression. No people hate for a lot of reasons, some of them personal. But one of the biggest reasons is as a way to avoid responsibility for their own failures. If it is all the Jews’ fault or the corporations’ fault or whoever, then I don’t have to accept responsibility for my life not turning out the way I wanted it to.

          This, I am convinced is why academics are so often hard core leftists. The typical academic wakes up every day thinking he is the smartest guy in the room. But he lives in a society where no one gives a shit what he thinks and people he considers stupid and vile (businessmen) are the ones who are listened to and considered important. But rather than reconsider their career choice or their sense of self importance, they transfer all of their inadequacies and disappointments onto capitalism and corporations.

          I don’t know if you have spent much time around college campuses. But if you have, you will know exactly the type I am talking about.

          The other common type of Prog is the trust fund baby who can’t get over the guilt of having everything given to them and turns against the system that rewarded them as an expression of their own self hate. The thing nearly all hardcore progs have in common is as you say a general self loathing and sense of immense guilt that they turn outward and onto various designated enemies.

          1. They just have to pull everyone else into their self-hatred. if they would just stew in their own juices, it would be fine, but no: they will do anything they can to drag you into their personal hell with them. It’s maddening. I guess it relates to “misery loves company”, but I swear there’s more to it than that. More of “if I can’t be happy, nobody can”.

            1. Do you guys not see the irony in talking about how hate filled these people are while going on and on about how much you hate them and they are miserable, scapegoating scum? Take a step back fellows.

              They are wrong and their wrongness is harmful and must be opposed, but for the most part they be men not monsters.

              1. I see the irony in a eristic moron like yourself completely misunderstanding an attempt to suss out the psychological underpinnings of why certain people absolutely must control others, new Tulpa. And I guarantee you don’t, but that’s not surprising, because you’re not very bright.

                1. Of course, it is simply eristic of me to point out how odd it seems for you to pontificate on the hate filled psychology of people while going on and on about how they are self-hating, projecting, miserable, sociopathic, irresponsible haters.

                  No irony there at all. Carry on!

                  1. Thank you for proving my point so perfectly, New Tulpa. You are incapable of doing anything but.

                    1. Let me ask you, are actually incapable of debating someone who disagrees with you? For the months I have been posting here I have never seen you once do so. You love to go on for fifteen to twenty posts piling on about how much you hate progressives and how ironically they are hate filled people. But whenever I have seen anyone disagree with you, your response is usually to insult them and move on. Why even go to a discussion board for that?

              2. Two days ago the commenter Restoras mocked a post of mine about social conservatives trying to prohibit the opening of a casino in NY. I asked him what his problem with the post was and he let his mask slip saying ‘I support the right of voters to organize their communities how they see fit.’

                Explain to me how the masked slipped and reveals me to be a SoCon.

                1. Because you support the right of the voters to organize their communities to see fit, barring people from voluntary activities if they see fit. You said it, not me.

                  By the way, I guess you are ‘down with’ localities setting a ‘living wage?’ After all it meets all your criteria. The voters decided, it is their locality, nothing in the BoR about it, and people that do not like can just move elsewhere, right?

                  1. So that makes me a SoCon? Please explain.

                    1. It certainly does not allow for any libertarianism that I know of. If you want to argue you are a progressive that is fine I guess.

                    2. Or you could argue that I am a fascist. Or a monarchist. Or a conservative. Or a liberal. Or a republican. Or a democrat. Or a heterosexual. Or a homosexual. Or a papist. Or a communist. Or a zionist. Or a feminist. You could even argue I am a libertarian.

                      Please explain how I am a SoCon. Becasue it seems to me that because I chose to mock you and your obsession with SoCons, you then assumed that makes me a SoCon, when in fact I am simply mocking YOU and YOUR OBSESSION.

                      Have you stopped to consider that because you obsess with SoCons that might make people think you are some sort of hard-core progtard, or at least sympathetic with them? Because hardcore progtards are obsessed with SoCons too, so by your own logic that must make you a hard-core progtard. Be careful, you might let your mask slip.

                    3. Ignore it, Restoras. It sees SoCons. They’re everywhere.

                    4. Perhaps, but I really want to understand its logic. It has arrived here and seems to beleive that it is some sort of Libertarian Arbiter, or at least has far more knowledge and experience with the school of thought than anyone else here. Now maybe it does in fact possess this knowledge, that remains to be seen. But it has called me out as a SoCon and not remotely libertarian and I wish to understand how it arrived at this conclusion. Not too mention that I was the one who called for the board to give it some leniency owing to its status as a newbie as it did seem to be arguing in good faith, unlike shreek and Tony, even if it was a bit sophomoric.

                    5. It is high irony for you to try to play this Arbiter snark. It was you who had a problem with what I was posting. And what I was posting was: examples of social conservatives violating the NAP.

                      Now, that seems an odd thing for a libertarian on a libertarian website to complain about. So I asked you, what is the deal? And you said you agreed with the social conservatives, that they should be able to bar casinos from opening and operating in their localities, and that people should be able to organize their communities how they see fit. Now, that explains why you would have so much of a problem with posts about social conservatives breaking libertarian principles, because you do not share them.

                      If you want to explain what you see as your libertarianism, one where a majority of the voters in an area can get together and prohibit adults from voluntary transactions, then by all means do so. I am no arbiter of libertarianism, but one need not be to remark that your comment seems incompatible with any libertarian philosophy I have ever seen.

                    6. And you said you agreed with the social conservatives

                      You’ll have to provide a citation of this quote.

                    7. That is a feint. Let us hear your squaring of your comment with the libertarian circle, by all means.

                    8. So, you can’t provide the citation?

                    9. It is because the only regular postings I have seen you mock are criticisms of conservatives, and then you conceded you are not a libertarian. I think that is a fair inference.

                    10. Oh, of course you should factor in your full throated endorsement of communities prohibiting people from opening and operating casinos.

                    11. Oh, of course you should factor in your full throated endorsement of communities prohibiting people from opening and operating casinos.

                      By your own logic I would also support communities that alloow them to open. Right?

                    12. It is your logic, friend, not mine.

                      I would not grant local governments the power to prohibit people from entering into consensual transactions.

                    13. No Bo, that is the exact logic you used to equate me as a SoCon. Do you deny that?

                    14. I do.

                      Let me leave this discussion with this: you are bothered by postings about social conservatives pushing violations of libertarianism. I have not seen you be bothered by postings of leftists pushing the same. When asked about the former you concede to a view that can not be squared with libertarianism.

                      So, what type of person thinks government should be able to ‘organize the community’ as it sees fit, is opposed to leftists organizing communities as they see fit, but speaks out in support of conservatives doing so?

                      I think the answer is obvious: a conservative.

                      If you have a better explanation I will leave you the last word here.

                    15. You suffer from a severe retardation that impedes your reading comprehension, my friend. In fact I did not say

                      type of person thinks government should be able to ‘organize the community’ as it sees fit,

                      but quite the opposite.

                      The fact that you see in my position a ‘government’ organizing the ‘community’, and not the ‘community organizing itself’ reveals you to be a hard-core progressive. That and your obsession with SoCons, of course.

                      So why are you here? The libertarian world wonders.

                    16. Restoras,

                      See shreek and Tonio’s total conviction that I am a SOCON. If you defend someone’s right to be think a certain way, apparently that means you must be one of those people, because who could ever defend the rights of someone you didn’t like or disagreed with?

                    17. John, I would not say you are a SoCon, but you are an expressly admitted conservative and Republican. I imagine that since SoCons are such a big part of your group’s alliance you care less for criticism of them than you do your arch-foes, the progressives. It is only natural.

