Do you Want Fries With That?

Wendy's To Replace Workers With Self-Service Kiosks Due To Minimum Wage Increases

Wendy’s  said that self-service ordering kiosks will be made available across its 6,000-plus restaurants in the second half of the year as minimum wage hikes and a tight labor market push up wages.

It will be up to franchisees whether to deploy the labor-saving technology, but Wendy’s President Todd Penegor did note that some franchise locations have been raising prices to offset wage hikes.

McDonald’s  has been testing self-service kiosks. But Wendy’s, which has been vocal about embracing labor-saving technology, is launching the biggest potential expansion.

Wendy’s Penegor said company-operated stores, only about 10% of the total, are seeing wage inflation of 5% to 6%, driven both by the minimum wage and some by the need to offer a competitive wage “to access good labor.”

It’s not surprising that some franchisees might face more of a labor-cost squeeze than company restaurants. All 258 Wendy’s restaurants in California, where the minimum wage rose to $10 an hour this year and will gradually rise to $15, are franchise-operated. Likewise, about 75% of 200-plus restaurants in New York are run by franchisees. New York’s fast-food industry wage rose to $10.50 in New York City and $9.75 in the rest of the state at the start of 2016, also on the way to $15.

That nearly doubles the labor costs, you know. And a restaurant is nota  high margin business so I wonder how many of them will go out of business because they can’t afford Liberalism??

Wendy’s plans to cut company-owned stores to just 5% of the total.

Still, Penegor said that increased customer counts more than price hikes drove the chain’s 3.6% same-store sales increase in the first quarter.

Although profit exceeded Wall Street estimates, Wendy’s shares dived nearly 9% Wednesday because of weak second-quarter sales.

“We are seeing a bit of a softer overall category in April” relative to the past two quarters, Penegor said on an earnings call, implying more of an industrywide trend than an issue specific to Wendy’s.

Penegor said the reason for softer growth was hard to pinpoint, but he listed a cautious consumer, tougher spring weather in the Northeast, and a wider gap between the cost of food at home vs. food away from home as possible contributors.

While Wendy’s management was upbeat about company prospects, noting that it just experienced its first year with a net increase in restaurants since 2010, its downbeat comments about sector growth were contagious. McDonald’s eased 1.7% after touching a new record high on Tuesday. Yum Brands , which owns Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC, slipped 2.6% and Restaurant Brands International  fell 3.4%.

For now, Penegor said, wage pressures have been manageable both because of falling commodity prices and better operating leverage due to an increase in customer counts. Still, the company is wary about both wage hikes and a possible recovery in commodity prices and is “working so hard to find efficiencies” so it can deliver “a new QSR experience but at traditional QSR prices.”

In addition to self-order kiosks, the company is also getting ready to move beyond the testing phase with labor-saving mobile ordering and mobile payment available systemwide by the end of the year. Yum Brands and McDonald’s already have mobile ordering apps.

Kiosks, of course, do the job of a human at the cost of $0 per hour.

Automation is coming, and it’s going to be at the cost of low-skilled workers–and not just the ones at Wendy’s. McDonald’s is also considering using kiosks, and self-checkout lines are common at grocery stores across the country. Minimum wage laws create an artificial price floor that hurts workers more than it helps.

But “victim” laden greedy Liberals and their Power mad Politicos won’t listen to basic economics. They have baser desires in mind.

And when the jobs go away, it won’t be there fault. It will be big bad “Corporate America”. Mind you, as it said most of the Wendy’s are FRANCHISE operations, meaning they are a SMALL BUSINESS owned by an entrepreneur not a massive corporation. So you’re hurting the small business guy by doubling his labor costs!

Idiots…

Burger Burn

I found this hilarious. All the little Crybabies were mad at the mean old capitalist…

The CEO of Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s has visited the fully automated restaurant Eatsa — and it’s given him some ideas on how to deal with rising minimum wages.

Eatsa, In the very heart of Liberalism, San Francisco: http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.com/blog/2015/08/31/fast-food-reinvented-eatsa-a-fully-automated-restaurant-opens-today/

“I want to try it,” CEO Andy Puzder told Business Insider. “We could have a restaurant that’s focused on all-natural products and is much like an Eatsa, where you order on a kiosk, you pay with a credit or debit card, your order pops up, and you never see a person.”

Puzder takes a highly conservative stance when it comes to the minimum wage issue — he’s written two op-eds against it in the Wall Street Journal.

“With government driving up the cost of labor, it’s driving down the number of jobs,” he said. “You’re going to see automation not just in airports and grocery stores, but in restaurants.” Entrepreneurs make their very living by solving problems and liberals demanding outrageous pay for low level work is one that is easily solved these days. “This is the problem with Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton, and progressives who push very hard to raise the minimum wage,” said Puzder. “Does it really help if Sally makes $3 more an hour if Suzie has no job?” Puzder has really warmed to the idea of robots and I have to say, I’m beginning to as well: “They’re always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case,” said Puzder of swapping employees for machines. Imagine the legal expense saved! Not to mention regulatory compliance. It’s as I have said most of my life… if you want job security, you had better work for yourself. No one will pay you better or work you harder. (RWN)

No one should be shocked that the Carl’s Jr. CEO wants to replace people in his stores. Anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of economics saw this coming, which naturally excludes those supporting the #FightFor15 movement. Bernie Sanders, we’re looking at you…

The Liberals will never see it coming. Their Thought Police/Agenda Uber Alles Filters will leave them totally blind.

