Fast food jobs in NY evidently attract a lot of comedians.

Australia's minimum wage is US$15. I'm still against having any minimum wage at all but claiming that it can't be done is just stupid especially since, adjusted for inflation, the US minimum wage was ~$15 in the 1960's and the world didn't end nor did inflation rear its ugly head. I'm reminded of a recent study that even if Walmart passed 100% of the cost on to consumers (something it would be unable to do in a competitive marketplace) the total cost of doubling workers wages would only be $0.98 for every $100 a consumer spends because wages make up that little of the total cost of products.

Shut your cock hole, tinkerbell. "Fundie" is not the default category for anyone who disagrees with you.

Whereas you're fantasizing that they're going to be less inclined toward profit for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Put it this way: If the minimum wage went down, would you expect the employees to do nothing to compensate?

No, it's exactly like fearing the lion will be more willing to eat you than before because you started trying to starve it.

Don't talk to me about reality, you obviously know nothing about it.

Don't know but fast food workers aren't unionized here.

Yup. And unless that tipping point is in any way connected to the minimum wage, it won't move by moving the minimum wage.

Because I say so? I'm saying that if you take two positive numbers which are not the same, one will be objectively higher than the other. You're saing that is a matter of opinion. So yeah, it's just because I say so.

When you ignore FACTS and instead fall back on 'well, well I KNOW the TRUTH and this can't be happening so SOMETHING else must be going on. I don't know what it is, and I can't PROVE anything, but I have FAITH that it is there!"

Then you're a fundy.

Why not? I require proof that this can never happen, unless this is your cute little way of declaring yourself full of shit.

Wrong. I'm saing they will be exactly as inlcined to make a profit as before, namely completely.

I would expect them to compensate through actions that actually compensate the change. If their original wage was $10 and it moves to $8, they might now choose to switch to a different job at $9. What you'd like me to believe is that while they had been offered a job at $12 before, coeteris paribus, they only decided they wanted to earn more once their current employer reduced their wages. And that's bullshit. 12>10 and 12>8.

Facts can be cherrypicked to make an incomplete, biased presentation, and you in particular are untrustworthy.

It is implausible that restaurant owners in Seattle decided to make less money. It could be that it wasn't the outrageous $15/hour that they're demanding in NY, or that there hasn't been enough time for all of the repercussions to become apparent.

We heard you the first time.

Come back with some facts and not just supposition and unicorn farts or go stand in the corner with the other fundies.

Did you respond to Zombie, here? This makes a difference.

Could be the difference is a wash on that scale. Doubling minimum wage is another matter entirely. At any rate, it is a foregone conclusion that those extra dollars came from somewhere. I'm just not readily able to find out where just yet.

Like if, for example, some mincey little turd brought up a minimum wage law in a different state that didn't take effect until January 2013.

No noticeable effect (which I'm not buying anyway) in six months means there never will be, right?

It's tied to CPI (has been since 1998). Last year it was $9.04, still significantly higher than most states (25% higher than the Federal Minimum).

You'll have to reach again.

You require proof that if A is in no way connected to B, A happening does not make B happen?

Then I point you to dictionary.com for your proof.

Interesting. In 2007 when WA Minimum Wage was $7.93 and Federal Minimum was $5.85our minimum wage was 35% higher than most states. In 2006 when ours was $7.63 compared to most states at $5.15 we were 48 percent higher.

It's a miracle we survived.

You even need to ask? Workers who are paid adequately are going to provide better customer service and work harder. Workers who feel they are underpaid are going to bitch, gripe, work slowly, and treat customers poorly.

That being said, I don't support minimum wage laws, I do support unions and collective bargaining however.

And when something diminishes the profit they were already making, they're going to do something to restore it to what it was before.

Example: You bring in $100 every day and pay out $50 every day, $25 for your assistant and $25 for materials, leaving you with $50 for yourself.

Now your assistant wants $40. If you still pay $25 for your materials but now pay $40 for your assistant, that leaves you with $35 instead of $50.

Your desire to have that $50 remains the same. So either you raise the cost of your product by $15, decrease the amount you spend on materials to $10 or replace your assistant with somebody who will work for the original $25.

Your desire for profit is the same. Suddenly your assistant diminished your profit. Something somewhere is going to make up for what you lost.

Your argument is that if businesses could cut these corners, they'd do it from the start. The problem is, if I accept your argument, you should also accept the consequence of your argument being true...

And the consequence of your argument being true is that when something comes along to cut into their profits, they're going to continue doing what they started out doing -- they're going to cut more corners, because they've been doing it all along. There are always more corners to cut; there is no point -- proceeding from your own argument here -- at which they say to themselves, "Nope, we can't do that, it would be dangerous and wrong."

Or switch to another job that pays $10.

No, what I would like you to understand -- because there is evidence aplenty here upon which to base understanding, with no belief required -- is that businesses exist to make a profit.

They're not in it for altruism. They're not in it out of civic-mindedness. They're sure as shit not paying out all that overhead for their own entertainment, or brownie points, or spiritual growth. They're in it to make money. That's all they're there for. Hurt the business's profit and those who control the business will change something, somewhere in the equation, to balance out the change you imposed on them.

