Restaurant Workers Lose Their Jobs Over Newsom’s $20 Minimum Wage

In the northern California bay area government building restrictions caused a shortage of housing resulting in huge price inflation in the late '70's

 

Correct.

Largely, government regulations and taxation.

Artificial wage increases do much the same.

 

The highest gasoline taxes in the nation add to this. Curiously the California roads are garbage. We were in the Las Vegas area two weeks ago. Beautiful roads and freeways for a state with no state income tax and relatively low gasoline taxes.

 

Stop with the phony Ford story he did NOT raise wages so they could buy his cars that is utter nonsense and historical fallacy as I already posted. The Highland plant had about 25,000 employees so say about 15,000 on the assembly line which got the bonus pay. The plant produced more than ONE THOUSAND cars a day, overall 15,000,000. Do you really think that the raise it pay was to increase profits from all the cars those employes would buy?

 

McDonald's does not set the various levels or and amounts of government benefits. I have never seen McDonald's lobby for more of it. If government, hopefully the people, decide to pay that welfare it's not on McDonald's. They pay what the job is worth to them. If that means hiring only people who are married or in some other joint income household fine with them, or just people starting out without any job skills and whom they will offer VALUABLE training and very rapid wage increases if they improve the value of their labor.

Tell me do you think McDonalds pays ALL their employees minimum wage? Of course not and why not? Because employee can increase their pay and benefits by being long term reliable and trainable employees willing to take on more reponsibilty on the job. Heck my high school senior grandson within six months of getting the job at the pizza place is weekend manager and making a lot more than minimum wage now and even a little store performance bonus.

Have you made minimum wage all your life? If not why not?

 

Well the Constitution has a little clause about postal roads which were the major routes throughout the country and of course a federal road network else mass confusion and conflict between states, ala The Confederation, on interstate routes. And then the national defense considerations in the 1950's which Congress passed the funding for the interstate system. The federal government exist just for such interstate interactions. We have US Hyw's State Hyw's, County Hyw's.

And those are paid for by excise taxes, use taxes which is the fairest way to do it. The concerns of late have been with EV's which did not pay taxes for the roads but most states have applied yearly taxes on them in my state I think it is $200 applied to the tag renewal.

Interesting story...........I live near the coast and years ago the beach city made a deal with a private company to build a bridge over the intercoastal to help route traffic away from the heart of the city and they got some decades long agreement to collect the tolls. Used it whenever I was down that way. Of course tourism has exploded and not just traffice but evacuations are a big concern. So the city wants to build and has the money, another bridge. Not too far from the other. With more lanes. Without a toll.......................... goes the private bridge company!!!! What about their revenue!!! And I think the city has to approve any toll increases but of course if they raise the toll even more lost business.

Waiting to see how this one turns out. I can see it from both sides.

 

There are a lot of areas in which private companies have built freeways and then collected tolls from users. There is one in the Denver area which connects to the Airport. I have to believe that the cost of construction managed by a private enterprise was much less than construction managed by the government.

 

Of course unions and government regs ran off the paper industry in the SE for the most part along with email and text messages and digital records and the internet. But those paper company lands growing those pine super trees which were not solid enough for structural but perfect to grind up and make paper and then grew back in 15 years instead of 20 to 25 for hardwood. And the wild life LOVED them they were so well managed by the companies.

 

if the wage is worth less, then they need to be paid more, as their worth is the same, just like the new phone, McD's, etc....

 

My point is that income inequality in this country is inconsistent with creating a world-class economy. In a thriving economy, demand equals supply in importance. A small percentage of the population controls a disproportionate share of wealth deters economic growth, including economy-of-scale. So if you took a management or economics class as you claim, this is basic knowledge.

 

Ninety years later right-wing socialists are still pushing the failed trickle-down economics. Like a house, an economy is built from the bottom up, not from the top down.

 

That is bogus economics. Wealth creation is what drives economic growth. There is no demand without production/supply. That is basic economics 101. Where did you learn economics?

The real measure of economic success is the rate of rise of the standard of living. Those in the bottom quintile of income today live like kings compared to the top 1% 100 years ago.

 

There is no such thing as trickle down economics.

 

[

Even in the 1930s, Americans were aware of trickle-down economics as noted by the famous American humorist Will Rodgers.

 

Bogus economics denies the importance of demand in demand in supply-and-demand economy.

 

There is no trickle down theory of economics.

 

Demand is created by production aka supply. That is economics 101. Where did you learn economics?

 

Demand creates production and increased prices, not production creates demand.

 

That’s completely backwards.

 

Posting a video is not a response.

 

Those managers firstly follow Denmark's laws. Then they have to pay their staff (and communicate with it!) in a way that the workers are willing to work here and not anywhere else.

Maybe you didn't know that there is almost no unempoyment, even the taxes are high, even you get 90% of your last income for 12 at least months. Although there aren't too much low level jobs anymore.

 

Is it unreasonable to suggest that if a worker anywhere does an honest eight hour day’s work, then that ought to give them enough money for a roof over their head, three square meals a day, pay for heat and water and clothing, reasonable transportation costs and comprehensive health insurance?
If not, what?

 

there is a shortage of help, so those restaurant workers will get jobs at other restaurants for $20 an hour

 

The worker ought to be able to work for a wage of the workers choosing. Price fixing negates market forces. Lower employment is the result. The origin of the minimum wage laws is racism. Establishment of a minimum wage was done to limit black worker employment as they moved from the south to the north post civil war. The high fixed minimum cost of labor reduced employment and resulted in fewer minorities being hired. These were skilled jobs. The blacks moving north were skilled carpenters, masons, etc...