But the fact that he’s so blunt about it? I tip my hat to you sir…

“If you’re making labor more expensive, and automation less expensive- this is not rocket science,” Puzder said.

“They’re always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case,” says Puzder of swapping employees for machines. “Millennials like not seeing people. I’ve been inside restaurants where we’ve installed ordering kiosks… and I’ve actually seen young people waiting in line to use the kiosk where there’s a person standing behind the counter, waiting on nobody.”

Leftists of course gotta leftist…

I guess Carl’s Jr saw what happened to McDonalds, WalMart, and the Gap when it came to a minimum wage hike. Also, I’m assuming this man had a calculator.

Of course, leftists could have read this man’s statements, attempted to understand an evolving economy and readjust their policy proposal. Instead, as they always do, they decide to fight against market forces through the demanding of government coercion. Just like when they fought against “right to work” (see those videos here). Just like when they fought against online media sharing. Just like when they, most recently, and incredibly ironically, oppose the emerging “sharing economy” like Uber and AirB&B (read more about that here).

That’s right. Self-professed socialists are attempting to SHUT DOWN THE SHARING ECONOMY. Let that sink in for a moment.

Why? Because to modern leftists, everything else takes a backseat to them getting theirs, period. It’s why Bernie’s promises of endless, mathematically impossible free sh** are so appealing.

Unenlightened Narcissism and “Entitlement” Greed are a very bad combination.

It didn’t work all that well for the Unions…

“This is the problem with Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton, and progressives who push very hard to raise the minimum wage,” says Puzder. “Does it really help if Sally makes $3 more an hour if Suzie has no job?”

But for more rote tasks like grilling a burger or taking an order, technology may be even more precise than human employees.

“They’re always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case,” says Puzder of swapping employees for machines.

But Puzder says that a restaurant that’s 100% automated would have one big plus for millennials: no social interaction.

“Millennials like not seeing people,” he says. “I’ve been inside restaurants where we’ve installed ordering kiosks … and I’ve actually seen young people waiting in line to use the kiosk where there’s a person standing behind the counter, waiting on nobody.” (Tea Party.org)

561f04d1a5af49e217009068_56799faa30c993aa9c000d8a

But conservatives are not immune. Listen, the minimum wage absurdity is obvious. But what do you think will happen if you try to punish trade? If you put more tariffs on China, or American manufacturers with manufacturing plants in Mexico? Businesses aren’t going to eat that cost. It will simply be passed on to you. When people demand government-mandated minimum wages that are not in line with market values, or they demand taxes on goods produced offshore to “bring back American jobs,” it is ultimately a tax on you, the consumer. As a general rule, consumers then migrate to where services are cheaper, and the American businesses go under. At which point they’ll promptly demand a bailout to continue the never-ending cycle.  (Crowder)

Detroit anyone? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Soylent Green Snake

Hillary Clinton has a new economic plan. In essence, government should get actively involved to make everyone’s wages higher.

Government control of the means of production…hmmm…I’ve heard that somewhere before… 🙂

Paul Krugman, writing in The New York Times, endorses the idea. There was a time when Krugman dismissed rhetoric like Clinton’s as economic quackery. These days he’s trying to sell the same snake oil as the politicians.

The Agenda is The Agenda. And Class Warfare is one of the great succors or The Left. They can’t conceive of life without it.

Here is what economists know and it’s backed by mountains of research. Employees tend to get paid their marginal product – the value they add to final output.

In a competitive market this is almost a truism. Wages are not a gift. They are not at one level, but could have been substantially higher or lower. They are what they are because of the employees’ skills and the market value of what they produce.

Now suppose that were not the case. Suppose there was a firm that paid employees more than their marginal product. That would mean the firm is collecting less from customers at the margin than it is paying out in wages. The firm can try to raise prices to cover the deficit, but then it would lose sales to rivals whose costs are lower and it would eventually go out of business. Or it could cover the deficit with lower profits. But then the investors would fire the manager and hire someone who gets the wages right and provides a market rate of return.

Suppose that there was a firm that paid employees less than their marginal product. In that case, rival firms would hire the employees away – since they are worth more than what they are being paid.

To summarize: A firm that pays workers more than they are worth cannot survive because it cannot match the prices and the rate of return to investors of its rivals. A firm that pays workers less than what they are worth, cannot survive because it will not be able to retain its employees. Competition in the marketplace tends to determine wages; there is a definite logic to what people are paid; and it has nothing to do with miserliness or generosity.

Therefore, Liberals want to eliminate competition thus everyone is equal and their are no winner and no losers. Just like the liberal version of youth sports where no one actually loses.

