Restaurant chain owner lobbies for increased minimum wage
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12 Next
BartSimpson @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:46 pm
Public_Domain Public_Domain:
Entry Requirements to become a Fry Cook:
- College Degree
- 3 Years Work Experience with Cooking Fries
- 3 References
Entry Requirements to become a High Manager:
- Have a copy of "The Fountainhead" and/or "Atlas Shrugged"
- College Degree
- 3 Years Work Experience with Cooking Fries
- 3 References
Entry Requirements to become a High Manager:
- Have a copy of "The Fountainhead" and/or "Atlas Shrugged"
The fact of the matter is that you can become a fry cook with very little ability at all.
But to become a successful chef? That requires years of study at a culinary arts college, years of hard work after that learning the realities of the trade, and then a drive to always innovate and compete instead of resting on your laurels.
For the record, I don't think Alain Ducasse needs to be worried about you taking his job.
Ever.
Public_Domain @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:50 pm
andyt @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:52 pm
peck420 peck420:
Brenda Brenda:
What exactly IS the effect the raise in minimum wage in BC has had on the middle brackets?
Sorry for the slow reply, Brenda.
I will post up the links on the Canadian specific studies, but the general overview is that raising the min wage makes teen employment rates drop.
That creates a two fold problem (in my opinion):
a) It is very difficult to assess over the short term. As long as the 'overall' numbers don't change much, the negative effects get dismissed as minor, short term fluctuations.
b) The corrective actions will take as long or longer to fix the issue.
Now, this all seems minor...and, to be honest, if min wage only went up every 10 years or so, it would be a negligible issue...but, once you start to compound this, we get a looming problem.
No middle class replacements! Low teen employment has shown, historically, to be bad for the workforce. Usually attributed to a larger number of 'unskilled workers' in the market place.
Sorry for the scatter, time has been of short supply the past couple days, and will continue until Saturday, at least.
Far worse for teens is that so many seniors have to work at low level jobs to supplement their pensions. The boomers are not moving out of their jobs.
andyt @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:55 pm
bootlegga bootlegga:
There are plenty of jobs available for those with skills - and I don't just mean in Alberta.
The country is facing a skills shortage, so there's plenty of work available – enter ‘skills shortage’ into Google and you’ll see what I mean. And with more Boomers retiring every year, it’s only going to get worse as the years go by. Further, skilled tradespeople aren’t just created after a year or two in school, they take years to get their journey papers and actually qualify as a truly skilled tradesperson.
I take issue with your notion that anybody who has skills would be in the same boat as they would if they just stayed a server or burger flipper. They wouldn’t, simply because they would have more options than they would if they just kept at their menial job.
They could move to another province where there is work for them. They could start their own business and work for themselves. They could do all sorts of things that an unskilled server or burger flipper would never be able to do, simply because they now have a skill.
I am a perfect example of this. In the mid-90s, I was a minimum wage cook at a variety of restaurants around Edmonton (eventually working up to a whopping $9/hour – back when minimum wage was about $6/hour). Frustrated, I got my crap together and finished my BA and went overseas and taught English for three years – and earned more than double what I had earned as a cook. After I came back, I again earned more than double what I ever did before I finished my BA. It’s anecdotal for sure, but everyone I know who lived in minimum wage hell always pulled themselves up out of it by getting an education (not necessarily a degree, but learning an actual skill), not by getting a bump in minimum wage.
As for who would do low wage jobs, it would be the same as it always used to be – students looking for a few bucks/work experience, seniors looking to keep busy/stretch their retirement funds a little further and maybe a few immigrants who are busy re-credentialing so they can ply their career in Canada.
The country is facing a skills shortage, so there's plenty of work available – enter ‘skills shortage’ into Google and you’ll see what I mean. And with more Boomers retiring every year, it’s only going to get worse as the years go by. Further, skilled tradespeople aren’t just created after a year or two in school, they take years to get their journey papers and actually qualify as a truly skilled tradesperson.
