3 ms·

I've said it in a response and so have others, but it's really important to point out that: This law now makes it illegal for anyone that can only provide $19/

I've said it in a response and so have others, but it's really important to point out that: This law now makes it illegal for anyone that can only provide $19/hour of economic revenue from working at a fast food restaurant.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> This law now makes it illegal for anyone that can only provide $19/hour of economic revenue from working at a fast food restaurant. No, it doesn’t. It makes it less likely that they would be employed to, but there is no law against employing people at an economic loss, and employers often do this (though they don’t tend to continue doing it when they realize that they are; but that’s their choice, not a legal mandate.) The argument assumes (as naive economic arguments often do) perfect information on the part of all participants (particularly, that employers know both the maximum economic utility an employee will provide and the effect of wage on their productivity without error), which while a standard component of rational choice theory is also a component that is known not to match the real world at all, being wildly wrong for many purposes.
doctorpangloss 3y ago
I don't think this is the gotchya or insight porn you think it is. For starters it's nonsensical. Don't get me started with the jargon. "Economic revenue?" "Illegal?" While I don't think you deserve to get downvoted for such nonsense, because maybe it is interesting for someone to explore the premise of what you're actually saying, even if you are saying it extremely poorly, I am at least trying to explain for you personally why a normal person will read this and think, "What is this guy talking about?"
- hellojesus 3y ago
  It's simple: a business hires a worker when that worker generates more revenue than they cost. So if I want to hire person A, but person A is only able to do work that would drive $18 in revenue for me, then I won't hire them at $20 because I will lose money. If I were to hire them at $18 I would at least be neutral, and maybe I could work to get their skills up to the point where they are delivering more than $18, and I am now positive. Maybe they do well enough for me to increase their pay over time. But I cannot do that with this new law. I'm banned from paying them $18. They simply will never work for me, or maybe anyone.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > It’s simple: a business hires a worker when that worker generates more revenue than they cost. Simple, but not actually true.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Good! Then the business should not exist if it cannot pay a living wage. Your comment makes it sound like you're doing this person a great service, when in actuality, such an arrangement is the problem. An employer paying minimum wage is saying, "I would pay you less if I could get away with it, but I legally cannot." I would encourage you to work harder as a business owner to pay a living wage, if you so choose to be a business owner who requires labor.
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      > No one is entitled to labor. Correct. Which is why a business offers a wage and the labor either accepts or rejects it. Zero times have restaurants forced people to work. Exactly all times people have chosen to work, at an agreed upon wage. Why do you think the government should get to decide for how much I'm willing to sell my labor?
      - toomuchtodo 3y ago
        > Why do you think the government should get to decide for how much I'm willing to sell my labor? Because government's role is to protect its citizens. My apologies if this government is not suitable to you, you may have to relocate if a representative democratic outcome is not to your liking. The evidence is incredibly clear workers need protections from business and capital in the current socioeconomic system, but you may disagree depending on your mental model.
        hellojesus 3y ago
        > Because government's role is to protect its citizens. We have opposing views, and that's okay. I believe a government should only provide public goods (nonrivalous and nonexcludable). I believe the primary purpose of a government is to protect private property and provide a system for resolving disputes. I believe that welfare should be left to private sector charity. I believe that when the government does it, it is akin to using legal violence to force others to give to your causes, which then robs them of the funds they would rather give to other causes.
nrb 3y ago
Excuse me while I belly laugh at the notion that fast food workers deliver anywhere near that low of labor value in CA.
timeon 3y ago
They can now provide $20/hour of economic revenue.
hparadiz 3y ago
It's sort of amazing to me that you even wrote this. It's shocking. A typical fast food establishment. Say Chikfila will clear 15k of revenue on a typical slow night. On a good night easily 25k. An 8 hour shift at $20 an hour is $160. You need to have 5 people in the kitchen and 6-7 out front bagging and taking orders. 12*160 = 1920 Typically wages are your most expensive line item. So essentially everyone on HN is arguing over $500 a night from revenue that is already hitting 80% profit. If anything the minimum wage should be $30. It's almost like techies should stay in their lane and stop talking about economics they know nothing about.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  Your argument is that because a business is not yet distributing all it's revenue as costs, thereby driving its profits to $0, we should regulate that outcome? What about the risk that the entrepreneur took in terms of their capital to open the franchise? Are they not due compensation? Minimum wage requirements do several things: - Make those who cannot deliver $x/hr in revenue permanently unemployed - Drive up costs for consumers Sure, those who keep their jobs are better off, but that doesn't offset the negatives imo. Maybe the restaurants will eat the losses by not passing on costs to remain competitive, but we're already in a massive inflation cycle, so it wouldn't be hard for them to raise rates while blaming the law. But how many businesses needed to be driven to insolvency for your policy to determine minimum wage is at last sufficiently high?
  - hparadiz 3y ago
    No. My argument is that the cost of the workers where I live is at least worth $20 an hour. If you're not willing to pay them that then I don't really care about your business. It's not worth giving you a business license to operate for you're not willing to agree that the labor here is worth this much. The local government expects a certain amount of tax revenue from wages and since you're not willing to pay that cost of doing business you can go elsewhere. Someone else will be happy to take over the location. We don't need you.
    - 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago

> This law now makes it illegal for anyone that can only provide $19/hour of economic revenue from working at a fast food restaurant. No, it doesn’t. It makes it less likely that they would be employed to, but there is no law against employing people at an economic loss, and employers often do this (though they don’t tend to continue doing it when they realize that they are; but that’s their choice, not a legal mandate.) The argument assumes (as naive economic arguments often do) perfect information on the part of all participants (particularly, that employers know both the maximum economic utility an employee will provide and the effect of wage on their productivity without error), which while a standard component of rational choice theory is also a component that is known not to match the real world at all, being wildly wrong for many purposes.

doctorpangloss 3y ago

I don't think this is the gotchya or insight porn you think it is. For starters it's nonsensical. Don't get me started with the jargon. "Economic revenue?" "Illegal?" While I don't think you deserve to get downvoted for such nonsense, because maybe it is interesting for someone to explore the premise of what you're actually saying, even if you are saying it extremely poorly, I am at least trying to explain for you personally why a normal person will read this and think, "What is this guy talking about?"

hellojesus 3y ago
It's simple: a business hires a worker when that worker generates more revenue than they cost. So if I want to hire person A, but person A is only able to do work that would drive $18 in revenue for me, then I won't hire them at $20 because I will lose money. If I were to hire them at $18 I would at least be neutral, and maybe I could work to get their skills up to the point where they are delivering more than $18, and I am now positive. Maybe they do well enough for me to increase their pay over time. But I cannot do that with this new law. I'm banned from paying them $18. They simply will never work for me, or maybe anyone.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > It’s simple: a business hires a worker when that worker generates more revenue than they cost. Simple, but not actually true.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Good! Then the business should not exist if it cannot pay a living wage. Your comment makes it sound like you're doing this person a great service, when in actuality, such an arrangement is the problem. An employer paying minimum wage is saying, "I would pay you less if I could get away with it, but I legally cannot." I would encourage you to work harder as a business owner to pay a living wage, if you so choose to be a business owner who requires labor.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    > No one is entitled to labor. Correct. Which is why a business offers a wage and the labor either accepts or rejects it. Zero times have restaurants forced people to work. Exactly all times people have chosen to work, at an agreed upon wage. Why do you think the government should get to decide for how much I'm willing to sell my labor?
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      > Why do you think the government should get to decide for how much I'm willing to sell my labor? Because government's role is to protect its citizens. My apologies if this government is not suitable to you, you may have to relocate if a representative democratic outcome is not to your liking. The evidence is incredibly clear workers need protections from business and capital in the current socioeconomic system, but you may disagree depending on your mental model.
      - hellojesus 3y ago
        > Because government's role is to protect its citizens. We have opposing views, and that's okay. I believe a government should only provide public goods (nonrivalous and nonexcludable). I believe the primary purpose of a government is to protect private property and provide a system for resolving disputes. I believe that welfare should be left to private sector charity. I believe that when the government does it, it is akin to using legal violence to force others to give to your causes, which then robs them of the funds they would rather give to other causes.

nrb 3y ago

Excuse me while I belly laugh at the notion that fast food workers deliver anywhere near that low of labor value in CA.

timeon 3y ago

They can now provide $20/hour of economic revenue.

hparadiz 3y ago

It's sort of amazing to me that you even wrote this. It's shocking. A typical fast food establishment. Say Chikfila will clear 15k of revenue on a typical slow night. On a good night easily 25k. An 8 hour shift at $20 an hour is $160. You need to have 5 people in the kitchen and 6-7 out front bagging and taking orders. 12*160 = 1920 Typically wages are your most expensive line item. So essentially everyone on HN is arguing over $500 a night from revenue that is already hitting 80% profit. If anything the minimum wage should be $30. It's almost like techies should stay in their lane and stop talking about economics they know nothing about.

hellojesus 3y ago
Your argument is that because a business is not yet distributing all it's revenue as costs, thereby driving its profits to $0, we should regulate that outcome? What about the risk that the entrepreneur took in terms of their capital to open the franchise? Are they not due compensation? Minimum wage requirements do several things: - Make those who cannot deliver $x/hr in revenue permanently unemployed - Drive up costs for consumers Sure, those who keep their jobs are better off, but that doesn't offset the negatives imo. Maybe the restaurants will eat the losses by not passing on costs to remain competitive, but we're already in a massive inflation cycle, so it wouldn't be hard for them to raise rates while blaming the law. But how many businesses needed to be driven to insolvency for your policy to determine minimum wage is at last sufficiently high?
- hparadiz 3y ago
  No. My argument is that the cost of the workers where I live is at least worth $20 an hour. If you're not willing to pay them that then I don't really care about your business. It's not worth giving you a business license to operate for you're not willing to agree that the labor here is worth this much. The local government expects a certain amount of tax revenue from wages and since you're not willing to pay that cost of doing business you can go elsewhere. Someone else will be happy to take over the location. We don't need you.
  - 3y ago