Richmond to increase minimum wage to 12$ an hour

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

Grey Templar wrote:
They're nice when they work. But half the time something I'm buying isn't in the system or the machine has the weight sensor calibrated wrong and it freaks out.

Place Item in the bagging area...unauthorized item in the bagging area...place item in the bagging area...unauthorized item in the bagging area...calling for assistance (looking for the one guy on duty on the other end of the store).

The automated checkout is nice when it works, and I like to use it for those times I have to run into Walmart to get a handful of items. I can walk up to the machine, scan my couple of things, and get out faster than even the "10 items or less but we don't really care if you got 30 come on up anyway" line.

I just hate the things when I'm shopping super early (before the wife leaves for work and I gotta watch the kid) and I have a weeks worth of groceries and the machine is the only fething register open...

**Jihadin**

There are times I am glad. My experience with self check out was three times. At those three times I wasn't buying a bat, hockey stick, golf club, 2 by 4 or something of those nature.

**Breotan**

And the President's executive order is already having an impact. I wonder how many wives/dependents of Active Duty military are losing their jobs because of this?

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140317/NEWS/303170027/Some-fast-food-outlets-closing-military-bases

Karen Jowers wrote:Some fast food outlets closing on military bases
New federal wage rules may be factor, sources say

The imminent closure of three McDonald's outlets on military installations may be related to new federal minimum wage requirements for contract employees of on-base fast food concessions — and industry sources say more such closures may follow. (Rob Curtis/Staff)

Four restaurants, including three McDonald’s outlets, will close within the next three weeks on Navy installations, according to Navy Exchange Service Command officials.

And two other contractors — a name-brand sandwich eatery and a name-brand pizza parlor — have asked to be released from their Army and Air Force Exchange Service contracts to operate fast food restaurants at two other installations, according to AAFES officials.

A source with knowledge of military on-base resale operations said the issue likely has to do with two new government regulations — one implemented, one pending — that will affect wages for contract workers in such on-base concessions.

These closings “are the tip of the iceberg,” the source said. “I don’t think anybody has realized what the far-reaching effects of this will be.”

McDonald’s restaurants will close at Naval Weapons Station Charleston, S.C., on March 16; at Naval Support Activity, Bethesda, Md., on March 21; and at Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton, Wash., on March 31, said Kathleen Martin, a NEXCOM spokeswoman.

Another eatery, I Love Country, has notified NEXCOM that it will close its restaurant at Naval Station Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on April 4, Martin said.

Martin said the McDonald’s outlets “came to the end of their contract term. We were in the process of renegotiating and McDonald’s made the unilateral decision to close those three” outlets. She referred questions about the reasons for the closures to McDonald’s.

Lisa McComb, a company spokeswoman, said McDonald’s, along with the independent owner/operators of the individual restaurants, are closing the three eateries “due to the fact that we have lost our lease.”

McDonald’s independent owners operate about 30 restaurants on military installations. “Whenever we reach the end of a term, whether on a military site or otherwise, we consider many factors in deciding whether to renegotiate a new term,” McComb said.

She said the owners of the three closing outlets are offering affected employees transfers to other nearby McDonald’s restaurants.

Martin said new Labor Department rules issued last fall for fast food workers on federal contracts under the Service Contract Act require an increase in the minimum wage for such employees, varying by region. The rules also require payment of new, additional “health and welfare” fringe benefits at a rate of $3.81 per hour to those employees.

Contractor-operated fast food concessions on military installations fall under those regulations.

The new rules “have to be part of any contract we negotiate,” said Martin, adding that many vendor partners “have verbally indicated hesitation” to accept contract changes reflecting the revised wage rules.

“NEXCOM is working closely with our contracted food service providers to assess the impact of the new wage determinations,” she said. “This is part of the quality-of-life benefit we provide to sailors and their families, and our goal is to continue to do that.”

In addition, President Obama recently signed an executive order that will increase the minimum wage for employees of companies with new federal contracts beginning Jan. 1. At that time, the minimum wage for all federal contract workers — not just those working for fast food concessions — will increase to $10.10 from the current $7.25. It is not yet known how far-reaching the effects will be for contracts on military installations.