I take issue with your notion that anybody who has skills would be in the same boat as they would if they just stayed a server or burger flipper. They wouldn’t, simply because they would have more options than they would if they just kept at their menial job.
They could move to another province where there is work for them. They could start their own business and work for themselves. They could do all sorts of things that an unskilled server or burger flipper would never be able to do, simply because they now have a skill.
I am a perfect example of this. In the mid-90s, I was a minimum wage cook at a variety of restaurants around Edmonton (eventually working up to a whopping $9/hour – back when minimum wage was about $6/hour). Frustrated, I got my crap together and finished my BA and went overseas and taught English for three years – and earned more than double what I had earned as a cook. After I came back, I again earned more than double what I ever did before I finished my BA. It’s anecdotal for sure, but everyone I know who lived in minimum wage hell always pulled themselves up out of it by getting an education (not necessarily a degree, but learning an actual skill), not by getting a bump in minimum wage.
As for who would do low wage jobs, it would be the same as it always used to be – students looking for a few bucks/work experience, seniors looking to keep busy/stretch their retirement funds a little further and maybe a few immigrants who are busy re-credentialing so they can ply their career in Canada.
Is it really your contention that the number of people in low paying jobs could all move into skilled work if they just got the training, that so many skilled jobs are there for them? And if that were true (which it's not) why are you cheering this guy on - I mean let all his deli slicers become engineers too, let the kids and seniors slice the salami.
andyt @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:58 pm
bootlegga bootlegga:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Likewise, if Wal Mart is required to pay a 'living wage' then the first person to go will be the greeter at the front door.
Actually, I doubt the greeter would be the first to go, as they act as a security guard too, assisting in theft prevention. No odds are that Wal-Mart would cut a stocker or cleaner first, then maybe a cashier.
If they cut labor they lose business. Don't you think Walmart already has their job force pared down to the absolute minimum they can get away with and still provide enough service to not lose business? What they can cut is corporate profit. And, as the two examples we've had here have found, they'll find they actually get better productivity when paying workers more.
Brenda @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:11 pm
Yogi Yogi:
I know that I am capable of more than that, and as well, feel that I still have a lot to contribute. I do believe that sentiment falls under the heading 'Self Respect'!
If you think that being bitched at for minimum wage is good for your self respect or self esteem, you are wrong.
Brenda @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:29 pm
andyt andyt:
Is it really your contention that the number of people in low paying jobs could all move into skilled work if they just got the training, that so many skilled jobs are there for them? And if that were true (which it's not) why are you cheering this guy on - I mean let all his deli slicers become engineers too, let the kids and seniors slice the salami.
And in no time, engineers with a Uni degree (and a massive student debt) will be minimum wage workers because there are too many of them...
Yogi @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:41 pm
Brenda Brenda:
Yogi Yogi:
I know that I am capable of more than that, and as well, feel that I still have a lot to contribute. I do believe that sentiment falls under the heading 'Self Respect'!
If you think that being bitched at for minimum wage is good for your self respect or self esteem, you are wrong.
If the employee shows up on time and does the work as agreed upon by both parties, why would anyone get 'bitched out'?
![[huh]](./images/smilies/icon_scratch.gif "huh?"){kind=icon}
No one, asshole or otherwise can 'take my self respect', but I could sell it to the insurance company!
Yogi @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:52 pm
Public_Domain Public_Domain:
No way in hell I could ever become a chef... It'd be interesting, but it looks too much like WORK to me. Honestly I'd be lucky to be employable as anything more than a parliamentary paige or one of those walking billboard guys.
As long as the sign isn't to heavy and they don't expect me to twirl it or something.
As long as the sign isn't to heavy and they don't expect me to twirl it or something.
This about sums you up in very few words.^
By your own admission you have no drive or ambition, and absolutely no desire to improve your situation in life....yourself! No pride. No self-respect needed. Easier to blame the Capatalist Pigs.
