3 ms·

I think they can learn how to cook. 2 people can eat pretty darn well for $100 spent on groceries in a week most anywhere in the US. That covers, what, 2 or 3 d

I think they can learn how to cook. 2 people can eat pretty darn well for $100 spent on groceries in a week most anywhere in the US. That covers, what, 2 or 3 dinners out at a sit down place? Maybe 5 at a fast casual place? And the people eating out still need breakfast and lunch. Dining out is not a necessity. Unless you're one of the rare people without a kitchen that somebody will inevitably protest about. In which case you'd better be paying a lot less than market rate for housing with a kitchen to cover the totally foreseeable expense of eating out all the time.

friedman23 9y ago
>I think they can learn how to cook And all the people that used to eat out learn how to cook and stop eating out. The restaurants go out of business and the workers with higher minimum wage are fired. Good thinking
- jcadam 9y ago
  > And all the people that used to eat out learn how to cook and stop eating out. The restaurants go out of business and the workers with higher minimum wage are fired. You're arguing that people should not bother learning how to prepare food for themselves in order to sustain the restaurant industry.
  - friedman23 9y ago
    I'm arguing that specialization benefits everyone and that your misguided attempt at helping these workers will actually hurt them.
- mauvehaus 9y ago
  Per the article, demand (i.e. restaurant customers) is on the verge of exceeding supply (food cooked by restaurant workers) now because there aren't enough restaurant workers. At the risk of stating the obvious, not all customers are equally price-sensitive. The goal would be to hit a happy equilibrium by removing enough of the most price-sensitive customers that supply and demand end up at a happy equilibrium.
twoodfin 9y ago
Reverting dining out into a luxury for the poor is the definition of regressive policymaking. And without a $15 minimum wage, restaurants cheaper than $10 sandwich “fast casual” places are much more viable. Finally, I’d expect the poor disproportionately depend on services provided by minimum wage workers across a range of sectors.
- mason55 9y ago
  By the way, this is one of the arguments for Universal Basic Income. If everyone starts with a base of having enough money to live a simple but dignified life then you can do things like eliminate the minimum wage. You eliminate that race to the bottom because you put the power back in the hands of the workers and remove the distortion of "people need basic food & shelter" from the labor market. Now you've got to pay someone enough to make them want to work at McDonald's (or improve working conditions or whatever). I would expect that the price of cheap fast food would go up a lot because now you're going to have to pay someone enough to want to do that job (versus now where you can take advantage of the fact that for many people it's a either a McJob or living on the streets). I would expect the prices of more luxury goods, where workers are already paid a good wage and have good working conditions, to be less affected, as those jobs are already subject to fewer distortions in the labor market.

friedman23 9y ago

>I think they can learn how to cook And all the people that used to eat out learn how to cook and stop eating out. The restaurants go out of business and the workers with higher minimum wage are fired. Good thinking

jcadam 9y ago
> And all the people that used to eat out learn how to cook and stop eating out. The restaurants go out of business and the workers with higher minimum wage are fired. You're arguing that people should not bother learning how to prepare food for themselves in order to sustain the restaurant industry.
- friedman23 9y ago
  I'm arguing that specialization benefits everyone and that your misguided attempt at helping these workers will actually hurt them.
mauvehaus 9y ago
Per the article, demand (i.e. restaurant customers) is on the verge of exceeding supply (food cooked by restaurant workers) now because there aren't enough restaurant workers. At the risk of stating the obvious, not all customers are equally price-sensitive. The goal would be to hit a happy equilibrium by removing enough of the most price-sensitive customers that supply and demand end up at a happy equilibrium.

twoodfin 9y ago

Reverting dining out into a luxury for the poor is the definition of regressive policymaking. And without a $15 minimum wage, restaurants cheaper than $10 sandwich “fast casual” places are much more viable. Finally, I’d expect the poor disproportionately depend on services provided by minimum wage workers across a range of sectors.

mason55 9y ago
By the way, this is one of the arguments for Universal Basic Income. If everyone starts with a base of having enough money to live a simple but dignified life then you can do things like eliminate the minimum wage. You eliminate that race to the bottom because you put the power back in the hands of the workers and remove the distortion of "people need basic food & shelter" from the labor market. Now you've got to pay someone enough to make them want to work at McDonald's (or improve working conditions or whatever). I would expect that the price of cheap fast food would go up a lot because now you're going to have to pay someone enough to want to do that job (versus now where you can take advantage of the fact that for many people it's a either a McJob or living on the streets). I would expect the prices of more luxury goods, where workers are already paid a good wage and have good working conditions, to be less affected, as those jobs are already subject to fewer distortions in the labor market.