                      What I think you and Restoras may miss is that to a libertarian these groups are all just statists. If you want to argue the SoCons are the lesser threat right now, I would agree actually. But a threat nonetheless.

                    18. What I think you and Restoras may miss is that to a libertarian these groups are all just statists

                      Hear that John? We aren’t smart enough to recognize a statist when we see one.

                    19. Well, to a conservative (or a liberal) a statist is not a very interesting category, since they accept that themselves. It is not a lack of intellectual capacity there, fish just do not see the water they swim in, so to speak.

                    20. Well, to a conservative (or a liberal) a statist is not a very interesting category, since they accept that themselves. It is not a lack of intellectual capacity there, fish just do not see the water they swim in, so to speak.

                      Hear that John? Not only are we not smart enough to recognize a statist, we actually are statists.

                      I am learning so much from our new Aribter.

              3. Do you guys not see the irony in talking about how hate filled these people are while going on and on about how much you hate them?

                Oh, man. Good luck with that one.

            2. It’s part of maintaining their self-delusion. The more miserable they are, they more they’ll double down on the policies that cause the misery. To do anything else would mean facing up to a lifetime of being a monster. On top of that, they believe the problem is you, not them, so they’ll drag you down to punish you, to sate their collectivist desire to force you to do the “right” thing, and because if you’re miserable too then it helps them believe existence is awful for everyone, not just them.

              1. And, it prevents them from actually having to do the hard work of improving their situation.

          2. “If it is all the Jews’ fault or the corporations’ fault or whoever, then I don’t have to accept responsibility for my life not turning out the way I wanted it to.”

            ^^Oh man, this * infinity.

            I did very well in school growing up, and had family, parents and teachers telling me I was going to amount to something spectacular. But my smarts actually resulted in me coasting a lot and never developing the work ethic necessary for great things.

            For about 4 years, this made me a bitter, bitter man. Eventually I came to terms with my limitations. I earn a very good living, have a nice family, and understand that my personal flaws- laziness, drinking, temper, etc- are what hold me back.

            Meanwhile so many of my friends are in exactly the same place I am- decent, even well-to-do lives- but lacking the introspection to understand it is THEY who hold themselves back. And to them, society is to blame always and in any case.

          3. Some day we must talk of those many instances in history when anti-intellectualism was a helpful attitude.

            1. Some day we must talk of those many instances in history when anti-intellectualism was a helpful attitude.

              Like the French Revolution? Oh no, that was led by the intelligentsia, never mind.

    4. What’s absurd is that we’ve been heading the direction these people want for a while, all while watching our economy get weaker and weaker. Guess they won’t be happy until everyone is equally poor.

      1. they won’t be happy until everyone is equally poor.

        Precisely

        1. Or, what alan_s said, if you’re into the brevity thing.

      2. Look at him, would you. Lording over us, with his pants with only one hole in them. Get that filthy rich bastard!

      3. True as far as it goes, but the end goal is that “equally poor” guarantees “easy to control”.

      4. Well, not quite. The revolutionary vanguard democratically-elected leaders will need a superior level of comfort, convenience, and security due to the nature of their work for the good of the masses all.

    5. Giving away two million free pizzas? Oh the humanity!

      1. Are they real pizzas or deep dish casseroles?

        1. I believe PJ’s only sells original crust or thin crust, making them the official large chain pizza place of Reason!*

          *Bonus, they hate the ACA.

          1. I had to ask, I have a local Pizza place, so I haven’t bought from the chains in recent memory.

          2. Their pepperoni is barfalicious. And their sauce tastes like a pile of sugar. Fuck Papa John’s.

            1. Well we can’t align with Pizza Hut or Dominos, they sell pan pizzas!

            2. Have you tried Hungry Howie’s? We love it.

          3. 2nd bonus, I can walk to PJ’s house.

            He was sitting it the bar of a local restaurant a few weekends ago when I was there. Chatting with barkeep about beer and handing out free pizza coupons to kids.

        2. Are they real pizzas or deep dish casseroles?

          Even worse, Little Caesar’s deep dish “pizzas”

    6. Know your enemy.

      Every time I read a comments section of a mainstream rag, I’m reminded of why I became an anarchist.

      1. The thing I’m most struck by oftentimes is the grasping collectivism. Reading their words is like feeling fingers grasping at my pants leg as I’m trying to tread water; they just want to drag everyone down with them, and they are as mindless as zombies.

    7. “Since republicans have completely locked up the gov, and the corps have just gone Insane with greed”

      Obo is a rethug?!
      Oh, and I’m definitely going to have a Quarter Pounder with fries for lunch.

    8. I would also encourage MASS Boycotts

      Me too. Fuck Massachusetts.

    9. Gillespie is like that angry right-winger who stinks up the party before somebody punches him and puts him in a headlock while everyone cheers

      Ah, violence. The first resort of the immorally sadistic.

      1. Ah, violence. The first resort of the immorally sadistic.

        But remember, they’re the tolerant and open minded ones.

      2. Most likely written by a noodle-armed poster that’s still bitter about getting shoved in the lockers in high school.

    10. before somebody punches him and puts him in a headlock while everyone cheers

      All you need to know right there.

      1. Watch out for those badass progs – probably all a bunch of UFC mofos

    11. Christianity wouldn’t let your Cain-like personality in the door.

      Damn socons at DB, always quotin’ Jesus talkin’ about the holy $15/hr wage.

    12. People get paid for the value of their labor, not for how much they need. If their labor is not worth much, they won’t get paid much.

      A long time ago I broke it down to two simple questions:
      1. How much revenue does your labor generate?
      2. How hard are you to replace?

    13. thanks for making it clear who the enemy is and what they think and believe.

      Next best thing to a big bull’s eye on your back. YOUR back.

  5. Minimum wage, because it is the government’s job to ensure that the young, inexperienced and unskilled don’t get a chance and those who need a second chance don’t get one.

    Libertarians need to personalize this issue. What the asshole progs are saying is that the black teenager, the guy who just got out of jail, the mother whose husband’s hours just got cut because of Obamacare, shouldn’t be able to go out and work to improve themselves. Minimum wage is just pulling up the ladder from the unemployed, the poor and the low skilled.

    1. Libertarians need to personalize this issue. What the asshole progs are saying is that the black teenager, the guy who just got out of jail, the mother whose husband’s hours just got cut because of Obamacare, shouldn’t be able to go out and work to improve themselves.

      Jeff’s Story

      1. I am blocked from youtube. But I assume that story is a kick in the nuts.

        1. Not a nut kick. More like a nut vise slowly tightening.

          Tl/dr version Jeffrey Tucker’s first job was at a department store doing building maintenance/janitorial work. He worked alongside a mentally retarded kid named Chad that his boss had hired out of charity (Chad’s dad went to the same church as the boss).

          Chad was nice, childlike, and had deformities that made people very uncomfortable, and loved his job.

          When the minimum wage went up, the store couldn’t afford to pay everyone the new wage, so they cut costs in part by firing Chad. The boss was felt like a shit about it, but it was either cut costs or start operating at a loss.

          Jeff never saw him again, and found out later that Chad died two years later from his congenital disorders.

          Apparently it took three takes, because Jeffrey Tucker kept breaking down.

          1. Damn. I uh… just damn.

          2. To me that is a nut kick.

          3. One of my wife’s uncle was definitely a special needs fellow – undiagnosed since he was born in the 1950s. Once he lost his job washing dishes, everything went down in short order. ~2 years later, he died in a hospital. He just sort of gave up on life, refusing to take his medication.

          4. A friend of mine owned a pizza joint and told me a very similar story. He employed a mildly retarded teenager. The kid was good at his job, but the unfortunate reality was this kind of job was about as good as it was going to get for this guy.