Competition is evil. So it must be destroyed. Competition is “unfair” and full of nothing but “inequality”.

Also, economists know there is no free lunch.

Unless, they are Liberal adherents to The Agenda, then they are all about the perception of “the free lunch” or the “greedy” capitalist who is a Scrooge and miserly old white privilege asshole.

If one person has a gain – in the absence of any increased production — someone else must endure a loss.

And since that is “unfair” Liberals demand everyone to be equal which holy unrealistic, but then again so are Liberals.

And we know a lot about those losses. For example, when government forces employers to pay higher wages, employers react by reducing other types of spending on their employees – less training and fewer fringe benefits, such as health insurance.

Close down and move to Mexico…Offer less hours of work at that higher pay, say 29. 🙂

On balance it appears that employees are left worse off. After a survey of the literature, economist Richard McKenzie wrote:

[I]f the minimum wage were raised to $10.10 an hour, for example, the estimated 16.5 million workers earning between $7.25 and $10.10 could lose non-monetary compensation more valuable than the $31 billion in additional wages they are expected to receive.

But Liberal work on perception, not reality. So that shiny new toy in the window look good from the outside, but once you own it and start playing with it, you find out just how cheaply made it was and it begins to fall about.

But don’t worry, The Liberal has that covered to! It’s called “victimization” where you are the victim of the evil, greedy capitalists! It’s not your fault you fell for their dog crap hook-line-and-sinker, it’s their fault!

How amazing is that. You took a bite of the apple of socialism and it the snake bit you, but it’s still the snake’s fault! And all you need is for the Liberal to come in and tell you that it was the snake fault and that if you take another bite it will STILL be the snake’s fault so why not go ahead…

In defense of Hillary, Krugman writes:

[E]mployers always face a trade-off between low-wage and higher-wage strategies — between, say, the traditional Walmart model of paying as little as possible and accepting high turnover and low morale, and the Costco model of higher pay and benefits leading to a more stable work force. And there’s every reason to believe that public policy can, in a variety of ways — including making it easier for workers to organize — encourage more firms to choose the good-wage strategy.

Liberalism a snake charmer, not a snake oil salesman, says the snake oil salesman.

But here’s the thing. What works for Costco workers may not work for Walmart workers. And in any event does any rational person think that government should make decisions about these tradeoffs rather than competitors in the marketplace?

Yes, Liberals. 🙂

The other day The New York Times had two contrasting editorials on its op ed page. One, by Paul Krugman, called for a higher minimum wage and other labor market interventions. The other, by the chairman of Starbucks and his wife, Howard and Sheri Schultz, noted that:

[There are] 5.6 million people ages 16 to 24 in America who are not employed or in school. While some have lost hope in this population … we believe these young people represent a significant untapped resource of productivity and talent. With the right support and training, they can benefit our businesses and our communities.

The Schultz’s have formed a foundation and with the aid of other foundations and high profile companies their goal is to “provide jobs, internships and apprenticeships to 100,000 young people over the next three years.”

Although they don’t say so, their editorial clearly implies that the wage that is paid to these youths doesn’t really matter. What matters is they learn the life skills of showing up for work on time, following orders, conducting themselves in appropriate ways, etc. If they learn those skills, their wages will rise through time without any help from government.

Krugman, Clinton and others on the left say there is no economic harm in raising the minimum wage and in adopting other polices that close off job opportunities for those at the bottom of the income ladder. In making this statement they are ignoring the social costs. The Schultz’s write:

[T]he cost of youth disconnection — including health care, public assistance and incarceration — was $26.8 billion in 2013 alone. Quite literally, we can’t afford to do nothing.

And then there are the personal costs, which do not easily lend themselves to calculation in terms of dollars and cents.

I suspect these costs are not of much interest to either Krugman or Clinton. (John C Goodman)

Snake Oil is how much a barrel?

Let’s not forget that those who have their wage increased suddenly find themselves no longer “qualified” to receive governmental benefits and pay higher taxes out of that higher wage.

We’ve already seen that where the “newly waged” want fewer hours so that they don’t lose their benefits.

Which probably explains why they don’t understand the reasoning behind how a wage gets set.

Secondarily, many unions tie their wages to the minimum wage level by some multiplier or other offset. Which means that costs will be going up in those businesses as well.

Krugman and others are dishonest for continuing to promote wage pandering.
But Liberals are never about the truth, but about what gains them power. And keeping people ignorant and jealous plays right into that.
(Townhall)

Keep them stupid, mad, and needy, that’s the Liberal plan. It keeps the Liberals pundits, advocates, and Politicians on their own gravy train.

Liberal version of Soylent Green, just grind them up and feed them back to themselves and make them happy for you and made at everyone else.

Give Me Comfort or Give me…

Matt Walsh had a piece yesterday that was truly brilliant.

It was aimed right at the hearts and minds of the $15/hr whiner crowd.

