4 ms·

That's not how wages work. Hourly wages aren't based on actual economic value; they're based on a complex of factors that make someone accept or leave a job (co

That's not how wages work. Hourly wages aren't based on actual economic value; they're based on a complex of factors that make someone accept or leave a job (convenience, opportunity cost, bargaining power, prior experience, etc.). Fast food restaurants clearly realize more than $20/hr in economic value from their hourly employees in California, much like they do in Europe.

hellojesus 3y ago
Of course there are multiple dimensions to the employees decision of how much they are willing to trade their time for, but they are always boiled down to a singular financial value. This value is what they are paid. I reject your assertion that an employee clearly realizes more than $20/hr in value to their employer. But even if they did: why should the employer be forced to pay them more, when the job itself is unskilled and therefore has a surplus of folks demanding the position, even at their current rates of pay?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- woodruffw 3y ago
  > I reject your assertion that an employee clearly realizes more than $20/hr in value to their employer. It's visible in the business practices: California has more McDonald's restaurants than any other state[1], and franchisees aren't running a charity. This law is the result of a compromise, as much as individual franchise owners may wish to portray otherwise[2]. If they're currently profitable and feel as though they can compromise at $20/hr, then I feel confident in claiming that they're realizing more than $20/hr in average employee labor value. > But even if they did: why should the employer be forced to pay them more, when the job itself is unskilled and therefore has a surplus of folks demanding the position, even at their current rates of pay? One good reason is to close an implicit subsidy: in states with high living costs, employees who require social services while continuing to work amount to an implicit labor subsidy on the government's part. I don't know about you, but I don't think the government should artificially depress wages like that. [1]: https://www.scrapehero.com/location-reports/McDonalds-USA/ https://www.scrapehero.com/location-reports/McDonalds-USA/ [2]: https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/mcdonalds-franchisees-are-angry-over-california-compromise https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/mcdonalds...
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    > I don't know about you, but I don't think the government should artificially depress wages like that. I agree. I don't think the government should provide any welfare services. Just as I don't think they should artificially skew market equilibrium through minimum wage or rent controls.
    - woodruffw 3y ago
      I don't agree with that. This isn't a place where I find mathematical balance interesting; minimum wages exist to protect those who would otherwise be forced into indigence by the power asymmetry in their bargaining abilities. Similarly, we provide a safety net to minimize indigence that would otherwise have significant external negative costs. Cruelty is only cheap at the margin; the state provides a valuable service by making it illegal to externalize cruelty's costs.
      - hellojesus 3y ago
        > Cruelty is only cheap at the margin; the state provides a valuable service by making it illegal to externalize cruelty's costs. We have opposing views, and that's okay. I believe that private charity should be the mechanism utilized to reduce the external costs of cruelty. It generates the most efficient solutions, and allows each person to maximize the utility of their givings. I believe the government mandated solution is inefficient and often robs people of their charitable purchasing power.
        woodruffw 3y ago
        Okay. We’re well off the topic at this point, so we can leave it at that.
        jkubicek 3y ago
        > It generates the most efficient solutions This feels obviously untrue to me, I'd love to hear your argument for why you think it's true. I have no economic reason to donate, the most efficient solution for me personally is to give $0 to charity. If we decide, as a country, that it's important for our brothers and sisters to not starve to death, it seems to me that the most efficient system is one that's centralized, evidence-based, and supported by mandatory contributions.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
nwiswell 3y ago
> Fast food restaurants clearly realize more than $20/hr in economic value from their hourly employees in California, much like they do in Europe. This is certainly true on the whole, but it is not necessarily true at the margin. It's quite likely that in response, fast food restaurants will be motivated to slim down their staffing more than they would otherwise. Keeping the store open might well be worth $30/hour per remaining employee, but the new equilibrium might involve things like closing drive thrus, moving to digital-only checkout, very high productivity expectations, etc.

hellojesus 3y ago

Of course there are multiple dimensions to the employees decision of how much they are willing to trade their time for, but they are always boiled down to a singular financial value. This value is what they are paid. I reject your assertion that an employee clearly realizes more than $20/hr in value to their employer. But even if they did: why should the employer be forced to pay them more, when the job itself is unskilled and therefore has a surplus of folks demanding the position, even at their current rates of pay?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
woodruffw 3y ago
> I reject your assertion that an employee clearly realizes more than $20/hr in value to their employer. It's visible in the business practices: California has more McDonald's restaurants than any other state[1], and franchisees aren't running a charity. This law is the result of a compromise, as much as individual franchise owners may wish to portray otherwise[2]. If they're currently profitable and feel as though they can compromise at $20/hr, then I feel confident in claiming that they're realizing more than $20/hr in average employee labor value. > But even if they did: why should the employer be forced to pay them more, when the job itself is unskilled and therefore has a surplus of folks demanding the position, even at their current rates of pay? One good reason is to close an implicit subsidy: in states with high living costs, employees who require social services while continuing to work amount to an implicit labor subsidy on the government's part. I don't know about you, but I don't think the government should artificially depress wages like that. [1]: https://www.scrapehero.com/location-reports/McDonalds-USA/ https://www.scrapehero.com/location-reports/McDonalds-USA/ [2]: https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/mcdonalds-franchisees-are-angry-over-california-compromise https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/mcdonalds...
- hellojesus 3y ago
  > I don't know about you, but I don't think the government should artificially depress wages like that. I agree. I don't think the government should provide any welfare services. Just as I don't think they should artificially skew market equilibrium through minimum wage or rent controls.
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    I don't agree with that. This isn't a place where I find mathematical balance interesting; minimum wages exist to protect those who would otherwise be forced into indigence by the power asymmetry in their bargaining abilities. Similarly, we provide a safety net to minimize indigence that would otherwise have significant external negative costs. Cruelty is only cheap at the margin; the state provides a valuable service by making it illegal to externalize cruelty's costs.
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      > Cruelty is only cheap at the margin; the state provides a valuable service by making it illegal to externalize cruelty's costs. We have opposing views, and that's okay. I believe that private charity should be the mechanism utilized to reduce the external costs of cruelty. It generates the most efficient solutions, and allows each person to maximize the utility of their givings. I believe the government mandated solution is inefficient and often robs people of their charitable purchasing power.
      - woodruffw 3y ago
        Okay. We’re well off the topic at this point, so we can leave it at that.
      - jkubicek 3y ago
        > It generates the most efficient solutions This feels obviously untrue to me, I'd love to hear your argument for why you think it's true. I have no economic reason to donate, the most efficient solution for me personally is to give $0 to charity. If we decide, as a country, that it's important for our brothers and sisters to not starve to death, it seems to me that the most efficient system is one that's centralized, evidence-based, and supported by mandatory contributions.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

nwiswell 3y ago

> Fast food restaurants clearly realize more than $20/hr in economic value from their hourly employees in California, much like they do in Europe. This is certainly true on the whole, but it is not necessarily true at the margin. It's quite likely that in response, fast food restaurants will be motivated to slim down their staffing more than they would otherwise. Keeping the store open might well be worth $30/hour per remaining employee, but the new equilibrium might involve things like closing drive thrus, moving to digital-only checkout, very high productivity expectations, etc.