            Minimum wage went up and, well, guess who’s the most marginal producer he employed? My friend felt sick about it, everyone loved this sweet guy, but in the end he had to let him go. I don’t know if he met with the tragic results that Chad did. But the job at the old min wage was better than no job at all.

            Progs have no conception of this reality. To them my friend is just the “oppressor”. He’s “rich” and stomped his boot on the kid’s face. Nevermind the reality that he paid himself a modest salary and that most of his wealth was tied up in productive business assets that in turn were bought with borrowed money on a note he was depending on a razor thin profit margin to pay back in a wildly difficult sector to compete in. Don’t pay the note and he could lose everything, house included.

            You can try to personalize these issues, I’ve had some success with that approach. But mostly when you try to explain these nuances to progs it’s fingers-in-ears-la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you.

            1. ^This. Because in proggieland it’s all cartoonish fatcats taking home multi-million dollar salaries (NTTAWWT), and flogging the peasants so they can get a second vacation home.

            2. Tell them how since the ADA was passed, the % of disabled who work full time as dropped. I assume the response will be we just need more laws or AA for gimps

      2. That was well done. I like the lefty commenter who is upset by his opponents making an appeal to emotion.

    2. You don’t understand the progs’ long game. When you point to “he black teenager, the guy who just got out of jail,” people like Obama will nod in sad agreement, tell you how awful it is that capitalism has failed these people, and how what we really need is a lot more government spending on programs to give these people good jobs.

  6. Know your enemy.

    Evidently, the enemy are complete morons.

    1. But they made up for it by being angry and hateful.

    2. And evidently there’s a level even lower, possibly on the unreachable border of peak Derp, because they keep winning elections.

  7. Yeah, I knew a guy who was all excited when they organized some security guards in Los Angeles. He figured he’d get a nice raise and benefits but they ended up negotiating contract that cut his hourly wage.

    1. So he made less money, and was obligated to give a chunk to some union stooges? Careful what you wish for.

    2. Anecdotally, this happened to the garage attendants where I used to work.

      The staff is almost exclusively Vietnamese and they were used to taking long, annual vacations to the homeland, which the management agreed to and it seemed to work out fine.

      Then, they decided to unionize. No more long, annual trips to the homeland. D’oh.

      1. Another anecdote.

        I used to work in the cellular field when I was younger. I worked for Alltel and made a decent living. After a few years in the business, I got recruited to AT&T. I found out after I got hired that AT&T is a union store and was forced to join. I was assured that union wages were much higher and I would be making more money to compensate for the $80 they took out of each check. See, the thing is, I’m really good at math, so as soon as I started looking at their commission schedule I knew something was amiss. As it turned out, not only was my base hourly a dollar an hour less, I made half as much in commissions.

        A while later, while I was working for Verizon, I heard mumblings of unionizing, so I went to the meetings. The union reps that were there were very excited that they had a former union member there to speak. They didn’t count on me bringing a bunch of pay stubs and commission reports for direct comparison. I showed them what I made in a typical month at Verizon and then showed them what I would have made selling the exact same amount at AT&T. The room was silent. Of course, I was asked to leave after that, but at least they had the decency to let me finish.

  8. This was nicely written, and it’s nice to actually know the numbers.

    So what is the deal with the “Walmart food drive for its employees?” Looked like the usual FB drivel.

    1. The employees at some stores have organized an assistance program to help fellow employees that have had a bad year (i.e., spouse out of work/laid off, illness, etc.). The MSM and progtards ran with the meme that Walmart is such a horrible place to work, it’s employees have charity drives for each other to compensate for the shitty wages.

      1. “The MSM and progtards ran with the meme that Walmart is such a horrible place to work, it’s employees have charity drives for each other to compensate for the shitty wages.”

        And the internal contradiction was ignored:
        How can people on shitty wages donate to other people on shitty wages?

        1. Since progtards evidently view the economy as a perpetual-motion machine, that isn’t much of a stretch for them.

        2. I used to do pick ups for the local food drive. I got one of the worst neighborhoods. But still people there gave, while the other half wanted to know where they could get the food we were about to give away.

      2. I wonder why the MSM doesn’t cover all the leave donation programs, etc. that Feds conduct amongst themselves to help each other out?

    2. It was an internal, associates-only drive for indigent employees to have a nice Thanksgiving. Which is somehow proof Wal*Mart is evil, I guess.

    3. Thanks, that makes a lot more sense.

  9. I haven’t seen a strike, but someone should show up to one with a camera and microphone to ask this simple question:

    What effect does a price floor have on a market?


    1. What effect does a price floor have on a market?

      I’m sure the answer would be something pretty close to this.

    1. Had two of those yesterday. It amazes me what 3 bucks will buy sometimes.

  10. did someone make a 50k donation to reason this morning?

    It went from under a quarter to over 3/4s filled.

    1. I was wondering about that too..

    2. KOCHTOPUS!

      1. Why does Reasonable block Kochtopus, for Bog’s sake?

        1. Aw, it does?

          It’s because Mary used to say “KOCH koch KOCHTOPUS” and then shit her pants…not necessarily in that order.

        2. You can turn it off by deleting it from the content filter.

    3. You’re welcome. I didn’t actually give (still looking for a jerb) but I’d like to think I’m still somehow responsible. So you and Reason are welcome.

  11. I’ve read a big factor why the unions are so bent on this, is because many of their contracts they currently have use the minimum wage as a base constant in their members contracts salary formulas. If minimum wage goes up, many of their members (most of which – if not all do not earn minimum wage) will get a bigger paycheck.

    1. I was just going to post something to that effect exactly. THAT is the union’s interest, self-serving as always and, by extension, it drives the interest of the left.

      They could give a shit about whoever’s making minimum. They give a mighty shit about those whose money they can launder into campaign funds.

      1. Worse, they don’t care if those jobs get eliminated – only that their members are enriched by it. Just like everything, we are all driven by own self interest. But it seems they would not stop at anything over kicking a guy to the curb if it would their members.

    2. If minimum wage goes up, many of their members (most of which – if not all do not earn minimum wage) will get a bigger paycheck.

      Which proves that the unions know, even if they don’t admit, that raising minimum wage increases the prices of all goods and services.

  12. THINK OF THE PEER PRESSURE

    Kachelle Krump, 23, works at a Burger King in the area. She told the BBC she works 16-to-20 hours a week and would like more hours, but that management has been unresponsive.

    “I have a child who is seven years old – she’s in school, she needs things,” said Ms Krump.

    Of her employer, Burger King, she said: “It’s a billion dollar company, share a little.”

    1. It’s not Burger King’s fault you were stupid enough to get knocked up at 16.

      1. No kidding. I can guarantee you that she has made just that one mistake. People like this have made a lifetime of mistakes. I see it all the time.

      2. It’s obviously the patriarchy’s fault for making womyn the sex class and denying them agency. (I really need to cut back on my reading of radfem blogs.)

      3. It’s not Burger King’s fault you were stupid enough to get knocked up at 16.

        It’s the rethuglicans fault for opposing free contraception!!!!111!!!
        WAR ON WOMENZ!!11!!!

    2. Of her employer, Burger King, she said: “It’s a billion dollar company, share a little.”

      I thought they ran on the franchise model, making it a small company that paid BK for the rights to use their branding.

      1. Yes, most are. There’s a handful of restaurants that are corporately owned similar to other fast food chains.

      2. Or, you know, she could learn some skills and make her labor more valuable.

      3. Well, she’s not wrong about that, at least. According to the BK financial report I’m looking at, for 2012 they had about $2B in total revenues.