The wage hikes are good news for the many military spouses and veterans who work for these contractors — but only if the concessionaires continue to operate.

“At the end of the day, there will be fewer jobs,” said the industry source. “And for [the contractors] who stick it out, there will be higher costs and the customers will pay more.”

The two AAFES contractors asking to be released from their contracts did so after the new Labor Department wage rules were released.

AAFES officials are declining at this time to name the two name-brand restaurants, said spokesman Chris Ward, although he added that there is no set timeframe for that to happen.

“Once the paperwork is completed by both parties, they’ll be out of it at that time,” he said.

Concessions contracts are negotiated on a rolling basis for fast food restaurants on military installations throughout the year, so exchange officials continue to monitor and assess the impact of the new wage rules.

AAFES officials said the Service Contract Act has had a limited impact on their operations because that exchange service directly operates about 75 percent of its fast food outlets.

The new wage rules “were a small concern, but not a major concern,” in the I Love Country Cafe eatery’s decision not to renew the contract at Pearl Harbor, said Richard Chan, a spokesman for the company.

“The Hawaii labor market is tight and we need to pool our resources and move to other areas,” he said, adding that the Navy has posted signs to let the customers know about the impending move.

“We really enjoy serving the service members of our country,” he said. “Some customers are sad, but our other locations are not too far from the bases.”

**Jihadin**

List of non renewal of contracts going to grow besides these three. AAFES itself is going to be shaken to the core.

**Breotan**

That's okay, I guess, because... fairness.

**Sasori**

Jihadin wrote:
List of non renewal of contracts going to grow besides these three. AAFES itself is going to be shaken to the core.

AAFES is probably the most corrupt government contract in existence....

**Breotan**

As sad as it is to say, I actually find it difficult to argue against that, Sasori.

**sebster**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
the problem with your statement is that, sure, most people are "bringing more in" however, because the restauranteur must pay his people more, he must get that money from somewhere. The smart business man doesn't mess with his bottom line. Therefore he has 3 options: cut overhead, cut staff (which could almost be considered overhead in a restaurant), or raise prices. Only in the world of the most deluded individuals do those "evil rich people" eat the difference in wage increases/ product costs.

Your argument relies on the idea that a businessman simply decides what his bottom line will be is perhaps the stupidest piece of bad business sense I've heard. The idea that a business says 'well our revenue is 800k, we want to make 300k profit, COGs is 150k so that leaves us 350k to spend on labour' is remarkably silly.

I mean, I'm not trying to be mean here but I don't think many children would think anything that silly. It's not just wrong, it's so far removed from basic intuition that I'm kind of staggered as to how anyone could ever come up with it. I mean, I don't want to dwell on this but what you posted is so incredibly ridiculous that I really think you need to sit down and honestly think about how you got to think such an incredibly stupid thing.

Anyhow, the way it actually works is that every business is trying to maximise profit, within the limits of imperfect knowledge. This means that at any given time they will make any choice to maximise revenue, unless that increase in revenue will lead to a greater increase in expenses (ie they would increase prices by 10%, unless that increase would lead to a decline in sales of 11%). Similarly, they will cut expenses wherever possible, unless that cut would lead to a greater reduction in revenue (ie they would cut a line worker and save $50,000, unless that line worker adds value to production worth 50,001).

What this means in the above example is if a business could just choose to fire staff or raise prices, it already would have. When the business faces a cost in production, it eats that increase not because of your silly nonsense about 'evil rich people', but because when you've already set your prices and costs to maximise profit, there is simply no choice but to wear cost increase as reduced profit.

The exception to that is when the whole of industry has a similar increase in costs (ie an across the board increase in minimum wage), in which case you will see some portion of increase in prices that offsets some of the cost increase. The increase will only be a portion because the industry will be competing with imperfect substitutes (ie while two burger joints might increase their price the same % and not change the competition between them, the choice to stay home and make a burger becomes more desirable), and because not every company has the same expense structure, and competition will cap the increase at the limit of the company with the lowest increase.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breotan wrote:
And the President's executive order is already having an impact. I wonder how many wives/dependents of Active Duty military are losing their jobs because of this?