For 15$ an hour you better be roping cattle and butchering them too.

Actually no cashiers. All the ordering will be at kiosks by the customers.

Instead of one machine or two you'll see a whole lot more....

Any problems? That's what the manager is there for.

Not if you're required to pay everyone $15 an hour. Then you just take away the incentive of people getting $15 an hour to do quality work.

Now go stand in the corner dumbass. If I want to know how to convert an AR15 to full automatic for $4 using a fingernail file I'll get ahold of you, Bumpfire.

Whoops-a-daisy! You've just been replaced with a machine. Pick up your check on the way out the door.

You and Albert are missing a rather obvious point, which is that any available cost cutting has already happened. You guys shudder at the idea that McDonalds might eat some profit to stay in business, but in the next sentence claim they are eating some profit by not engaging in all available cost cutting.

And you're proceeding from the unsubstantiated and fanciful notion that they won't find ways to engage in more of it. Oldfella just pointed out one of those future cost-cutting measures -- increased automation. They can. They will. These employees are pushing hard to make themselves obsolete.

$15/hour may be > $7.50/hour, but $7.50/hour definitely > $0/hour. These employees should shut up and take "Yes, we'll employ you." for an answer.

No. They don't want their profit to stay the same. They want their profit to be as high as it can be, at any given time.

No. I don't want my profit to stay the same. I want my profit to be as high as it can be, at any given time.

No. I don't want my profit to stay the same. I want my profit to be as high as it can be, at any given time.

No. They already cut all the corners they think they can cut without diminishing profits. This is because they don't want their profit to stay the same. They want their profit to be as high as it can be, at any given time.

Sure there are, but that's not the argument. There are points at which they'll stop cutting corners because their product will become too bad to sell; because they'd be breaking the law; perhaps even because they have moral qualms, which some people do. The argument is that you think that point will shift if the minimum wage goes up, without any direct connection. But the consumers' willingness to buy a shitty product doesn't increase when the minimum wage goes up. Safety laws don't automatically change when the minimum wage goes up. Morality doesn't suddenly change when the minimum wage goes up.

Any feasible way to increase profits not connected to a change in minimum wage will have been implemented before any change happens to the minimum wage. This is because employers don't want their profit to stay the same. They want their profit to be as high as it can be, at any given time.

Absolutely. I'm the one arguing this. You're the one arguing they only want a certain amount of profit, whereas I am saying that they don't want their profit to stay the same. They want their profit to be as high as it can be, at any given time.

1. I'm going out on a crazy wild limb here, but I'm going to guess that living in Seattle is generally cheaper than living in New York City.

2. There are non-monetary considerations. Maybe the owners like living in Seattle enough to not want to move elsewhere. Maybe not everyone is bent on squeezing every last penny of profit out. Maybe the ability to advertise a burger for less than a dollar is more valuable than the few cents they lose on each burger (a "loss leader" if I'm not mistaken).

3. Obviously they make up the difference by charging more for the coffee.

We get it, you don't trust facts. That makes you a fundie.

Your idea is the they have already decided to make less profit, but will change their mind once the minimum wage increases. You attribute illogical behavior to the owners in the service of your fundie ideology.

I love how these supposedly pro-business guys sneer as they demonstrate their utter lack of knowledge about how businesses run. Castle will predictably respond to you with sneering.

When a business's costs are increased--either by market conditions or government policy--the business will either (1) pass on that cost to the consumer or (2) eat the cost.

Either way, it's not good for the economy as a whole. If they do (1), consumers wind up spending more of their money for the same goods they used to get cheaper. If the business must do (2), the lower profits can reduce/eliminate the business's viability, reduce/eliminate opportunities for the owner to expand the business, and discourage competitors from entering the market.

Does increasing the minimum wage mean higher prices? Not necessarily. The market may simply not allow for it. But make no mistake: there is a COST and it is paid for by someone.

A $15/hour minimum wage? It seems unlikely small businesses would be able to maintain viability at that rate; I expect automation to replace employees.

Yes. They will always continue to do so, no matter whether the minimum wage is raised or not. This is because they don't want their profit to stay the same. They want their profit to be as high as it can be, at any given time.

Bullshit.

You always have to cut costs and increase income as much as you can. If your company won't, your competitor will. If your manager won't, another manager will, and will provide better value to stockholders and take over. This is true for the past and the future, because 'past' and 'future' are meaningless when measured against the timestamp of an event that has no effect on other events.

The only context in which your attempt at an argument makes sense is if there is a direct causal link between the increased wages and the feasibility of a new measure. Such links certainly can exist, but you've got to name them and look at them in order to see whether they're actually a bad thing.

For instance, if replacing a human employee's amount of product per hour with a machine's output costs $10, then a company will hire workers at $8 but fire them at $12. Raise the minimum wage to $12, get employees fired. The question then becomes: If machines can do this job cheaper than what pays a decent wage for a human, should we continue to have humans do the job?

For another example, it might be that a certain business becomes altogether unsustainable when you raise costs for human resources. So if your product isn't worth enough on the market to pay a decent wage for people to work in your business, should we continue to protect that business model?