        The franchise model makes BK financials a littler harder to analyze, since I don’t think most people working at a BK are “BK employees”, technically. There are only about 418 BK-owned restaurants, versus about 12,600 franchised ones.
        Payroll and employee benefits cost about $345 million – I have no idea if that includes franchisee pay or not.

    3. Caption at the bottom of the article: SeaTac in Washington state is the first US city to pass a “living wage”

      Maybe the BBC can help out Brit unemployment by filling that vacant fact check position.

    4. She could have more hours if governments hadn’t made it prohibitively expensive to approach or exceed 40 hours.

    5. if there was only a way that people working in fast food could improve their lot in life, decisions they could make to learn new skills, etc.

      1. That’s why we need MORE funding to help the low-income through college!

        /progtard

    6. Hey, hey Kachelle, does Burger King owe you something? I know I sure as hell don’t owe you a damn thing. Not a minimum wage, not a living wage, not one red penny, I don’t owe you anything, neither do you owe me anything for that matter. So, why should I assume, based on your groveling that BK owes you something? The only mark I see going against them is they accepted your application. Which makes doing business with you the heart of the problem.

    7. I’d say ‘take a hike, Ms. Krump.’

    8. And I like how she says “share a little” as if giving her a bit more money is all that is necessary. Significant;y increasing every employee’s pay is a whole lot more than “a little”.

      1. But it’s a billion dollar company. With a b!

    9. then get another job… you can even work two. It sucks, but I’m sure Wendy’s or McDonalds would easily hire someone with her background.

      1. Getting a second job would entail too much effort. Going to a second location to get in a full 40 hours a week and all.

    10. There’s always prostitution. Even if you aren’t too good looking, you can always make it up in volume. You could do quite a few $10 BJs in an hour.

      1. Better be good BJs for 10 bucks a pop.

        1. Ugh. Why would you drink that when there is whiskey in the world?

  13. I’m too cowardly to go over to the Beast. How do the commenters there react to Nick’s articles?

    1. not well. They tend to view libertarians with even more harshness than Repubs. It’s kinda funny to banter with them, to tell you the truth. On occasion, you find someone willing to think but when that person deviates from the hive, even he/she is turned on.

      1. They should. If we had our way, the state and all of their little reality-defying fantasies would be gutted. The GOP really gives them what they want, most of the time. We didn’t get to Neosocialism without a ton of Republican connivance.

        1. but you’re talking about people who are so Team focused that it blinds them to reality. The site tends to be heavy on boilerplate pabulum – Repubs are sexist, racist, hate everyone, etc – while the left walks with the angels.

          When one of theirs strays from dogma on, say, gun control, or noticing the continuum from Bush to Obama, it’s cannibalism all the way down.

  14. Every time minimum wage goes up, quality goes down. Once upon a time an employee made the breakfast biscuits at McDonalds. Now they are frozen in a box. Those folded eggs on the breakfast sandwiches? Once upon a time they would crack eggs, then beat them, then cook them on the grill. Then they switched to cooking liquid pasteurized eggs. Now they just reheat pre-cooked frozen eggs. They used to slice their own vegetables. Now they come pre-cut in vacuum packs. Each one of these quality destroying advances allows for one less person per shift.

    1. It’s a real challenge, because people are amazingly price sensitive with fast food. Can’t raise the price, costs are rising, really only one option.

      1. Back in high school a Big Mac Meal was $2.99 + tax.

        “That’ll be $3.20 at the second window.” Customer pays with exact change. Leave money on counter. Look around. Hand off food to customer. Look around again. Manager can be seen. Ring up order and cash it out in seconds. Manager pats employee on the back for keeping drive-thru time averages low which makes the manager look good. Little does he know that had he not been around, that exact change would have gone into the star employee’s pocket.

        1. Is that something you’ve…. seen happen?

          1. Rumors. Strictly rumors. Yeah, that’s it. Rumors.

    2. It’s so.. unexpected, though.

  15. “The protests are organized by groups affiliated with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and inlcude calls for unionizing fast-food workers along with the demand to double the minimum wage to $15 an hour.”
    Note the ‘protests’ are NOT organized by the people working in these places; they are organized by SEIU thugs.

  16. I wrote about a labor action planned for today in which protesters show up outside fast-food outlets and clamor for a $15 minimum wage

    It’s a distraction, a mirage. That big a hike will not happen, could not have the effect that some clueless and economically-ignorant morons think, and employers are not going to take such a hit sitting down.

    There’s nothing here that hasn’t happened before. This is an obvious diversion from the usual cadre of Obama’s unconditionals to distract people from the dismal failure of his “economic” policies. The $1B stimulus did not work; Cash 4 Clunkers crashed and burned; the labor participation rate is horrible; Dodd-Frank is having the unintended (or maybe intended) economic drag everybody predicted; so, the president is in need of a few convenient scapegoats. This is nothing more than 3rd world politics unfurling before everyone’s eyes; I’ve seen these theatrics performed many times in Mexico during the 80s and 90s. This is nothing new.

    1. You’ve left out the fact that no one is sure what their med insurance is going to cost next year.
      Merry Christmas, Obo, you lying POS!

    2. I’m for whatever proves to redistribute some wealth downward. At least a minimum wage makes people work for it.

      There are few domestic problems that don’t find their root in vastly increased wealth inequality. Of course you’d rather let the whole country burn than tax a billionaire a dollar. Because you’re moral!

      1. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

        1. WTF, what I’d like to know is, why are there retarded people in this thread with my fellow commenters?

          1. Word got out Reason gives its commentators cake.

            1. you didn’t bake that.

          2. The best I can figure is that certain topics just draw them, like zombies to the living.
            Since they have none of their own, they seek BRAINZ!!

            1. Both of you disappoint me. The proper response was:

              “Episiarch, we’re doing our best to weed them out, but some of these retards are extremely clever.”

              1. I feel like a failure now.
                *hangs head in shame*

              2. Goddammit, totally didn’t see this.

        2. But some of these retards are extremely clever!

    3. ” This is nothing more than 3rd world politics unfurling before everyone’s eyes;”

      The Obama administration in a nutshell.

  17. Fewer than 3 percent of all workers in the United States make the minimum wage.

    Wasn’t the rule, a few weeks ago, that if only 3-5% of the population suffered “it was no big deal” and fuck’em anyways? So in this case, if 3-5% of workers have to earn lower wages, it’s for a better and juicier society, with cheap food for the children to bloat out on.

    1. Look at the small percentage of the country that actually didn’t have health insurance. We’re wrecking the industry and hurting the economy for that tiny minority (really tiny when you take out the kids voluntarily passing on insurance).

    2. And note that homosexuals are about that percentage of the population. Heck even “transsexual rights” are supposedly a large and pressing problem, despite the minuscule numbers. Not all minorities are equal to progs.

    3. Yes, but we couldn’t see THOSE people. THESE

    4. Yes, but THOSE people couldn’t be seen, so it was all right. THESE people are out in force and in sight, where statists could make a big stink about it and make fun of their adversaries, so it’s ok.

  18. Over at Pharyngula, PZ meyers has misquoted a similar article, overstating median bank cheif executive pay by three orders of magnitude!

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/ph…..stainable/

    PZ version:

    Profits at the nation’s banks topped $141.3 billion last year, with the median chief executive pay hovering around $552 million, according to SNL Financial. In contrast, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics pegs the median annual income of a bank teller at $24,100, or $11.59 an hour.

    Actual version:

    Profits at the nation’s banks topped $141.3 billion last year, with the median chief executive pay hovering around $552,000, according to SNL Financial. In contrast, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics pegs the median annual income of a bank teller at $24,100, or $11.59 an hour.