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140317/NEWS/303170027/Some-fast-food-outlets-closing-military-bases

Wow that's gakky journalism.

First up, it pretends that the closure of a couple of fast food stores is somehow evidence any trend in the industry, let alone the economy as a whole.

Then it spreads a handful of quotes across the thread from actual people, but those quotes give little indication of the story the reporter wants to tell. So instead he relies on an "industry source", pretending that there's some anonymous industry expert out there who's leaking the 'minimum wage increase kills service jobs' story but has to keep his identity hidden... because the service industry would fire him for daring to tell the story that the service industry has whole PR teams employed to keep repeating....

Absolute crap, and you should feel really bad that you fell for it.

**d-usa**

If their profit was so tight that increasing minimum wage drives the entire restaurant out of business, then that says more about the people running the restaurant than any executive order. You wouldn't close a business because you make less profit, that would just be stupid. So either minimum wage increases drives them straight into the red, or maybe the minimum wage increase really doesn't have much to do with it at all...

**Ouze**

d-usa wrote:
If their profit was so tight that increasing minimum wage drives the entire restaurant out of business, then that says more about the people running the restaurant than any executive order. You wouldn't close a business because you make less profit, that would just be stupid. So either minimum wage increases drives them straight into the red, or maybe the minimum wage increase really doesn't have much to do with it at all...

Especially when we consider that McDonalds posted 1.5 billion dollars in net profits last year... profits that came from the US taxpayer, since we subsidize their workers with food stamps and other social welfare programs to the tune of nearly 1.2 billion per year.

I guess that's the kind of socialism we're OK with, though.

**Chongara**

Ouze wrote:
d-usa wrote:
If their profit was so tight that increasing minimum wage drives the entire restaurant out of business, then that says more about the people running the restaurant than any executive order. You wouldn't close a business because you make less profit, that would just be stupid. So either minimum wage increases drives them straight into the red, or maybe the minimum wage increase really doesn't have much to do with it at all...

Especially when we consider that McDonalds posted 1.5 billion dollars in net profits last year... profits that came from the US taxpayer, since we subsidize their workers with food stamps and other social welfare programs to the tune of nearly 1.2 billion per year.

I guess that's the kind of socialism we're OK with, though.

Um, like if it's only socialism if it goes "social" programs, you know like handouts to crack-baby-gay-teen-welfare-queens. When you're giving money to businesses that's businessism, which is like capitalism with even more freedom because you're free to make more profits. Don't you know anything?

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:
List of non renewal of contracts going to grow besides these three. AAFES itself is going to be shaken to the core.

Its irrelevant. Social costs doesn't show the lost jobs only "wages increased."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
If their profit was so tight that increasing minimum wage drives the entire restaurant out of business, then that says more about the people running the restaurant than any executive order. You wouldn't close a business because you make less profit, that would just be stupid. So either minimum wage increases drives them straight into the red, or maybe the minimum wage increase really doesn't have much to do with it at all...

Its the former.

But again, unless McDonalds and the other stand up and say "hey nubmnuts, here are the faces of the people you just wacked" nothing will happen.

On the positive I guess, these are Obama voters, so suck it?

**d-usa**

Just for fun:

-The Average McDonald's Franchise makes $500,000 in profits.
-The Average McDonald's Franchise spends $380,000 in non-management labor.
-The Average McDonald's affected by the Executive Order Minimum Wage raise will spend an additional $150,000 in labor costs.
-On average a third of those labor costs will be passed on to the consumer through increased prices, so the average loss to these McDonalds is $100,000, assuming that they are going to retain the exact same number of staff as before.
-(this ignores more money being spend there by people who make more money now...)

So these stores that are being driven away by Obama should be making $500,000 a year, but they have to close because the labor cost is going to increase by $100,000.

So either these franchise owners are idiots who decide that making $0 is better than making $400,000, or they are idiots because their stores are making less than 20% of what the average McDonald's makes and now they can't afford to pay their employees.

Or, you know, the stores are closing for another reason...