I want to address this to my generation and younger. The dreaded Youth of America. My fellow Young People. I think I’m still a member of this club, at least for a little while longer. These days childhood seems to extend for many people into their late 30s, so I guess if you use the Extended Adolescence scale, I’m only about 12 or so.

Thirty is the new 13, as they say.

Just trying having a rational discussion with a Liberal, you’ll be lucky if they act like a 3 year old.

In any case, I’m not sure what exactly prompted it – might be a couple of Tweets I sent out about minimum wage this week, or maybe this person stumbled upon an old article of mine — but I received a dire and depressing message yesterday. I’ll show you, just because it makes for an excellent learning opportunity:

Dear Matt, you are uninformed about the minimum wage. I’m NOT saying anyone should just HAND me a six figure income but I DO have the right to live a decent, comfortable life and not go hungry. I am 19 and supporting myself on a minimum wage job and it is not easy. 15 dollar minimum wage would be enough at least that I could be comfortable. I wish you didn’t see life through your privileged lense, then you might understand…

-Jon

Wow. Jon’s email consists of only five sentences, yet still he managed to cram in the word “comfort” twice (and “privilege” once, for good measure). He wants comfort, he says. He has a right to it. And those of us who oppose an increased minimum wage, thus standing in the way of his comfort, are privileged. This is the cartoon world he’s been indoctrinated into; this weird, mystical realm where comfort is owed to him, but evil privileged folks prowl about looking to steal it away. That’s essentially the social theory they teach in college, I’m told.

You have no shot. The privileged have taken everything so you got nothing. So vote for a Democrat to have government take it for you! 🙂

The price: Your soul. Your Pride.  And sense of self-motivation or worth.

It’s terrible to see a young guy already so bored, distracted, and unambitious that obtaining “a comfortable life” has become his objective. And not even an objective he’ll pursue on his own, but one he wants the government to deliver effortlessly to him, like a candy gram left on his doorstep by a secret admirer. It’s a heart wrenching spectacle to behold, but not remarkable. It’s certainly nothing I haven’t heard or read a thousand times before. Still, it made me reflect, not on the effects of a federal $15 minimum wage — we don’t have to speculate about that anymore, we’ve already seen how it destroys businesses in real life — but on the tragedy of so many millennials, millions in my generation, wasting their early life overcome with a fatal obsession over, and desire for, this elusive comfort.

“Everyone deserves a comfortable life”? Is that really going to be our generation’s rallying cry? Is this our revolution? “Give me comfort!” Our ancestors demanded liberty or death, but we’ve slightly modified the slogan, it seems.

A Pew survey found that half of minimum wage workers are between 16 and 24 years old, and another 22 percent are 25 to 34. Then there are the workers near minimum wage (which means they’d also see a massive bump in pay if the federal minimum were increased to $15), and half of them are under 30. This is why I weep over the “fight for 15″ movement. Most of these people are young — their whole lives in front of them, a billion potential paths they could walk, an infinite number of opportunities — yet this is their fight? Fifteen bucks an hour wrapping burritos at Chipotle? That’s all they’re after? Don’t misunderstand me: I’m not saying they want too much. I’m saying precisely that they don’t want enough.

Indeed, an increased minimum wage will certainly make many of them comfortable — especially in the parts of the country where 1$5 an hour really translates to $19 or $20 – and that’s exactly the problem. My great fear is not that an enormously inflated minimum wage will unravel the economy, although it surely will, but that it might actually succeed in its goal of making a bunch of 20-something fry cooks “comfortable” in their jobs. This would be a profound catastrophe because these jobs are not supposed to make people comfortable; nobody is supposed to do them for years and years on end. You’re supposed to get in and get out. Move in and move one. You’re meant to use it as a platform on your way to something better, but the platform is not meant to be a comfortable place to set up camp and hang out for a few decades.

Comfort: a state of ease and satisfaction of bodily wants, with freedom from pain and anxiety.

As the young generation, we are simply not at the point in our lives where we should be striving for “ease and satisfaction.” Least of all should we be looking to derive ease and satisfaction from wearing name tags and microwaving Big Macs all day. These kinds of jobs are tiring and tedious and demeaning and they pay like crap, and that’s the point. They’re not comfortable, and they shouldn’t be.

Besides, a “comfortable life” is by no means a human right, nor is it a need. Comfort, for one thing, is subjective. I’m sure wide swaths of humanity would consider every American, even our poor ones, comfortable. A roof over their head and safe food to eat are comforts to billions. Add in air conditioning, Internet, cell phone, TV, car, and running water, and by their standards you’ve reached the pinnacle of human luxury.

When we say we have a right to a comfortable life, whose idea of comfort are we working with? The Ethiopian version or the lazy, pampered, materialistic American consumer version? And where is the comfort equilibrium? Once we all have apartments, cable, NetFlix, Wi-Fi, stocked refrigerators, and consoles with at least four video games? Is that when comfort will be achieved? But what happens when everyone realizes that standard of comfort? What if my greedy neighbor then goes out and gets another video game, and a faster Wi-Fi connection, and better food? Now, compared to him, I’m less comfortable. Should he be forced to give me some of his stuff to compensate? But what if that makes me more comfortable than him? Do I give it back? Do we just keep up this tug of war until we all fall dead in our comfortable houses and are buried in our comfortable coffins under six feet of comfortable dirt?