    1. What’s a decimal point to an ignorant lefty?

      1. I thought they honestly believed that 1,000 = 1 million, having no idea how many zeroes come after the significant digit.

        1. No, Myers is a biology professor and understands math. He used to be better about the facts, but might be wishful thinking on his part.

          He’s also incredibly ignorant about anything outside his specialty. Several years ago his mortgage got sold to a different bank and he asked his readers if this meant they could raise his rate. So no clue whatsoever about how contracts work.

    2. I tried to read and comment at pharyngula once several years back. Morons. Worse, wll of my comments were removed within an hour. If you are not a right thinking person you have no right to speak.

      Just seeing that word makes me want to retch.

      1. Really? You got banned? Congrats.

        Now, it is his blog so he does have a right to censor posts. But, everyone they ban and every comment they censor only reinforces that they’re an echo chamber. I can only recall one person being banned here, and that was temporary (someone spoofing an H&R admin), and only the most egregiously racist posts are deleted.

    3. Math is hard!

  19. “The most politically effective outcome of Minimum Wage protests is not any real positive change in the lives of those who work these jobs, but in how it allows progressive, economic illiterates to point their fingers at opponents to these laws and go, “SEE!! I TOLD YOU THEY WERE DICKS!!”

    And even when no positive outcome occurs in the lives of these people who work on the lowest levels of the economy, they will still vote for that guy, because all they can remember is, “What dicks those others are”.

    Discuss.

  20. Well I have to grant the protesters this- They so planted the idea of fastfood in my mind that I ate at a (surprisingly efficient) McDonald’s for lunch. Mission Accomplished!

    (I justified this, in that I had to walk a mile there and back from my office)

    1. I had a McD’s lunch today just to give a fuck you to the SEIU and support the people who showed up to work.

  21. Explain it to me like I’m five, why is communism bad?

    1. Lotsa things but mostly it’s the murder.

    2. Give me all of your toys and we can talk.

      1. That should have been,

        “Give me all of your toys, and go to your room; these toys are being broken apart to be used as materials for diaper factories. Yes, you don’t need diapers, but the Committee on Youth Pooping has determined shortages exist nevertheless. Stay in your room until you are told it is time for your lesson in False Consciousness”

    3. Imagine having a dream to do something meaningful with your life. And it stays a dream.

    4. Marxist Theory of Value – two men spend 100 hours making something…it is equal value.

      One is Monet creating a wonderful painting, one is Shriek and making a tower of feces. Per Marx, they have equal value!

      1. stolen!

    5. So if I don’t want to work or produce anything of value then it would be better for me, yeah? But how do you make sure the productive people keep working?

      1. Why, with guns, of course.

  22. I do not subscribe to all the psychological analysis of progressives going on here. I think it is of course reasonable that some progressives hate themselves and project that hate outward or that they feel unappreciated and transform that into hate, but I doubt that is what is going on with at least a lot of them. I know progressives that strike me as good, decent people. They are more willing to resort to the state than I am, but it is usually well intended. They honestly think the state will help the less powerful and needy.

    I just think they are ignorant of how the state often acts (with rotten intentions, though with noble ones professed) and what the many negative state impacts will be. In the minimum wage case they think only of the potential increase in well being of the workers who will get the pay raise. The people who will not get hired, who will not get experience, the general dampening of the economy or rising costs that follow, they just do not see this or think it is overblown.

    1. I think it is of course reasonable that yada yada yada..

      That’s because you’re a law student, Bo.

      1. What does that have to do with anything?

        1. The Tao that can be followed is not the eternal Tao, Bo.

    2. Or we rely on evidence, which doesn’t point to those outcomes and which does point to social benefits of a minimum wage. Say what you want about liberals, they don’t rely on faith-based economics like all libertarians do. I don’t personally care what may or may not be wrong with your psychologies, either.

      1. Say what you want about liberals, they don’t rely on faith-based economics like all libertarians do

        Paging Tony, your projector has been repaired.

      2. Tony, what is your evidence that minimum wage increases do not cause at least some unemployment? When I took economics that was textbook material. Some debate was there about whether the impact was ‘worth it,’ but I do not recall any debate that it would have some negative impact on hiring, especially teen-agers and such.

        1. My understanding is that the literature on the subject points to very little to no impact on unemployment except possibly among young people. The fact that we’ve had a minimum wage in place during times of “full” employment and times of high unemployment would seem to speak to a weak or a lack of correlation.

          Even if there is a weak correlation, the moral calculation still exists–would we rather have a few extra low-paying jobs, or provide the boost in quality of life for workers and economic demand that come from a minimum wage?

          1. Funny, when money gets tight at my company, people are cut from the payroll. It can be anyone from top management to the lowest floorsweeper. It’s done to save the company from going bankrupt.

            Labor, by it’s very nature, is the easiest part of a business to get rid of. Something like a building, a production press, or even office equipment has variable value depending on the market – eg, a downturn happens and not many buyers can be found to buy a manufacturing plant.

            So, Tony, in this case, should a company just fold up if they aren’t making enough money to survive? Or should they shed workers and tighten the ship so they can survive?

            Now apply this same logic to increasing wages.

            (and yes I know it’s a bad faith troll)

          2. -Even if there is a weak correlation, the moral calculation still exists–would we rather have a few extra low-paying jobs, or provide the boost in quality of life for workers

            And the ‘quality of life’ for those who get no job and experience because of the raise?

          3. If the minimum wage is low enough, then sure, raising or lowering it a few cents will have little or no effect. But if you raise it to $20/hour, you’ll see some negative effects that even Obama would have trouble explaining away.

          4. “My understanding is that the literature on the subject points to very little to no impact on unemployment except possibly among young people.”

            Who do you think makes minimum wage, you fuckwit?

            Jesus Tony, just STFU.

          5. My understanding is that the literature on the subject points to very little to no impact on unemployment except possibly among young people.

            Your understanding is wrong.

            Of course, it’s relatively easy to claim that there’s no proof when you are ignorant of the research that has been done… Although, one might think it would be enough to simply think through the myriad jobs lost to Mexico, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Viet Nam, Philippines, Taiwan & Korea, etc. and realize that that’s exactly where many of the jobs that Americans have been priced out of doing by law have gone.

            But in case that argument isn’t enough, here’s a fine reading list as generated by our own House of Representatives (emphases added):

            [Massive bibliography omitted]

            So… Aside from effectively just one rather well criticized, unrepeated and poorly constructed government-favored study (Card/Krueger), we find that nearly every bit of empirical data over the last 50 years shows that minimum wage laws clearly increase unemployment – not just in the US, but all over the world (Chile, Puerto Rico, France & Canada cited above as well). What’s worse, the picture above shows even more clearly that it’s exactly those minorities and chronically poor who the laws are designed to help which it hurts the most…

        2. spare yourself, bo. Tony is of the Obama type of liberal – they believe it because it is said. Words are magic, their mere utterance causing rainbows to dot the horizon.

          1. I was in downtown Portland last night and literally heard a women praying to Obama and no I am not making that shit up. It’s sick.

            1. Bullshit Naz! Cuz its totally not a cult of personality!

              Seriously, I wish you would have gotten that on video. Wow.

      3. Nasi Goreng is traditionally eaten in Indonesia as a one-dish
        meal and can be garnished with fried eggs instead of the
        omelette. Indonesian cooks put their leftovers in it, so use
        any leftover chicken, beef, or pork you have on hand. It is best
        made with day-old leftover rice, so there is no reason to toss
        leftover rice ever again.