**whitedragon**

Ouze wrote:
d-usa wrote:
If their profit was so tight that increasing minimum wage drives the entire restaurant out of business, then that says more about the people running the restaurant than any executive order. You wouldn't close a business because you make less profit, that would just be stupid. So either minimum wage increases drives them straight into the red, or maybe the minimum wage increase really doesn't have much to do with it at all...

Especially when we consider that McDonalds posted 1.5 billion dollars in net profits last year... profits that came from the US taxpayer, since we subsidize their workers with food stamps and other social welfare programs to the tune of nearly 1.2 billion per year.

I guess that's the kind of socialism we're OK with, though.

Be careful, socialist fever is sweeping into the GOP as well. Romney has been bitten!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/09/romney-on-minimum-wage-we-out-to-raise-it/?hpt=hp_bn3

**d-usa**

All hail Obamanism!

**Chongara**

d-usa wrote:
Just for fun:

-The Average McDonald's Franchise makes $500,000 in profits.
-The Average McDonald's Franchise spends $380,000 in non-management labor.
-The Average McDonald's affected by the Executive Order Minimum Wage raise will spend an additional $150,000 in labor costs.
-On average a third of those labor costs will be passed on to the consumer through increased prices, so the average loss to these McDonalds is $100,000, assuming that they are going to retain the exact same number of staff as before.
-(this ignores more money being spend there by people who make more money now...)

So these stores that are being driven away by Obama should be making $500,000 a year, but they have to close because the labor cost is going to increase by $100,000.

So either these franchise owners are idiots who decide that making $0 is better than making $400,000, or they are idiots because their stores are making less than 20% of what the average McDonald's makes and now they can't afford to pay their employees.

Or, you know, the stores are closing for another reason...

How many McDonalds do you own?

**Ensis Ferrae**

sebster wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
the problem with your statement is that, sure, most people are "bringing more in" however, because the restauranteur must pay his people more, he must get that money from somewhere. The smart business man doesn't mess with his bottom line. Therefore he has 3 options: cut overhead, cut staff (which could almost be considered overhead in a restaurant), or raise prices. Only in the world of the most deluded individuals do those "evil rich people" eat the difference in wage increases/ product costs.

Your argument relies on the idea that a businessman simply decides what his bottom line will be is perhaps the stupidest piece of bad business sense I've heard. The idea that a business says 'well our revenue is 800k, we want to make 300k profit, COGs is 150k so that leaves us 350k to spend on labour' is remarkably silly.

I guess I worded it poorly, but what I was trying to say is that people like a restaurant owner (if theyre any good) absolutely know what their bottom line is. The know the rent/mortgage, how much they spend on food per week, how much in wages, etc. and their bottom line being "I want to remain open and in business" they are going to ensure that line/need is met.

**hotsauceman1**

Y'know, I can get behind a 10$ minimum wage, Its just enough for what they are meant for, Teenagers and College students to have extra money for stuff. But to make it a livable wage is just wrong I think.

**d-usa**

Chongara wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Just for fun:

-The Average McDonald's Franchise makes $500,000 in profits.
-The Average McDonald's Franchise spends $380,000 in non-management labor.
-The Average McDonald's affected by the Executive Order Minimum Wage raise will spend an additional $150,000 in labor costs.
-On average a third of those labor costs will be passed on to the consumer through increased prices, so the average loss to these McDonalds is $100,000, assuming that they are going to retain the exact same number of staff as before.
-(this ignores more money being spend there by people who make more money now...)

So these stores that are being driven away by Obama should be making $500,000 a year, but they have to close because the labor cost is going to increase by $100,000.

So either these franchise owners are idiots who decide that making $0 is better than making $400,000, or they are idiots because their stores are making less than 20% of what the average McDonald's makes and now they can't afford to pay their employees.

Or, you know, the stores are closing for another reason...

How many McDonalds do you own?

Do you have a point?

These are numbers provided by McDonalds. If McDonalds provides the data that says "we pay this much for non-management wages per store" then it's not hard to so the math and figure out what that number would be for a higher minimum wage.

**Frazzled**

linky? That doesn't look like info they'd put out in their public statements nor have the capacity to as each store is different and in vastly different regions 9not to mention countries).