REDISTRIBUTION WEALTH IS AN IMPERATIVE! 🙂

“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” goes the old Chinese proverb.

And for Liberals it feels good to give the poor a fish, or even better the “rich” person’s fish. Or a “free” or “cheaper” fish that looks like the “rich” person’s fish.

Problem is, then they don’t know how to fish. And if they never learned how to fish to begin with, then you have a person dependent on you for their fish.

Which, for Democrats, works for them. That’s what they like. They can control you, you are their slave if you can’t or won’t fish and they give it to you.

And you demand more! More Comfort! They are wealthy, they can afford it! 🙂

In this photo taken, Aug. 1, 2013, demonstrators protesting what they say are low wages and improper treatment for fast-food workers march in downtown Seattle.  (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, File)

Have we thought this through? Of course not, but you can’t totally blame us. We live, after all, in the era of birth control mandates, Obama phones, free-speech zones, trigger warnings, and anti-discrimination ordinances. We are told every day that we have the right to feel comfortable, or at least to not be exposed to any ideas or circumstances that would make us uncomfortable. We’re just following the cultural cues, and listening to the voices that tell us our aim in life should be the avoidance of physical and emotional discomfort, at whatever cost. But the voices are wrong, and they’re leading us far, far astray.

Comfort is not a right or a need or even an appropriate desire at this stage. Sure, we can think about comfort when we’re shopping for jeans or sweaters or beds, but comfort shouldn’t be our entire goal in life right now. A comfortable lifestyle is for the old and the retired, not the young and the hungry.

“Give me $15 an hour so I can be comfortable!” What a weak and timid and disappointing banner to march under. We’ve got a world to conquer, for God’s sake. We’re not patients in hospice care. Now is the time to be uncomfortable.

Let’s look again at Jon’s case, for example. He’s supporting himself, he says, which is great. But he used the word “job,” singular, which tells me he only has one. Why? Why not get a second or a third? Instead of waiting for the government to force his employer to pay him about double what he’s making, he could go out and do it himself. Two jobs equals double the income. I worked three at one point, just as many people have. I worked from 4 p.m. to 10 a.m. some days; that’s 16 hours from afternoon to late morning. It was painful and uncomfortable and exhausting. It was awesome.

A while ago, the last time I wrote about the minimum wage, I heard from a guy who told me he’s 22, single, living alone, and he works four jobs. Two full time, one part time, and one that’s more of a freelance gig he does in his spare time (whenever that is). How is it that some people complain they can’t survive on minimum wage, they can’t find a better job, they can’t find a second job, meanwhile that dude is out there with four of them? And, no, I assume he doesn’t want to live like that forever, but he’s living like that now so he won’t have to do it forever. He’s not worried about being comfortable.

So, a minimum wage hike? You’re setting your sights too low, my friends. Here you are, complaining that the government won’t force your employer to give you $15  an hour, when you could be putting a plan in place to make 10 times that amount in the next five years. Better yet, you could be figuring out what your passions are and devising a way to make a career out of them, regardless of the money.

I think you should be chasing something bigger. We all should. Truth, beauty, fulfillment, love, success. Not comfort. And while you hunt for this larger game, what’s the worst that could happen? You eat one meal a day? You go to bed hungry sometimes? You have to cut off the AC to save money? You end up pawning half your possessions to pay the bills? I’ve been there. It’s not that bad. It’s good, actually. It motivates you. It drives you. It teaches you to scrap by and survive and do what it takes.

Why worry about getting a raise at your crappy minimum wage job? You aren’t planning on being there forever, are you? You don’t think of minimum wage employment as a 30-year career option, do you? Right, I hope not. Forget, then, about asking the government to tell your employer to make you comfortable. Comfort is just about the worst thing that could happen to you right now, or to any of us.

Here’s what I can assure you: Minimum wage won’t kill you. You’re not going to die. I mean, you will die eventually, maybe soon for all I know, maybe tomorrow or an hour from now, but it won’t be from lack of income. The coroner report isn’t going to list “minimum wage” as cause of death, I promise you.

So drop this “comfortable” thing, OK? Remove the word from your vocabulary completely. In fact, take out a paper bag, shout “I have the right to live a comfortable life!” into it, tie it shut so the words are trapped in there, then douse it in gasoline and throw it into a volcano. Murder that awful, hideous sentence with terrific violence. Ask for more out of life, and listen to the answer.

Life might not offer you comfort, especially while you’re still working the late shift at Taco Bell, but there’s the potential for something so much better, as long as you’re willing to go out and get it.