        Nasi Goreng (Indonesian Fried Rice)

        2 eggs
        4 Tbs (60 ml) peanut (or other mild flavored) oil
        1 onion, peeled and chopped
        1 clove garlic, peeled and chopped
        4 oz (100 g) pork, chicken or beef, finely chopped
        4 cups (1 L) cold cooked rice
        1 Tbs (15 ml) Hoisin sauce
        4 oz (100 g) cooked small shrimp, shelled
        8 oz (225 g) peas, defrosted if frozen
        2 scallions, chopped in 1/2-inch (1 cm) pieces
        1 Tbs (15 ml) hot sauce (optional)

        Beat the eggs and heat half the oil in an omelette pan. Pour the
        eggs in and allow to set into a pancake-type omelette. Turn out,
        slice into 1-inch (2.5 cm) ribbons and set aside. In the same pan,
        put the rest of the oil and fry the onion and garlic for 3 minutes.
        Add the meat and cook for 3 minutes, then add the rice and stir
        until well heated. Season with the Hoisin sauce. Add the shrimp,
        scallions, and peas with the hot sauce, if used, and allow to heat
        through. Serve garnished with strips of omelette. Serves 4 to 6.

          1. Hey man, I can’t be held responsible for the Indonesians and their genocidal rice dishes.

          2. Is there any other kind?

      4. “…evidence, which doesn’t point to those outcomes…”

        Tony restated; Stick to the narrative. If reality doesnt bear it out, then just say it does.

      5. There’s no faith-based anything here–it’s merely the law of supply and demand.

        Raise the cost of something (in this case non-skilled work) and you reduced the demand for it. Not difficult to understand.

    3. No one gives a fuck what you subscribe to, you obscenely boring prick. Go fuck yourself.

    4. They are more willing to resort to the state than I am, but it is usually well intended

      you’re gonna have to produce a citation because the evidence points more toward a willingness to use force in order to get their way and to never acknowledge the horrible consequences of those good intentions. The war on poverty was well-intetioned but its results have been a disaster.

      1. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and this is a very old talking point. Poverty rates dropped to their lowest levels on record following the “War on Poverty” legislation, and poverty among the elderly (whose benefits you people are obsessed with taking away) went from 30% to 10%.

        This implies nothing but that if you want to further address poverty, further direct government action is the obvious way to go.

        1. You don’t know what you’re talking about… Poverty rates dropped to their lowest levels on record following the “War on Poverty” legislation

          Ha!

          1. Looks like a success to me. Note how the line has remained relatively stable since then and hasn’t shot back up to pre-WoP rates. In other words, just what I said.

            Libertarians and their stupid charts. You think it’s a gotcha to note that LBJ was operating during a recovery?

            1. Yes, data is stupid.

            2. “No more progress has been made in reducing poverty since the War on Poverty began. Success!”

            3. Poverty was trending sharply downward before the War On Poverty began, and almost immediately levelled off afterwards. How does that indicate that the War On Poverty was a success?

              1. Because rates haven’t shot back up again. Maybe all the WoP was capable of was keeping poverty between 11 and 15%. It’s true that it was initiated during a recovery, but something has to explain why there hasn’t been a major upswing since–and a social safety net is a pretty good explanation since by definition it mitigates poverty.

                1. It’s true that it was initiated during a recovery, but something has to explain why there hasn’t been a major upswing since

                  A 20 year recovery? No, the burden of proof is on you to explain why it would have shot up without the War on Poverty.

                  1. I can’t say it would have, all I can say is what I see: a long period of relative stability. Claiming that certain laws caused the curve not to go down significantly after leveling is an even more burdensome claim.

          2. You’ve got to wonder why Tony lies about things that are so easily checked on.

            1. That chart confirms my claim.

              1. It confirms that you’re an idiot, yes. Unless you think all progress on the matter halting is a good thing, which wouldn’t surprise me.

                1. Damn html.

                2. If there’s more progress to be made, that data suggests the need for more intervention, not less. The programs seem to have kept poverty rates in a relatively stable range, never returning to pre-Great Society levels. What other phenomenon explains the lack of an upswing to those prior high levels?

                  1. No it doesn’t. The data suggest going back to whatever was bringing the poverty rate down prior to and independent of the War on Poverty.

                    Any thinking person that looks at the overall economic history of the 1960s should see that it was economic growth–despite LBJ’s war–that brought down the poverty rate. Economic growth is the only thing that can bring about a reduction in poverty.

                  2. The programs seem to have kept poverty rates in a relatively stable range, never returning to pre-Great Society levels.

                    IOW, the War on Poverty is like Lisa Simpson’s rock:

                    “Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.

                    “Homer: Oh, how does it work?

                    “Lisa: It doesn’t work.

                    “Homer: Uh-huh.

                    “Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock.

                    “Homer: Uh-huh.

                    “Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?

                    “Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.”

            2. “You’ve got to wonder why Tony lies about things that are so easily checked on.”

              It is called ‘sticking to the narrative at all costs’.

          3. Wow CPA, according to the chart you linked to Tony is correct, but in that mendacious way that only proggies can be.

            Once again Tony proves that he is wrong about everything, every time.

            1. That proggie mendacity of being right most of the time and burying your faces in a cream pie of lying shame?

        2. compare rates of black single parent births, incarceration, high school dropouts, and various other markers from before LBJ’s grand plan to after. You folks have managed to turn a segment of the population into wards of the state. Congratulations.

          1. I ordered the platinum bullshit package, not this stealth racism stale low-rent bullshit.

            1. So which is it then? Is wareagle a racist or have black family’s disintegrated since 1966? Can it be both?

              1. Actually you don’t even need a race qualifier. Skin color != poverty.

              2. Well he didn’t demonstrate a causal relationship between welfare programs and social problems among blacks, and it is actually a racist argument since the majority of recipients of welfare programs are white. How did they escape the horrible consequences of the safety net?

                All of those things are symptoms of poverty, not consequences of attempts to alleviate poverty.

                1. Well he didn’t demonstrate a causal relationship between welfare programs and social problems among blacks

                  look at the numbers yourself. At the very least, they imply a correlation. As it was, poverty was on the wane after WWII absent LBJ’s vote-buying scheme. And look at how your party continues to treat blacks today.

                  The majority of recipients are white but by percentage, it’s not even close. Same with incarceration, same with single parent birth, same with high school dropouts.

                  1. Poverty causes those social problems. There was not a point in time where blacks had it great in this country relative to whites. Ever.

                    If Democrats treat blacks so poorly, why do blacks vote for them nearly universally? Explain that without racism, if you can.

                    1. Explain that without racism, if you can

                      i?ro?ny [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]

                      1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.

                2. it is actually a racist argument since the majority of recipients of welfare programs are white. How did they escape the horrible consequences of the safety net?

                  They didn’t. See Charles Murray’s last book.

                3. All of those things are symptoms of poverty, not consequences of attempts to alleviate poverty.

                  No, those things are more likely to be causes of poverty, not symptoms of it.

              3. That’s a hate fact!

            2. today’s numbers speak for themselves. You folks own the destruction of the black family as a functioning, stable unit.

              1. But it’s still racist to point it out. See Bill Cosby.

              2. Have only Democrats been in power this entire time?

            3. I ordered the platinum bullshit package, not this stealth racism stale low-rent bullshit.

              We didn’t order any bullshit, please return yourself to sender.

            4. It’s the true mark of the racist to be concerned about the deterioration of black communities.

              1. All I hear is dog whistles.

    5. Bo: Yes.
      Tony: No.

    6. “I know progressives that strike me as good, decent people. They are more willing to resort to the state than I am, but it is usually well intended. They honestly think the state will help the less powerful and needy.”

      Are you putting yourself through law school by working as a babysitter? That was my first guess as to how you know so many 8-12 y/os .