**Chongara**

d-usa wrote:

These are numbers provided by McDonalds. If McDonalds provides the data that says "we pay this much for non-management wages per store" then it's not hard to so the math and figure out what that number would be for a higher minimum wage.

Numbers? You can't trust numbers unless they're talking sense. Forcing businesses to close so that people who aren't willing to work more get extra money for no reason doesn't make any sense. Your numbers aren't talking sense, therefore they aren't to be trusted. What we need here is some solid common sense math, math that shows how america is the best country in the world due to our affordable everyday beefburgers like you get a fine job-creating McDonalds. The kind of success story of hard work and ingenuity that you want to destroy with your big government and over regulation.

**Frazzled**

You can't trust numbers unless they're talking sense.

That part's true. The rest of the post lives under the bridge with the other trolls.

**Breotan**

The problem I have with those numbers is that they don't show total income, only show select expenses, and some are based on assumptions. It's really hard to take your argument seriously with such significant generalities and glaring omissions.

**easysauce**

Breotan wrote:
The problem I have with those numbers is that they don't show total income, only show select expenses, and some are based on assumptions. It's really hard to take your argument seriously with such significant generalities and glaring omissions.

yeah, exactly...

Not to mention the total disconnect between what he is saying and reality...

Because businesses being unable to absorb increased costs OBS means they suck at running a business...

These places have very small profit margins, generally after all expensis its a few %'s as total net profit, despite large amounts of gross profit.

But that wont stop all the people in this thread from hand waiving away increased expensis, and blaming business owners for not being able to magically absorb them with no ill effects.

Just more of the "bad evil businesses could pay more, they just wont, because they are evil and stuff" paradigm instead of accepting the actual facts of the matter.

With the fact of the matter being, increased labour costs, HAVE to be offset by something else, either rising prices, cutting staff, or cutting somthing else. Cutting profits to the point where the business isnt worth it for the owner, seems to be the only option in some peoples books.

**Frazzled**

Indeed, define profits.

If you're really doing this you need (to keep this simple)
revenues
-cost of inventory to door
-power
-labor
-rents
-interests
-non income taxes, fees, and assessments
-franchise fees
-insurance
-marketing
-shrinkage

**Easy E**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Y'know, I can get behind a 10$ minimum wage, Its just enough for what they are meant for, Teenagers and College students to have extra money for stuff. But to make it a livable wage is just wrong I think.

Sauce, there are more people than just teenagers and college kids making minimum wage.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:
d-usa wrote:

These are numbers provided by McDonalds. If McDonalds provides the data that says "we pay this much for non-management wages per store" then it's not hard to so the math and figure out what that number would be for a higher minimum wage.

Numbers? You can't trust numbers unless they're talking sense. Forcing businesses to close so that people who aren't willing to work more get extra money for no reason doesn't make any sense. Your numbers aren't talking sense, therefore they aren't to be trusted. What we need here is some solid common sense math, math that shows how america is the best country in the world due to our affordable everyday beefburgers like you get a fine job-creating McDonalds. The kind of success story of hard work and ingenuity that you want to destroy with your big government and over regulation.

Tell me where i can vote for this truth speaker?

**Frazzled**

Sauce, there are more people than just teenagers and college kids making minimum wage.

So? That wasn't its purpose.
If you make it $15 an hour they won't be employed either.

**hotsauceman1**

Frazzled wrote:
Sauce, there are more people than just teenagers and college kids making minimum wage.

So? That wasn't its purpose.
If you make it $15 an hour they won't be employed either.

that is my point.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Y'know, I can get behind a 10$ minimum wage, Its just enough for what they are meant for, Teenagers and College students to have extra money for stuff. But to make it a livable wage is just wrong I think.

I thought that rhetoric went out the window with the fact that a majority of their employees are adults

**Jihadin**

These are contracts with AFFES. Not out in the public domain but on Federal military installations. They can not, by their decision, renew the contracts but they cannot break contracts. I'm neither for it not against them. Just another tool in the Armed Forces battle with Height and Weight Compliance

As in no junk food option