3 ms·

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 slo

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.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    > My argument is that the cost of the workers where I live is at least worth $20 an hour. How far are you willing to quantify "where I live" geographically? Is it just CA? Should OR, AZ, NV all have the same policy? What about Mexico? Why $20? Why not $22? Why not $1876436? > 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. The government could just as well increase sales tax? Why choose a policy that increases unemployment and drives out tax-paying inhabitants?
    - hparadiz 3y ago
      We've set the price. Take it or leave it. Be happy we haven't increased it more. If you can't handle that you're too poor for us.
HEmanZ 3y ago
IMO using Chick-fil-A as an example is a bit like saying all software engineers at any company should be paid $500k/year because Google could totally afford it.
paulddraper 3y ago
Lol, tell me you never operated a restaurant without telling me you've never operated a restaurant. 1. Labor is only ~a third of costs. [1] 2. A slow day at Chick-fil-a would average like 25 people per hour (more during meals, less in between), averaging $10 per person. So $2k per 8 hour shift. [1] https://www.7shifts.com/blog/restaurant-costs/ https://www.7shifts.com/blog/restaurant-costs/
- hparadiz 3y ago
  I used to work at Chick-fil-a and saw the raw numbers in the back office one night. You're way under cutting it. Between 6 pm and 7 pm at the drive thru I worked at there would be at least 50 orders. Plus indoor counters would add another 100 orders to that count within just that hour. You really have no idea what you're talking about. They easily clear 30k on a good Saturday.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    That Chick-fil-a is waaay faster than any I've been to. With a waaaaaay bigger dinning room too.....for 100 in-store orders per hour.
    - hparadiz 3y ago
      Don't confuse how long it took to bag your specific order with how many orders come in per period. I lived in a wealthy suburb with only 1 of them so we had insane rushes. At times all 4 registers would have lines and the drive thru would be going out the parking lot. In that hour the rate of orders could go over 200 an hour and you're talking families of 4 or more. They are supposed to get your order bagged in under 2 minutes (yellow) or 5 minutes (red). If something hits red it's because it's still in the fryer but it's not so bad cause it's the freshest when you get it.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        > I lived in a wealthy suburb with only 1 of them so we had insane rushes So you acknowledge your experience is just a special case? This law covers all of California, not just your particular suburb. So unless you think that only wealthy people deserves fast food I don't see what point you are making.

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.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  > My argument is that the cost of the workers where I live is at least worth $20 an hour. How far are you willing to quantify "where I live" geographically? Is it just CA? Should OR, AZ, NV all have the same policy? What about Mexico? Why $20? Why not $22? Why not $1876436? > 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. The government could just as well increase sales tax? Why choose a policy that increases unemployment and drives out tax-paying inhabitants?
  - hparadiz 3y ago
    We've set the price. Take it or leave it. Be happy we haven't increased it more. If you can't handle that you're too poor for us.

HEmanZ 3y ago

IMO using Chick-fil-A as an example is a bit like saying all software engineers at any company should be paid $500k/year because Google could totally afford it.

paulddraper 3y ago

Lol, tell me you never operated a restaurant without telling me you've never operated a restaurant. 1. Labor is only ~a third of costs. [1] 2. A slow day at Chick-fil-a would average like 25 people per hour (more during meals, less in between), averaging $10 per person. So $2k per 8 hour shift. [1] https://www.7shifts.com/blog/restaurant-costs/ https://www.7shifts.com/blog/restaurant-costs/

hparadiz 3y ago
I used to work at Chick-fil-a and saw the raw numbers in the back office one night. You're way under cutting it. Between 6 pm and 7 pm at the drive thru I worked at there would be at least 50 orders. Plus indoor counters would add another 100 orders to that count within just that hour. You really have no idea what you're talking about. They easily clear 30k on a good Saturday.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  That Chick-fil-a is waaay faster than any I've been to. With a waaaaaay bigger dinning room too.....for 100 in-store orders per hour.
  - hparadiz 3y ago
    Don't confuse how long it took to bag your specific order with how many orders come in per period. I lived in a wealthy suburb with only 1 of them so we had insane rushes. At times all 4 registers would have lines and the drive thru would be going out the parking lot. In that hour the rate of orders could go over 200 an hour and you're talking families of 4 or more. They are supposed to get your order bagged in under 2 minutes (yellow) or 5 minutes (red). If something hits red it's because it's still in the fryer but it's not so bad cause it's the freshest when you get it.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      > I lived in a wealthy suburb with only 1 of them so we had insane rushes So you acknowledge your experience is just a special case? This law covers all of California, not just your particular suburb. So unless you think that only wealthy people deserves fast food I don't see what point you are making.