      BTW Bo, on the gun thread the other day when you said ‘it must have been a very different time’, I was not attacking you, just giving you an example of how very different that time was. No criticism was intended. Nor is there here. My joke about the naivety of proggies is a jab at them, not you.

      1. No problem, I took both as such.

  23. But most minimum wage earners are not supporting families and in fact, most move up from the minimum wage with their first year on the job.

    I am not sure the first part of that’s true in CA these days.

    Just the ability to show up for work is an excellent point to make on your resume. We hired an new engineer about 6 months ago. He distinguished himself by holding a crappy shelf-stocking job at a department store while attending school and keeping the job until we hired him. He even declined to come to work until he had given his employer notice of his resignation and a few days to adjust. There’s class and there’s class.

  24. Fewer than 3 percent of all workers in the United States make the minimum wage. The percentage drops further if you’re talking about full-time employees.

    *Thinks* So it can’t be the case that a minimum wage massively disrupts employment rates. Looks like a minor intervention to set a floor on wages to me.

    1. Well, I spent a week away and Tony’s still an idiot, it seems.

    2. This is what I was speaking of supra. If you do get a supporter to see it might negatively impact unemployment rates they will just say it is a ‘small effect.’

      In an economy of hundreds of millions that minor effect is hundreds of thousands of people, and usually the most vulnerable ones. So much for the vaunted compassion of progressives.

      1. Welfare programs can easily take care of any victims of a minimum wage. The comparison is misery with a MW and misery without. You’re just focusing on the theoretical few who would lose their jobs with a MW. What about all those working without one?

        The most likely group affected are young people–why not subsidize higher education so that they don’t have to work, and then they can become, like, educated and useful?

        1. Shorter Tony: Just steal from more people!

          1. If taxation is theft then we aren’t allowed a civilization at all, and I don’t owe you shit, including respect for your property.

            1. , including respect for your property.

              Tony your fascist mask is slipping a bit. Get over to Move On and see to that, would ya.

              1. I want to respect your right to property, but you have to accept the social contract that makes property possible first.

                1. accept the social contract

                  Already signed in blood at birth I imagine.

                  Try reading this again.

                  1. Fuck I’m talking to a troll. Someone please smack me out of this.

                    1. *SMACK*

                      Now go to your room and think about what you’ve done.

                    2. Thank you. I will now spend the next ten hours in a low class strip joint giving backrubs to the dancers as penance.

                  2. How do you enforce a NAP without some sort of minimal social contract? Why should I abide by it if you don’t want to bother paying for the privilege?

                    1. It’s the home defense weapon of choice.

                      I’m sorry; I kind of zoned out for a minute, there. What was your question? How does one enforce the NAP?

                      Unfortunately, I find myself stumped by this question.

                2. I suppose accepting the NAP would too much to ask, eh Tony? Rather appeal to some imaginary ‘social contract’ to justify you theft.

                  Fuck off slaver.

                  1. If everyone just agreed not to commit aggression, maybe we wouldn’t need laws. And if we all had a unicorn we wouldn’t need to buy plane tickets.

                    1. All the unicorns are currently employed (part time) propping up the ACA.

                    2. Halibut Cheeks with Ginger-Orange Sauce
                      “Halibut cheeks are really delicious and super-easy to cook. Here they are pan-seared and served with a zingy orange sauce with Asian seasonings. Great with asparagus and jasmine rice for a light and tasty Spring dinner.”
                      Ingredients:
                      1/4 cup fresh orange juice
                      2 teaspoons minced fresh cilantro
                      1 teaspoon minced fresh ginger root
                      1 clove garlic, minced
                      1 tablespoon soy sauce 1 teaspoon sesame oil
                      1/4 teaspoon red pepper flakes

                      1 tablespoon olive oil
                      4 (3 ounce) halibut cheeks
                      Directions:
                      1. Whisk the orange juice, cilantro, ginger, garlic, soy sauce, sesame oil, and red pepper flakes together in a small bowl; set aside.
                      2. Heat the olive oil in a skillet over medium-high heat. Cook the halibut cheeks until golden brown on each side, 2 to 3 minutes per side. Pour the orange juice mixture into the skillet and bring to a boil. Reduce heat to medium and simmer until the halibut flakes easily with a fork and the sauce has thickened slightly. Remove halibut cheeks to a plate and drizzle with orange sauce to serve.

        2. And here Tony shows us the face of evil. Tony would rather see people leaching than earning an honest living. This is how evil comes. Evil comes caring about people and explaining how life isn’t fair and we need to do something. And before you know it, honest people are reduced to beggars in the name of the common good.

          1. Whereas good comes from not caring in the first place!

            1. Whereas good comes from voluntarily caring in the first place!

              FIFY.

        3. -Welfare programs can easily take care of any victims of a minimum wage.

          And if they preferred the dignity of work and learning skills to move on to better jobs, tough luck for them, eh? Best they go on the dole to help those who will retain their slightly higher paying jobs!

          1. Yeah. Understand we’re talking about hypothetical, not real, people (since there isn’t a clear correlation between a minimum wage and employment rates). The principle is that you shouldn’t be allowed to make a profit if you can’t do so without paying people below the minimum wage. The principle is for employers to try harder. In the real world of today, they don’t even have to try harder. Just horde less of the take.

            1. It is not hypothetical. A few exchanges ago you said it would just be a small amount of people, but that does not make them hypothetical.

              1. But you’re arbitrarily concerning yourself with their well-being over that of people who benefit from the minimum wage.

            2. The principle is that you shouldn’t be allowed to make a profit if you can’t do so without paying people below the minimum wage.

              interesting word, allowed. Wow, the bullshit required to reach the rest of this conclusion is mind-numbing. If you’re paying below minimum, you are either employing illegals or have set yourself up for a peck of legal trouble. If that’s what you’re paying, you likely don’t keep good help which means you’re probably not making a profit, either. Then, there’s the part about “allowed” as the mask falls to the floor.

              1. -interesting word, allowed.

                Indeed. Tony, if wareagle and I decided to enter into an agreement where he does some work for me and I pay him, are you really arguing that I be criminally punished for doing so? For employing him at a rate he agreed to?

                1. Sure, same as if you entered into an agreement to sell him a fertilizer bomb, or to cook and eat him. Some perfectly consensual arrangements are properly illegal.

                  1. For myself, I would make illegal the mere sale of a fertilizer bomb nor would I prevent one person from freely allowing another to cook and eat him.

                    Do you oppose assisted suicide transactions?

                    1. I could support the very liberal policy of allowing such agreements, but surely you agree that the state shouldn’t just take your word for it that the agreement was consensual.

                    2. Of course, if any employees are being forced to work for the minimum wage then I would support authorities stopping that.

            3. Just horde less of the take.

              First of all, “hoard”.

              Second, get fucked. Labor is a mutual transaction. If no one is willing to work for minimum wage, then they all can quit. If the jobs get filled with other people, then clearly people are willing to work for that wage and it clearly is acceptable. Who the fuck are you to tell people at what rate they can or cannot sell their time and labor?

              1. As the history of labor has shown, it is not an equal partnership. The only thing that has ever increased the well-being of workers relative to managers is legal protections for workers, specifically collective bargaining rights. Which is no more of an intervention than all the benefits business owners get–it’s just a harder-won intervention since workers have less individual political power.

                1. Tony, believe it or not workers have pushed for (even unionized and struck) and won concessions without government help.

                  1. Lately governments have been erring on the side of crushing the ability of workers to unionize, with predictable results.

            4. I love the assumption here that anyone owning or running a business is a Scrooge McDuck type caricature swimming around in the loot that they horde.

              1. Fuck. hoard.

                1. I guess some of Tony’s stupid is rubbing off. That is what I get for talking to it.

              2. hoard. whore’d. What’s the difference?