I wish I had been that smart in my early years.
But I have little sympathy for the “comfort police”.
I got into big debt because of my own issues and trusting other people.
I didn’t cry to the government or blame “privilege”.
I had 2 jobs. I got up at 4am. I had a nap in the afternoon for an hour. I went to bed at 1:30am! Monday-Friday for  28 months straight.
Now’s that’s not comfortable.
But it it had to be done. No whining. No no crying. Just do it.
Just hard work.
Now, 10 years later I had a house. A good paying job and I still work hard just not that hard.
So suck it up. Turn off your internet. Turn of the Cable with HBO Turn off your cell phone. How many 100’s of dollars is that a month?
Do what has to be done.
It won’t be easy.
But 10 years from now, you’ll thank us all.

That is, unless 10 years from now you’re still flipping burgers and complaining that $15/hr are “slave wages” and that no one can live “comfortably” on that!! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Save Yourself!

Last fall, voters in the Bay Area cities of San Francisco and Oakland followed Seattle’s lead and approved costly new minimum-wage mandates ($15 an hour and $12.25 an hour, respectively) for most businesses in the city boundaries. Now the bills have begun arriving, and some businesses can’t pay them.

The consequences of minimum-wage increases, at the historical levels studied in the U.S., are well known to labor economists. A summary of the research published last year by the Institute for the Study of Labor, and authored by University of California-Irvine economist David Neumark, found that each 10% hike in the minimum wage on the state and federal level has caused a 1% to 2% drop in youth employment. Similarly, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found an increase in fast-food prices associated with the same wage change.

Given the scope and schedule of these new minimum-wage increases, the impact on prices and employment may be even steeper this time. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25, half of what San Francisco’s wage floor will be set at by 2018 after a series of increases that begin in May. Nationally, Congress phased in the last 40% increase to $7.25 over a three-year period; in Oakland, an almost-identical 36% increase happened overnight on March 1.

 
Photo: Getty Images

Businesses’ first line of defense against these labor-cost increases is an offsetting increase in prices. The magnitude is staggering: In Oakland, local restaurants are raising prices by as much as 20%, with the San Francisco Chronicle reporting that “some of the city’s top restaurateurs fear they will lose customers to higher prices.” Thanks to a quirk in California law that prohibits full-service restaurants from counting tips as income, other operators—who were forced to give their best-paid employees a raise—are rethinking their business model by eliminating tips as they raise prices.

Ironically, this change in compensation practices has reduced the take-home pay for some of the employees it was supposed to help: At the Oakland restaurant Homestead, the East Bay Express reported that servers are taking “a substantial pay cut,” earning a flat wage of $18 to $24 an hour and no tips instead of the $35 to $55 an hour they were accustomed to earning when tips were included.

Though higher prices are a risk that some businesses were able to take, others haven’t had the option. The San Francisco retailer Borderlands Books made national news in February when the owner announced that the city’s $15 minimum wage would put him out of business, in part because the prices of his products were already printed on the covers. (A unique customer fundraiser gave Borderlands a stay of execution until at least March of 2016.)

One block away from Borderlands, a fine-dining establishment called The Abbot’s Cellar—twice selected as one of the city’s top-100 restaurants—wasn’t so lucky. The forthcoming $15 minimum wage, combined with a series of factors like the city’s soaring rents, put the business over the edge and compelled its owners to close. One of the partners told me the restaurant had no ability to absorb the added cost, and neither a miraculous increase in sales volume nor higher prices were viable options.

These aren’t isolated anecdotes. In the city’s popular SoMa neighborhood, a vegetarian diner called The Source closed in January, again citing the higher minimum wage as a factor. Back across the Bay in Oakland, the Chronicle reported that some of the city’s businesses have been similarly affected. According to a board member of the Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, 10 restaurants or grocery stores opted to permanently close this year alone as a partial consequence of the wage hike. Even the Salvation Army’s child-care facility is “scrambling to find ways to keep the doors open” in response to labor cost increases, according to the organization’s county coordinator.

Faced with convincing evidence of the policy’s failures, you’d think advocates would be chastened or apologetic. You’d be wrong: Ken Jacobs, who runs the University of California-Berkeley’s labor-backed Center for Labor Research and Education, chalked up possible consequences of new mandates to labor-market “churn.” Research that Mr. Jacobs co-authored predicted that the Bay Area hikes would be mostly cost-free. At a forum earlier this month where dozens of Oakland business owners fretted about their viability, representatives of Lift Up Oakland—the labor union-backed coalition that advocated for the wage hike—were not in attendance.

It’s probably too late to save other Oakland and San Francisco businesses. But it’s not too late for cities like New York and Los Angeles to heed the evidence before following their footsteps. (Michael Saltsman)

But “sticking it” to “rich” corporations is what Liberals like to use for their class warfare Divide & conquer. Doesn’t matter what the consequences are, they never do.

It makes their minions feel “righteous” and “angry”.

It gets them to vote for Democrats.

In the end the sheep slip their own throat, but they do it happily and will gladly gut themselves afterwards.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

McMinimum

Let’s get one thing straight. We live in America. A country built on free enterprise and capitalism. If you have a good idea and the the drive to see it through to completion.