A prime example of 3rd gen welfare families. How's life in mommy's basement goin fer ya??? You got a lot to look forward to, eh!
Yogi @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:57 pm
andyt andyt:
bootlegga bootlegga:
There are plenty of jobs available for those with skills - and I don't just mean in Alberta.
The country is facing a skills shortage, so there's plenty of work available – enter ‘skills shortage’ into Google and you’ll see what I mean. And with more Boomers retiring every year, it’s only going to get worse as the years go by. Further, skilled tradespeople aren’t just created after a year or two in school, they take years to get their journey papers and actually qualify as a truly skilled tradesperson.
I take issue with your notion that anybody who has skills would be in the same boat as they would if they just stayed a server or burger flipper. They wouldn’t, simply because they would have more options than they would if they just kept at their menial job.
They could move to another province where there is work for them. They could start their own business and work for themselves. They could do all sorts of things that an unskilled server or burger flipper would never be able to do, simply because they now have a skill.
I am a perfect example of this. In the mid-90s, I was a minimum wage cook at a variety of restaurants around Edmonton (eventually working up to a whopping $9/hour – back when minimum wage was about $6/hour). Frustrated, I got my crap together and finished my BA and went overseas and taught English for three years – and earned more than double what I had earned as a cook. After I came back, I again earned more than double what I ever did before I finished my BA. It’s anecdotal for sure, but everyone I know who lived in minimum wage hell always pulled themselves up out of it by getting an education (not necessarily a degree, but learning an actual skill), not by getting a bump in minimum wage.
As for who would do low wage jobs, it would be the same as it always used to be – students looking for a few bucks/work experience, seniors looking to keep busy/stretch their retirement funds a little further and maybe a few immigrants who are busy re-credentialing so they can ply their career in Canada.
The country is facing a skills shortage, so there's plenty of work available – enter ‘skills shortage’ into Google and you’ll see what I mean. And with more Boomers retiring every year, it’s only going to get worse as the years go by. Further, skilled tradespeople aren’t just created after a year or two in school, they take years to get their journey papers and actually qualify as a truly skilled tradesperson.
I take issue with your notion that anybody who has skills would be in the same boat as they would if they just stayed a server or burger flipper. They wouldn’t, simply because they would have more options than they would if they just kept at their menial job.
They could move to another province where there is work for them. They could start their own business and work for themselves. They could do all sorts of things that an unskilled server or burger flipper would never be able to do, simply because they now have a skill.
I am a perfect example of this. In the mid-90s, I was a minimum wage cook at a variety of restaurants around Edmonton (eventually working up to a whopping $9/hour – back when minimum wage was about $6/hour). Frustrated, I got my crap together and finished my BA and went overseas and taught English for three years – and earned more than double what I had earned as a cook. After I came back, I again earned more than double what I ever did before I finished my BA. It’s anecdotal for sure, but everyone I know who lived in minimum wage hell always pulled themselves up out of it by getting an education (not necessarily a degree, but learning an actual skill), not by getting a bump in minimum wage.
As for who would do low wage jobs, it would be the same as it always used to be – students looking for a few bucks/work experience, seniors looking to keep busy/stretch their retirement funds a little further and maybe a few immigrants who are busy re-credentialing so they can ply their career in Canada.
Is it really your contention that the number of people in low paying jobs could all move into skilled work if they just got the training, that so many skilled jobs are there for them? And if that were true (which it's not) why are you cheering this guy on - I mean let all his deli slicers become engineers too, let the kids and seniors slice the salami.
Not quite actually as you understand it to be andy.
No experience required to hire on-just basic education so that one can follow/learn the ropes. Training and apprenticeship/ further education as required is paid for by the employer/govt. Check it out for yourself.