                1. I hoard my horde of whored.

                  1. I whored my hoard of horde?

        4. What about the people who don’t need to earn enough to support a family and want to work rather than receive benefits and sit on their ass? They should be forbidden to work?

          Minimum wage is a restriction on the employee as well as on the employer. Some jobs just aren’t worth $10 or $15 or whatever per hour.

          Higher education is great, but well educated people with no work experience tend to be pretty useless in most fields. Especially in trades and other areas where one might start out at minimum wage.

          1. The best way to have an economy with full employment is to ensure there is robust economic demand. The best way to do that is to find a way to get money in the pockets of middle class and sub-middle class people.

            I just typed that a minimum wage is a restriction on employers. They shouldn’t be allowed to profit if they can’t afford paying the minimum wage. They also shouldn’t be able to profit if they can’t do so without harming or defrauding people. Same principle. The only real point of contention is whether the minimum wage does more harm than good. I argue that it doesn’t.

            1. you have argued nothing of the kind. The sum total of your argument has been that anyone who disagrees with you is either evil or stupid, and that you are perfectly okay with using force to take money from some to give to others.

            2. It is just as much a restriction on employees. I can’t go and offer my services to Walmart for $4/hour even if I have loads of money and just want something to do. Do you really think that the 99 year old woman and the one legged biker dude greeting people at the door contribute $15/hour worth of value to the organization?

              How about removing the regulations and restrictions that make entrepreneurship nearly impossible for the poor and lower middle classes as a way to get money in their pockets? Then there might even be more jobs available that are not with giant corporations.

              1. “…the one legged biker dude greeting people at the door…”

                That made me laugh. I imagined a shirtless guy with an emblazoned leather biker vest and one jean-leg pinned up. He has a long salt and pepper beard, balding, an excessively hairy back and arms and is missing a few teeth.

                As you walk in the door; “Mornin! Here is ur fuggin’ buggy!”

                *shoves buggy with wobbly wheels at you and bangs your shin*

                1. Put a shirt on him and I have seen that guy working as a Walmart greeter.

            3. The best way to have an economy with full employment is to ensure there is robust economic demand. The best way to do that is to find a way to get money in the pockets of middle class and sub-middle class people.

              You are incorrect.

              1. I see a thesis. I don’t see any support for it.

          2. -They should be forbidden to work?

            For the principle or something it seems.

            1. No no, for the CHILDREN! Get it right, geez.

        5. Education is subsidized–that’s why it costs so much.

      2. So much for the vaunted compassion of progressives.

        Yeah, well, to make an omelet you need to break a few eggs.

    3. In this corner, in the blue trunks … Tony! In this corner, in the red trunks … a straw man!

      1. My money’s on the straw man.

  25. to reiterate an earlier point, the whole issue remains a distraction from the left’s true aim – the minimum’s connection to union wages. Dems launder more money into campaign cash from union dues than most folks will see in multiple lifetimes, yet they persist in this “we care about the poor” bullshit. Well, actually, they do care in the sense of keeping the poor in poverty and feeding them lines about the evil Repubs or worse, libertarians, want them to starve or something.

  26. There are two kinds of people behind these protests:

    1. Dumb, self-entitled ones

    2. Smart, self-entitled ones who want to regulate fast food out of existence so they can have a prettier view out of the car window when their chauffeur is driving them home from the Opera.

  27. I generally hate McDonalds, but I ate lunch there. I will have dinner at the BK.

    Fuck the SEIU, fuck the “strikers”, fuck every TEAM, and fuck you.

    1. Go with Hardee’s (Carl’s Jr.). They now make their own buns in-house. Plus, the burgers are quite good.

    2. I generally hate McDonalds, but I ate lunch there.

      See also cutting off one’s nose to spite his face.

  28. Labor productivity cannot be dictated by arbitrary laws. You want to help the poor? Get rid of the minimum wage *and* the ubiquitous, insidious tax that hurts them the most–inflation.

    Que our resident reactionary leftoids to come in and tell us there is no such thing as inflation…

    Force doesn’t work, lefties. You build your destructive careers on the premise of the moral vs. practical dichotomy–but there is no dichotomy, there is no contradiction. The moral *is* the practical, and coercion is neither.

  29. the problem is that due to the manipulations of the Obama administration we have a prolonged recession and high under employment. Employers are taking advantage of the oversized surplus in workers and paying starvation wages.
    If we could get the stupid government out of the way with their wacky stifling taxes and regualtions, the economy will expand and employers will be forced to pay more. The employers due to stronger sales will also have more money to pay people.
    Illegal immigrants have also had a downward force on wages, because of the fact that the employers don’t have to pay taxes on them and the illegals themselves don’t pay taxes the workers can work for less. If the government would do its job and enforce immigration law then the number of workers relative to the amount of jobs would decrease and pay would necessarily increase.
    Government is the problem here – not the minimum wage.

  30. I know I am at the end of a 300+ comment thread, but, given that the Republicans control the House, and will for the rest of Obama’s presidency, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that there’s going to be a minimum wage hike.

    So why are we worrying about this?

    1. There may be reasons that the GOP cannot be trusted.

    2. This minimum wage putsch is awfully sudden; there was nothing on the min wage for a long time, then two weeks ago the leftoid media machine started pushing a min wage narrative, now all of a sudden it’s a movement in the streets (though the reporting is surely exaggerated).

      It’s almost as if this sudden minimum wage fight were cooked-up as a means to rally the leftoids and distract the country from the farce to which Obozo’s presidency has descended…no, that’s exactly what all this shit is about.

      1. Actually the new minimum wage push has been going on since at least Obama’s last State of the Union. It was a long wish-list of crazy shit like universal preschool that ain’t gonna go anywhere.

        I don’t quite comprehend why the proggies are wasting their energies on this issue either. The point that union wages are tied to the minimum wage is probably the best explanation. Or maybe it’s that it represents a nice intersection of unions interests and progressive hatred of fast food. Or maybe it is that someone is funding this bullshit.

  31. The principle is that you shouldn’t be allowed to make a profit if you can’t do so without paying people below the minimum wage. The principle is for employers to try harder. In the real world of today, they don’t even have to try harder. Just horde less of the take.

    Robespierre would be proud of you.

  32. The minimum wage discussion is based on a narrative of competition between employer and employee; that an employer has a lot of power to determine an employee’s amount of earnings, and the employee therefore needs government and/or unions to balance the employer’s power, and force the employer to pay the employee a “fair wage”, or whatever.

    But the employer and the employee are actually not in competition; they are in a trade negotiation. They are in the role of purchaser and supplier, respectively. It is the employee’s fellow employees and potential employees who are the real competition. So, what government’s minimum wage laws and union contracts do is enforce a sort of cartel on labor for a particular industry. Their activities are designed to eliminate competition in the labor market. Whenever competition is limited, then one would expect higher prices and lower quality for the product in question–in this case, labor.

    At the same time, as with any marketable good or service, a price floor would tend to increase supply and decrease demand. This would be true of cookies or teeth cleanings, and it is true of labor. With a legal price floor on wages, one would see an increase in the number of people willing to supply labor, and a decrease in the number of people or firms demanding labor.

    This is Econ101, right?

    1. I should qualify and say “With a legal price floor on wages that is above the market-clearing price”.

  33. Destroying lives, one low skilled worker at a time.

  34. If the facts above are correct, don’t raise the minimum wage. That instrument is far too blunt. Instead, make life easier for single mothers earning the minimum by refundable tax credits, food stamps, and section 8 vouchers.

    The best thing to do would be to replace the standard deduction, personal exemptions, and refundable tax credits, with a universal refundable tax credit of $4400/person/year.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.