Just because you make minimum wage doesn’t mean you HAVE to make minimum wage.

America wasn’t built on the backs of men and women who whined about not having enough until they got it.

It was built by men and women who demanded this life give them more than what it had originally allotted them, and they didn’t give up until they got it.

mcdonaldskiosk

What this mass protest does show is that if enough people get together and yell and complain, they probably will have their demands met by a country that continues to cater to those who complain when they don’t get their way instead of actually finding something better.

What ever happened to making the most of yourself and working hard for something more than a job flipping burgers? I personally thank McDonald’s for replacing these people. Maybe now they will strive to do more with their life.

I read an article on TheBlaze a few weeks ago with the title, “Fast Food Workers: You Don’t Deserve $15 an Hour to Flip Burgers, and That’s OK”. this writer is 100% right.

Here’s an important quote from the writer…

“You think the jobs I had when I was 16 should have provided me with the comfortable living I just established in my late 20s? Frankly, I think you’re delusional.

To understand how delusional, consider that a $15 an hour full-time salary would put you in the same ballpark as biologists, auto mechanics, biochemists, teachers, geologists, roofers and bank tellers.”

This kind of wage hike for an entry level food job just adds fuel to the entitlement mentality that is increasingly rising in our nation.

But all they wanted was $15 per hour?

Until 5-10 years from now when $15/hr will be “slave wages” that is…

Hillary Clinton Declines To Support A National $15 Minimum Wage

Clinton says she supports raising the national minimum wage, but adds that “what you can do in L.A. or in New York may not work in other places.”

How hilarious is that? Mrs. “One of you” Populist (who said basically the opposite once already).

If raising the minimum wage were cost-free, why stop at $10 or $15 an hour? Why not go straight to $25 an hour, the average hourly wage? That might be considered fair, because no one would have to earn less than today’s average.

The answer, of course, is because some people are displaced at any minimum wage. It is obvious to the general public that increasing the minimum wage to $25 an hour would displace workers. It is less obvious when amounts are smaller. But when the minimum wage is raised, employers hire higher-skilled people, or switch to different forms of technology such as placing orders through touch screens.

Forbes:

As we keep trying to point out to people there really isn’t anything even remotely resembling a free lunch when it comes to the discussion of wages and labor. Meaning that just because well meaning liberals wave their magic wand and decree that wages will rise there will indeed be countervailing effects. And in San Francisco, where the minimum wage was recently raised we did indeed see that comic book shop insisting that it just couldn’t survive. And now we’ve another tale, this time from Chipotle. Beef prices have been rising around the country so they’ve raised the prices, around the country, of their beef products. Wages in San Francisco have been rising strongly so they’ve raised the prices of all their products in San Francisco strongly. There really is no free lunch. A rise in wages will come out of either less labor being employed, lower profit margins (and fast food doesn’t have those wide enough to take the strain) or price increases to consumers.

And it’s that last which is happening as Mark Perry points out:

• In our weekly survey of ten of Chipotle’s markets, we found the company implemented price increases in half of the surveyed markets this week—San Francisco, Denver, Minneapolis, Chicago, and Orlando. In most markets, the price increases have been limited to beef and average about 4% on barbacoa and steak, toward the lower end of management’s expectation for a 4% to 6% price increase on beef.

• San Francisco, however, saw across-the-board price increases averaging over 10%, including 10% increases on chicken, carnitas (pork), sofritas (tofu), and vegetarian entrees along with a 14% increase on steak and barbacoa. We believe the outsized San Francisco price hike was likely because of increased minimum wages (which rose by 14% from $10.74 per hour to $12.25 on May 1) as well as scheduled minimum wage increases in future years (to $13 next year, $14 in 2017, and $15 in 2018).

A rough guide to the finances of the fast food industry is as follows. 30% goes on wages, 30% of revenues goes on ingredients and the other 40% is everything else. Rents, advertising, capital costs and, of course, profits. Those profits are pretty low. 5% of revenues isn’t an out of order estimation of the net profit margins in the business (and, of course, that’s an average, as some locations and some whole chains lose money).

So, if we by legislative fiat raise the price of one of those inputs then something, somewhere, has to give. Those profit margins are already pretty thin and so they’re not going to be where that extra cost comes from. More than that if we reduce the returns to capital in a particular line of business then less capital will be invested in that line of business in the future. This means fewer jobs in that line of business: This is one of the ways that a rise in the minimum wage destroys jobs. Fewer will be created in the future than would have been in the absence of the rise in the minimum wage.

It’s possible that employers will be encouraged to deploy their labor in a more productive manner as a result of the price increase. This is the same statement as fewer jobs will be created. For if I go and raise labor productivity then by definition I need less labor for any given level of output. Or of course employers could just automate the process a little more and that also means fewer jobs.

So, if employers either economize on labor or profits, there will be job losses: the minimum wage rise does reduce employment.