Brenda @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:04 pm
Yogi Yogi:
Brenda Brenda:
Yogi Yogi:
I know that I am capable of more than that, and as well, feel that I still have a lot to contribute. I do believe that sentiment falls under the heading 'Self Respect'!
If you think that being bitched at for minimum wage is good for your self respect or self esteem, you are wrong.
If the employee shows up on time and does the work as agreed upon by both parties, why would anyone get 'bitched out'?
Also, don't you know that employers always want you to do more than agreed upon and to 'prove yourself' before they will reward that?
$1:
No one, asshole or otherwise can 'take my self respect', but I could sell it to the insurance company!
So your 'it's called self respect'-lecture is bullshit
Public_Domain @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:46 pm
herbie @ Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:31 pm
Heard that story recently. She had "too much self respect" to apply for a job at Subway/Timmies/7-11 and wear a stoopid little uniform for minimum wage.
So she's working at a Mom&Pop store that only pays minimum wage, has no assisten-manager or manager positions to move up to, no company paid training courses, and no chance to learn how a real company works.
But at least she can dress like a slob so Joe Stranger thinks she's just another customer and won't pester her with difficult questions...
Let's see what you get for as little as you can pay: I'll use am example of buying smokes. I never buy a carton, I go everyday to the local store here. TWO or THREE times a week, they'll open the doors of the tobacco cabinet and go DOH! we're out of your brand, let me look in the stockroom.
Then the cashier walks away from the till, all the way to the back and upstairs and searches through boxes to find )or not find) another carton.
Often there's several people at the cashier. No one is left watching the store or the lineup. Here's your chance to shoplift to your heart's delight.
NEVER, ever has any worker noticed that "duh, I just sold the last pack, When I get the chance I'll restock."
Never.
THe same with ALL the kids I've hired. They'll take the last item off the shelf, sell it an plunk back down to try to fire up Facebook on the terminal every time. Unless I'm there and I notice and I tell them to get more from the stockroom. They'll sit there looking at an emoty spot on the shelf without even thinking it should be refilled. If a customer asks if we're out of an item they'll look at that empty spot and say Yup! Even if they just unpacked a shipment of stuff that morning, they won't remember what was in it by coffee time.
So when you do find one that's brain can go CLICK you pay them well over the minimum
stratos @ Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:28 am
$1:
Quote:
Since the 1960s, the United States government has defined poverty in absolute terms. When the Johnson administration declared "war on poverty" in 1964, it chose an absolute measure. The "absolute poverty line" is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health.
The "Orshansky Poverty Thresholds" form the basis for the current measure of poverty in the U.S. Mollie Orshansky was an economist working for the Social Security Administration (SSA). Her work appeared at an opportune moment. Orshansky's article was published later in the same year that Johnson declared war on poverty. Since her measure was absolute (i.e., did not depend on other events), it made it possible to objectively answer whether the U.S. government was "winning" this war. The newly formed United States Office of Economic Opportunity adopted the lower of the Orshansky poverty thresholds for statistical, planning, and budgetary purposes in May 1965.
The Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget) adopted Orshansky's definition for statistical use in all Executive departments. The measure gave a range of income cutoffs, or thresholds, adjusted for factors such as family size, sex of the family head, number of children under 18 years old, and farm or non-farm residence. The economy food plan (the least costly of four nutritionally adequate food plans designed by the Department of Agriculture) was at the core of this definition of poverty.[16]
At the time of creating the poverty definition, the Department of Agriculture found that families of three or more persons spent about one third of their after-tax income on food. For these families, poverty thresholds were set at three times the cost of the economy food plan. Different procedures were used for calculating poverty thresholds for two-person households and persons living alone. Annual updates of the SSA poverty thresholds were based on price changes in the economy food plan, but updates do not reflect other changes (food is no longer one-third of the after-tax income).
Two changes were made to the poverty definition in 1969. Thresholds for non-farm families were tied to annual changes in the Consumer Price Index rather than changes in the cost of the economy food plan. Farm thresholds were raised from 70 to 85% of the non-farm levels.
In 1981, further changes were made to the poverty definition. Separate thresholds for "farm" and "female-householder" families were eliminated. The largest family size category became "nine persons or more."[16]
Apart from these changes, the U.S. government's approach to measuring poverty has remained static for the past forty years.
Since the 1960s, the United States government has defined poverty in absolute terms. When the Johnson administration declared "war on poverty" in 1964, it chose an absolute measure. The "absolute poverty line" is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health.
The "Orshansky Poverty Thresholds" form the basis for the current measure of poverty in the U.S. Mollie Orshansky was an economist working for the Social Security Administration (SSA). Her work appeared at an opportune moment. Orshansky's article was published later in the same year that Johnson declared war on poverty. Since her measure was absolute (i.e., did not depend on other events), it made it possible to objectively answer whether the U.S. government was "winning" this war. The newly formed United States Office of Economic Opportunity adopted the lower of the Orshansky poverty thresholds for statistical, planning, and budgetary purposes in May 1965.
The Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget) adopted Orshansky's definition for statistical use in all Executive departments. The measure gave a range of income cutoffs, or thresholds, adjusted for factors such as family size, sex of the family head, number of children under 18 years old, and farm or non-farm residence. The economy food plan (the least costly of four nutritionally adequate food plans designed by the Department of Agriculture) was at the core of this definition of poverty.[16]
At the time of creating the poverty definition, the Department of Agriculture found that families of three or more persons spent about one third of their after-tax income on food. For these families, poverty thresholds were set at three times the cost of the economy food plan. Different procedures were used for calculating poverty thresholds for two-person households and persons living alone. Annual updates of the SSA poverty thresholds were based on price changes in the economy food plan, but updates do not reflect other changes (food is no longer one-third of the after-tax income).
Two changes were made to the poverty definition in 1969. Thresholds for non-farm families were tied to annual changes in the Consumer Price Index rather than changes in the cost of the economy food plan. Farm thresholds were raised from 70 to 85% of the non-farm levels.
In 1981, further changes were made to the poverty definition. Separate thresholds for "farm" and "female-householder" families were eliminated. The largest family size category became "nine persons or more."[16]
Apart from these changes, the U.S. government's approach to measuring poverty has remained static for the past forty years.
Well I looked up the national poverty line and guess what, there is no reason to raise the Minimum wage to 10.25.
At the current level of 7.25 a single person makes 13,920 that's 2,430 above the nation poverty level. Now if you want to do the average as being 3 people in a house hold then you need to raise it to 10.17 so the 10.25 would seem to make sense. But the average house hold is less than 3 people per household
"The number of people living alone in America rose from 17% in 1970 to 27% in 2007, and the average household size declined from 3.1 people in 1970 to 2.6, according the latest 2007 figures recently released by the US Census Bureau."
Thus a raise of the minimum wage to 9.13 is all that is needed to raise a household above the poverty level. So a raise to 9.25 would make sense. I came up with the 9.13 by taking half the difference between a 2 person vs 3 person household.
The formula I used to figure hourly pay rate is the yearly poverty level line divided by 12 (months) divided by 4 (weeks) divided by 40(hours)
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm
https://www.google.com/#q=average+numbe ... +household
Now all this is only taking into consideration of 1 person working. If a second person is working then no matter how you would look at it that household is above the poverty line.
BartSimpson @ Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:33 am
Brenda Brenda:
Yogi Yogi:
I know that I am capable of more than that, and as well, feel that I still have a lot to contribute. I do believe that sentiment falls under the heading 'Self Respect'!
If you think that being bitched at for minimum wage is good for your self respect or self esteem, you are wrong.
So now if you and Andy create your mandatory new 'living wage' it will become the effective minimum wage.
Now tell me again what you're going to accomplish by calling the minimum wage a living wage?
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12 Next