re: "Fast Food Workers: You Don’t Deserve $15 an Hour to Flip Burgers and That’s OK"

quote:

---

Not all - but I bet A BUNCH would.

---

I bet a bunch would see the taxes they pay (which most likely wouldn't happen as i stated earlier) and say the hell with this the old way was better.

What makes you think a bunch of them are motivated to want better?

quote:

---

Why do you think we have so many low wage workers?

---

We don't - I think less than 5% of workers earn the minimum wage.

quote:

---

Denmark has no govt mandated minimum wage.

---

They also have a vast social safety net in Denmark. (I lifted this from Wikipedia.)

quote:

---

"The Nordic Model - Embracing globalization and sharing risks" characterizes the system as follows:

An elaborate social safety net in addition to public services such as free education and universal healthcare.

Strong property rights, contract enforcement, and overall ease of doing business.

Public pension plans.

Low barriers to free trade. This is combined with collective risk sharing (social programs, labour market institutions) which has provided a form of protection against the risks associated with economic openness.

Little product market regulation. Nordic countries rank very high in product market freedom according to OECD rankings.

Low levels of corruption. In Transparency International's 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index all five Nordic countries were ranked among the 12 least corrupt of 176 evaluated countries, and Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway all ranked within top 5.

High percentage of workers belonging to a labour union. In 2010, labour union density was 69.9% in Finland, 68.3% in Sweden, and 54.8% in Norway. In comparison, labour union density was 12.9% in Mexico and 11.3% in the United States.

The lower union density in Norway is mainly explained by the absence of a Ghent system since 1938. In contrast, Denmark, Finland and Sweden all have union-run unemployment funds.

A partnership between employers, trade unions and the government, whereby these social partners negotiate the terms to regulating the workplace among themselves, rather than the terms being imposed by law.

Sweden has decentralised wage co-ordination, while Finland is ranked the least flexible. The changing economic conditions have given rise to fear among workers as well as resistance by trade unions in regards to reforms. At the same time, reforms and favourable economic development seem to have reduced unemployment, which has traditionally been higher. Denmark's Social Democrats managed to push through reforms in 1994 and 1996.

Sweden at 56.6% of GDP, Denmark at 51.7%, and Finland at 48.6% reflects very high public spending. One key reason for public spending is the large number of public employees. These employees work in various fields including education, healthcare, and for the government itself. They often have lifelong job security and make up around a third of the workforce (more than 38% in Denmark). Public spending in social transfers such as unemployment benefits and early-retirement programmes is high. In 2001, the wage-based unemployment benefits were around 90% of wage in Denmark and 80% in Sweden, compared to 75% in the Netherlands and 60% in Germany. The unemployed were also able to receive benefits several years before reductions, compared to quick benefit reduction in other countries.

Public expenditure for health and education is significantly higher in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway in comparison to the OECD average.

Overall tax burdens (as a percentage of GDP) are among the world's highest; Sweden (51.1%), Denmark (46% in 2011), and Finland (43.3%), compared to non-Nordic countries like Germany (34.7%), Canada (33.5%), and Ireland (30.5%).

The United Nations World Happiness Report 2013 shows that the happiest nations are concentrated in Northern Europe, with Denmark topping the list. The Nordics ranked highest on the metrics of real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, generosity and freedom from corruption.

The Nordic countries received the highest ranking for protecting workers rights on the International Trade Union Confederation's 2014 Global Rights Index, with Denmark being the only nation to receive a perfect score.

---

Which of these do you see taking place in the US anytime soon? This is pretty much the polar opposite of everything we do here. They've managed employment and income equality issues through vast income redistribution via a MASSIVE social safety net. You probably don't need a minimum wage when you have free healthcare, education and a union that will provide a job, unemployment benefits or training. We have none (few) of those things here. They need a job that pays enough to put a roof over their head.

quote:

---

Poverty rates pre-tax/transfer are 24.4% in Denmark, 32.3% in Finland, 21% in Iceland, 25.7% in Norway, and 27.8% in Sweden, and post-tax/transfer poverty rates become 6%, 7.3%, 6.4%, 7.5%, and 9.1% respectively

---

This is what I was talking about upthread, where the pendulum swings back toward the majority of the populace (probably too much), instead of the wealthy few. I do believe we'll get back to where we were in the 50s, but I guess it will take considerable pain on all of our parts to get there.

quote:

---

a systematic problem in the USA

---

We got more than one, my man. Good talk - I need to try to earn my paycheck before I get out of here.

quote:

---

some want better but they wouldn't be willing to trade more effort/work in exchange of their benefits.



exactly my point

---

Correct. We have a politically created problem that private industry takes advantage of. The poverty trap or welfare trap is a very real phenomenon that serves government and industry.

quote:

---

The government can’t give you your goals on a silver platter. One way or another, you have to achieve them.

---

Best line in the article.

quote:

---

I like your conviction but it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

---

If you think changing the minimum wage has "no effect", it's obvious you have your head buried in the sand.

quote:

---

The biggest problem to everyone's altruistic leanings on this issue is the fact that if we would have $15 minimum wage over night (1-2 years of incremental changes would still be "overnight" in economical terms), the apple cart wouldn't only be upset. It would be on fire rolling into a ravine with starving raccoons at the bottom ready to eat cooked apples. [/quote

I'm not arguing that the minimum wage should increase to $15 overnight. I do think it should be raised at least enough to keep with inflation, but the point I'm really making is that raising the minimum wage does have an effect whereas the people I'm replaying to have been claiming that it has absolutely no effect and yet they're still completely against it for some reason.

[quote]Will your company universally raise everyone's pay proportionally to compensate for the baseline? Doubtful. HIGHLY unlikely. So you just became poorer while the minimum wage worker's temporarily increased spending power put them to 1/2 of you, but only until inflation catches up. Once the market levels out, your 60k will be worth much less and their $30k will be be what it was when it was 15k.

---

That's just not how it works. I mean, think about what you're saying. You're saying it makes absolutely no difference for the minimum wage workers, and yet it makes everyone else poorer? There's a conservation problem there. Raising the minimum wage redistributes wealth (oh boy, I bet the OT is gonna love that phrase), it doesn't make wealth disappear into thin air.

You're right that companies won't give universal raises to everyone the moment the minimum wage goes up. But, they will have to give raises to other people over time in order to compete for skilled workers. And then, in order to pay their employees more, they'll have to raise prices somewhat (this causes some inflation but not enough to completely offset the raise in wages like you and others are claiming) and they'll have to eat some of the cost and accept that their profits have decreased.

quote:

---

Not going to happen. Costs get passed on down the line, profit isn't going anywhere. Large corporations dealing with economies of scale see significant impact when wages rise. Like taxes, other expenses will be passed along to the consumer.

---

Except when they raise prices, people buy less. So raising the price too much will decrease their profits even more. That should be obvious.

quote:

---

Are you real? I can't tell if you're trolling or a college freshman who doesn't understand the difference between reality and your ideals of how things should work.

---

What claim that I'm making do you think is even slightly controversial?