Or there is this final method: raise prices. Which also causes job losses: for the more money that consumers are spending on reasonably priced Mexican food (although now less reasonably priced Mexican food than it used to be) the less they have available to spend on other things. We might think that there could be an interesting overlap between those who consume reasonably priced Mexican food and those who frequent comic book shops for example. If the food now costs more then there might well be less being spent in the comic book shop: again, we see reductions in the number of jobs.

And just to head off at the pass one of the more insane points that people try to make. That if the workers at Chipotle are now making more money then they’ll spend more at Chipotle, and the company’s profits will rise! This doesn’t even pass the basic math test, let alone any economic one. For note above the split in revenues. About 30% of revenue is spent upon labor. The other 70% is spent upon other things, including that 30% or so on food ingredients. So, if Chipotle raises wages by $100 (just as an example) and all of those wages are then spent in the same store, it is impossible for profits to rise. Think about it for a moment: the wage bill has just gone up by $100. Revenues have just gone up by $100. But the food bill has also gone up by $30. So, the increase in costs is $130 (even in the very best, best, case) while revenues have gone up by $100. This is known to the cognoscenti as a loss, not an increase in profit.

There really is no such thing as a free lunch. Only lunches of variable cost. And if we increase the cost of one of the major inputs into such lunches then something else will give. Here, as a result of the rise in the minimum wage Chipotle has raised prices in that specific location where the minimum wage rise occurred.

This doesn’t help minimum wage earners: some unknown but knowable reduction in sales of reasonably priced Mexican food will take place as a result of this price rise. Demand curves really do slope downwards. Thus some unknown but knowable number of people will not be employed to produce said food.

As we’ve been saying all along: a rise in the minimum wage really does destroy jobs.

Finding the effects of raising the minimum wage is challenging, because 97 percent of American workers now make above the minimum wage—not because it is the law, but because employers have to pay higher compensation packages to retain workers. That is one reason that some academic studies do not find major negative effects of minimum-wage increases.

Those who would be harmed by increasing the minimum wage are young people. Half of minimum-wage workers are under 25, and 24 percent are teens. This group’s unemployment rate is already higher than the 5.3 percent overall rate. The teen unemployment rate is 18 percent, and the African-American teen unemployment rate is 32 percent. The youth unemployment rate is 10 percent. (Federalist)

But the Left will continue with their class warfare because that suits THEIR Agenda, so what if you get hurt in the process, like that matters. The end justifies the means, remember. 🙂

Whoops!

More unintended consequences from Liberal “help”.

SEATTLE, Wash. —

A Seattle-area nonprofit observed some workers recently asking for reduced hours, as they feared that their higher wages now put them at risk of losing housing subsidies.

Nora Gibson is the executive director of Full Life Care, a nonprofit that serves elderly people in various homes and nursing facilities. She is also on the board of the Seattle Housing Authority.

Gibson told KIRO 7 she saw a sudden reaction from workers when Seattle’s phased minimum-wage ordinance took effect in April, bringing minimum wage to $11 an hour. She said anecdotally, some people feared they would lose their subsidized units but still not be able to afford market-rate rents.

For example, she said last week, five employees at one of her organization’s 24-hour care facilities for Alzheimer’s patients asked to reduce their hours in order to remain eligible for subsidies. They now earn at least $13 an hour, after they increased wages at all levels in April, Gibson said.

“This has nothing to do with people’s willingness to work, or how hard people work. It has to do with being caught in a very complex situation where they have to balance everything they can pull together to pull together a stable, successful life,” Gibson said.
Gibson said she fully supports a minimum wage increase but was not surprised when her employees asked for fewer hours.

“The jump from subsidized housing to market rate in Seattle is huge,” she said.

Seattle Housing Authority told KIRO 7: “It’s important that the continuum of affordable housing options in our city and region allows for progression as people’s incomes increase. That needs to be addressed across the housing market so that people don’t feel they are in jeopardy of stable housing as they are able to earn enough to pay more of their housing costs.”

The amount of public assistance one receives depends on the income and size of the family. The scale is determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the qualifications are based on area median income.

Justine Decker, who is a full-time student at Seattle Central College, said she works part-time so she can still get subsidies for rent and child care.

“A one-bedroom can cost upward of $1,200. And so imagine paying that, and paying child care which can be $900 something dollars,” Decker said.

She said she doesn’t want to work full time, or she wouldn’t be able to afford market-rate rents. Decker said she’s in school to become a teacher and hopes to eventually become a principal, to make well over minimum wage levels to be able to pay for everything on her own.

Mohamed Muktar drives an Uber and also receives public assistance for housing. He said he would love to work more hours.

“If you can get more hours, I think you need to work more hours, so you can take care of your bills,” Muktar said.

Seattle Councilmember Nick Licata said he hadn’t heard of purposeful reduction of hours before.

“We need more information, for one thing. This is anecdotal,” Licata said.

Still, he said people need more options, especially after breaking the threshold that pushes them out of public housing.

“We do not want this to be an improvement on one side of the scale, and then decrease in living conditions on another,” Licata said. “We should not be using this as an excuse not to address the overall problem.” (KIRO)

%d bloggers like this: