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.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
That post is hilarious.

As hilarious as that may or may not have been, next time try and contribute a bit more...

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Thanks Whembly, but I already read that and looked at your pretty chart and it still didn't answer the question of how the new law interact with existing collectively bargained wage packages (which cannot just be thrown out willy nilly because, you know, they're legally binding contracts) and what exactly the proposal entails.

As it stands, it appears, that the existing agreement would have to be adjusted with respect to wages. Hence, the exemption request. Why should union members not get the pay raise as well?

By the way, this kind of 'exemption' has already been done in other cities that have increased the minimum wage.

Source?

There is no valid reason to oppose a person from engaging in collective bargaining what they believe to be a fair wage rate with their employer, unless you don't believe that those people should have that right, which brings us back to my previous point: you aren't 'willing to listen' because you've already made up your mind. What I think a lot of it is people are afraid that allowing workers to organize is no good. McDonald's isn't happy about paying their workers more, so let them organize and decide what a fair wage rate is to save their payroll or pay them what the local government thinks they are worth.

If that's true, then why should the state interfere between a person from engaging in negotiation in what they believe to be a fair wage rate with their employer, by mandating a min wage?

Again, you're awfully defensive to any/all things regarding unions.

Finally, I love it when you get prickly.

Indeed!

 Sigvatr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


In my opinion, Companies (or, rather, greed) will also cause more misery and suffering than any politician will ever do and politicians exist to curb the excesses of companies to make sure they're actually benefitting people, as opposed to just benefiting themselves.

I've altered the quote a bit, leaving it at this properly reflects the truth as the logical fallacy has already been pointed out above and neither do I want to get more off-topic...although I wonder if it truly is off-topic.

Minimum wage is, ideally, a product of a state-economy collaboration both sides profit of. Realistically, it most often is a shackle forged by the state to bind the economy's strong arms, a vicious tool forced upon us by idealogists, fueled by lies and deception, supposed to blind the sheep believing in their petty politicians feeding them what they want to hear. While the state tries to put those shackles on, however, they get swept to the ground by the ever-marching economy's feet, bringing righteousness back to the table, shaking off the shackles and breaking free again. Those shattered shackles' remains then come raining down from the sky, ultimatively hurting those their fellow leaders swore to protect, too late for them to realize their mistake and slain by their leader's mistakes.

tl;dr: As long as politicians want to push agendas and enforce them upon the economy, people will suffer. Worse than before. But as long as people want to be lied to, they deserve no better.

Yeah, the International Association of the Kongo sure was a beacon of human enlightenment, the push to privatize water in Chile had no drawbacks, and Russia wasn't completely screwed over by letting the market run rampant all over it following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Quite frankly, your point of view is insane. The market wants to make money. That's it. If it's able to combine that with improving people's lives it probably will, but it's not like it'll go out of its way to do so unless there's something to gain.

You say that companies give states their power, and to a certain extent you're right. Ultimately, though, the power of the state rests on its ability to have its constituent members physically destroy dissenters. Your precious market earns much more from the existance of the state than the state does from private companies, because without law and order (not to mention contract law) you cannot run a successful company without also killing or subjugating your opposition. Thus, it is the companies that ought to be thankful that the state exists at all, not the other way around, because without the state there is anarchy.

You're staring yourself blind at all the lovely apples your precious companies are picking without realizing that you've stood on the shoulders of the state the whole time, and then you're angry that you can't keep all the apples for yourself. It's petty, and it's a rather frightening view of reality to be honest.

 whembly wrote:
As it stands, it appears, that the existing agreement would have to be adjusted with respect to wages. Hence, the exemption request. Why should union members not get the pay raise as well?

Because you cannot break a contract just because. A collective bargaining agreement more than falls into that category.

Source?

How embarrassed will you be when I tell you that it's mentioned in the article linked in the OP?

Well, in case you skipped over it, here it is again (the information in question is about two thirds of the way down in the article): http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-minimum-wage-unionized-20150527-story.html

If that's true, then why should the state interfere between a person from engaging in negotiation in what they believe to be a fair wage rate with their employer, by mandating a min wage?

Again, you're awfully defensive to any/all things regarding unions.

The state isn't interfering with anyone engaging in negotiation, at least not in this case.

Also, it's funny you accuse me of being defensive here, because I haven't defended anyone or anything, instead offering information on what I know about union labor. In fact, I'm pretty much the only person saying there isn't enough given information on the subject to make a truly informed opinion, which is why I have refrained from delivering one. This might also come as a surprise to you, but I wish there wasn't a minimum wage (like in the Nordic countries). That could become a reality, but workers and employers would have to be willing to collectively bargain and that just isn't going to happen in the United States.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
All I'm saying is the way to fix inequality isn't raising min wage. It's fixing a broken system in which education fails many people at every level. One that punishes poor people more for crimes than Those with money.

You simply can't educate everyone in to higher paying jobs. Some people simply won't be capable, no matter how many years you make them sit there learning. The unfortunate reality is that a reasonable number of people really aren't going to end up doing more than basic work.

Accepting that, we then have the choice to allow a decent pay for people who work those jobs, or to let them stay in poverty despite the fact they're putting in a full week's work.

a welfare system that is so broke you make more money living on welfare than not.

It's largely a myth, and even to the extent it is true, a higher minimum wage actually resolves the problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not true. Just because minimum wage is set at X, doesn't make the value of labor equal to X. If it was, nobody would get paid more than minimum wage for anything.

Even if the minimum wage is $15, if a job is only worth $10 its still only worth $10. Everyone is just overpaying by $5.

It's pure gibberish to try and decide the 'worth' of any individual input. A burger place can't exist without staff, it can't exist without management, it can't exist without land and building, or without that meat type stuff they put in the burgers.

The market is pretty good at deciding a good enough kind of valuation for each input, but that's all. Trying to decide that the market price is the objective 'worth' of an input is basically nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That depends on what people mean by dangerously close. Any closer to socialism than what we have is what I consider too dangerous. As for what Europe has, well, that's too far gone to save.

You are welcome to have an opinion on where we should find the balance between free market and government command in the economy. There are as many good arguments for the US position as there are against it, just as there is for Europe and other countries.

But just, please, don't call anything in the US socialism. That term can only be applied to some parts of Europe if get really vague about the meaning of the word socialism, so trying to stretch it to describe anything near the US position is just stupid. Words have meaning.

And don't use terms like 'dangerously close', especially not when its something as mild as a minimum wage increase. That's just inane hyperbole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I've always wondered that too... they ought to be the breadbasket of the frick'n world.

Much of Africa exports food. The issue isn't a failure to produce food, but the product of massive wealth inequality - many locals can't afford food, while food is exported to parts of the world who can.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
When have companies ever caused war, or famine, or mass genocide, or any other horrible thing? Politicians are responsible for all those things.

Holy crap that reads like parody. I mean sure, Africa has had more than it's share of terrible leaders, but to ignore the behaviour of multinationals in exacerbating many of the problems is real head in the sand stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Minimum wage is, ideally, a product of a state-economy collaboration both sides profit of. Realistically, it most often is a shackle forged by the state to bind the economy's strong arms, a vicious tool forced upon us by idealogists, fueled by lies and deception, supposed to blind the sheep believing in their petty politicians feeding them what they want to hear. While the state tries to put those shackles on, however, they get swept to the ground by the ever-marching economy's feet, bringing righteousness back to the table, shaking off the shackles and breaking free again. Those shattered shackles' remains then come raining down from the sky, ultimatively hurting those their fellow leaders swore to protect, too late for them to realize their mistake and slain by their leader's mistakes.

Okay, no, this is the post that reads like parody. In fact, I think I wrote something almost identical to this when I was making fun of uni student politics, back in the day. Although I've never been very good a parody, so I didn't come up with anything as goofy as 'shattered shackles'.

I don't think Hotsauceman1 know how much we spend on welfare compared to everything else.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
As it stands, it appears, that the existing agreement would have to be adjusted with respect to wages. Hence, the exemption request. Why should union members not get the pay raise as well?

Because you cannot break a contract just because. A collective bargaining agreement more than falls into that category.

I wasn't trying to infer to breaking current contract (it did read that way, sorry). I meant, when the new contract is established, why shouldn't union members get the same pay raise?

Source?

How embarrassed will you be when I tell you that it's mentioned in the article linked in the OP?

Well, in case you skipped over it, here it is again (the information in question is about two thirds of the way down in the article): http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-minimum-wage-unionized-20150527-story.html

O.o I misread that... that seems awfully hypocritical. Why should union workers at large hotels be exempt? What about small hotels?

Again... special snowflake treatment.

If that's true, then why should the state interfere between a person from engaging in negotiation in what they believe to be a fair wage rate with their employer, by mandating a min wage?

Again, you're awfully defensive to any/all things regarding unions.

The state isn't interfering with anyone engaging in negotiation, at least not in this case.

Also, it's funny you accuse me of being defensive here, because I haven't defended anyone or anything, instead offering information on what I know about union labor. In fact, I'm pretty much the only person saying there isn't enough given information on the subject to make a truly informed opinion, which is why I have refrained from delivering one. This might also come as a surprise to you, but I wish there wasn't a minimum wage (like in the Nordic countries). That could become a reality, but workers and employers would have to be willing to collectively bargain and that just isn't going to happen in the United States.

Eh... there's a need for min wage.

The question is "at what point" and "at what pace the increase" should be.

To me, the gradual increase to $15 over 5 years doesn't seem all that unreasonable in the City of Las Angeles. I would have more of a conniption fit if they tried to raise it to $15 by 2016.

:shrug:

I see your point that we really need to see more info... If the exemption is requested only for current collective bargained contracts, I can see the merits for that. (contract generally last 2-5 yrs..right?)

But, I challenge the notion that there ought to be a blanket-wide exemption of min wages settings for new union contracts. Which is like the major union bosses wanting union health benefits exempted from PPACA laws... which is all kinds of hypocritical.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


In my opinion, Companies (or, rather, greed) will also cause more misery and suffering than any politician will ever do and politicians exist to curb the excesses of companies to make sure they're actually benefitting people, as opposed to just benefiting themselves.

I've altered the quote a bit, leaving it at this properly reflects the truth as the logical fallacy has already been pointed out above and neither do I want to get more off-topic...although I wonder if it truly is off-topic.

Minimum wage is, ideally, a product of a state-economy collaboration both sides profit of. Realistically, it most often is a shackle forged by the state to bind the economy's strong arms, a vicious tool forced upon us by idealogists, fueled by lies and deception, supposed to blind the sheep believing in their petty politicians feeding them what they want to hear. While the state tries to put those shackles on, however, they get swept to the ground by the ever-marching economy's feet, bringing righteousness back to the table, shaking off the shackles and breaking free again. Those shattered shackles' remains then come raining down from the sky, ultimatively hurting those their fellow leaders swore to protect, too late for them to realize their mistake and slain by their leader's mistakes.

tl;dr: As long as politicians want to push agendas and enforce them upon the economy, people will suffer. Worse than before. But as long as people want to be lied to, they deserve no better.

Yeah, the International Association of the Kongo sure was a beacon of human enlightenment, the push to privatize water in Chile had no drawbacks, and Russia wasn't completely screwed over by letting the market run rampant all over it following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Quite frankly, your point of view is insane. The market wants to make money. That's it. If it's able to combine that with improving people's lives it probably will, but it's not like it'll go out of its way to do so unless there's something to gain.

You say that companies give states their power, and to a certain extent you're right. Ultimately, though, the power of the state rests on its ability to have its constituent members physically destroy dissenters. Your precious market earns much more from the existance of the state than the state does from private companies, because without law and order (not to mention contract law) you cannot run a successful company without also killing or subjugating your opposition. Thus, it is the companies that ought to be thankful that the state exists at all, not the other way around, because without the state there is anarchy.

You're staring yourself blind at all the lovely apples your precious companies are picking without realizing that you've stood on the shoulders of the state the whole time, and then you're angry that you can't keep all the apples for yourself. It's petty, and it's a rather frightening view of reality to be honest.

The State is not, and has never been, some benevolent, altruistic construct designed to benefit the masses. The State, in all its forms throughout history, exists as a system to grant a small minority of people the power to control/influence the lives of the vast majority. That's it.

There is no entity greater than yourself that is truly looking out for your best interests because there is nothing that the State or private enterprise gains from helping your individual interest.

Business just wants your money and the State just wants your consent to be governed. Both will only try to help you to the extent needed to keep you buying their goods/services or voting for them/consenting to be governed. The State and Business are two sides of the same coin, that's why they've been in bed together since we invented governance and commerce.

No one can stand on the shoulders of the State because the State has no shoulders. The State makes nothing, it is merely a vehicle for confiscation and allocation of funds. The State doesn't create law and order or infrastructure from nothing. It forcibly tithes the wages of the private citizens and private corporations upon threat of fines and imprisonment and then allocates those funds as the State sees fit. The state provides a conducive environment to commerce but it is wholly funded by the private sector. Without private citizens and private companies to tax the State would be unable to create anything.

It is the State's need for money from the private sector that empowers Business to commit their worst behaviors. The State needs money, Business lobbies the State officials, funds their (re)election campaigns and is given influence over the creation of the very legislation that governs their business practices. Regardless of the system of government the State is always willing to take money from Business and in return help Business make more money from which the State takes their tithe. The people who run companies only help people so that those people become repeat customers and the people who run the State only help people so that they keep those people in power. The representatives/officials in Parliament/Congress/etc. the ones who pass the legislation or issue the decrees that create the assistance programs the help the downtrodden, those officials are all rich. Nobody running the State is poor, they're not the ones dependent on State assistance, they all have high paying jobs, great benefits and the get to use State resources. The officials pander to the masses, handing out pennies of danegeld so that they can retain political power and use that political power to make fortunes for themselves.

Business and the State share the same ills and both run roughshod over the citizenry but the State is always the worse of the two evils because individuals can choose to not engage in commerce with any particular business but individuals are forced to fund the State.

 sebster wrote:
A burger place can't exist without staff, it can't exist without management, it can't exist without land and building, or without that meat type stuff they put in the burgers.

Well, that's sort of what's at the crux of much of this, isn't it?

A burger place can, in fact, exist without one of those (or at least a severely reduced number of them).

 cincydooley wrote:

 sebster wrote:
A burger place can't exist without staff, it can't exist without management, it can't exist without land and building, or without that meat type stuff they put in the burgers.

Well, that's sort of what's at the crux of much of this, isn't it?

A burger place can, in fact, exist without one of those (or at least a severely reduced number of them).

yeah... one has many *many* revolutions in history to choose from as case studies for this kind of thing,

the agricultural revolution, the first, second, industrial revolutions, the computer/automation revolution, and now the internet revolution.

All moved people out of jobs, and into new ones, and overall were beneficial as a whole acting as labour multipliers. they all had growing pains and people had to adapt of course, but they are all net gains.

its like people saying that you cannot dig a dtich 100 miles long without a whole whack of people... because they do not understand that yes, 90% of those peopel can be replaced when you use CAT's/steam shovels instead of man powered shovels.


just like that, yes, 90% of the people in a MC'D type job can be replaced with touch screens and robots, often making better product, faster, and cheaper then human counter parts.

Relapse wrote:
This is a fine how do you douche:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-los-angeles-minimum-wage-unions-20150526-story.html

Unions being corrupt....there's a shocker....

Or maybe not...

Latest news says the union carve-out might not be happening.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-minimum-wage-union-exemption-20150529-story.html

 cincydooley wrote:

A burger place can, in fact, exist without one of those (or at least a severely reduced number of them).

I assume you mean the management.

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

A burger place can, in fact, exist without one of those (or at least a severely reduced number of them).

I assume you mean the management.

 cincydooley wrote:

 sebster wrote:
A burger place can't exist without staff, it can't exist without management, it can't exist without land and building, or without that meat type stuff they put in the burgers.

Well, that's sort of what's at the crux of much of this, isn't it?

A burger place can, in fact, exist without one of those (or at least a severely reduced number of them).

Wouldn't that cause their work to be harder, meaning they should be paid more?

Unless of course you meant the meat type stuff. I feel like all burger places can go without that and move back to the real meat type stuff.

 cincydooley wrote:

So you don't want to debate, much like other small business owners.

 whembly wrote:
Eh... there's a need for min wage.

The question is "at what point" and "at what pace the increase" should be.

To me, the gradual increase to $15 over 5 years doesn't seem all that unreasonable in the City of Las Angeles. I would have more of a conniption fit if they tried to raise it to $15 by 2016.

:shrug:

I see your point that we really need to see more info... If the exemption is requested only for current collective bargained contracts, I can see the merits for that. (contract generally last 2-5 yrs..right?)

But, I challenge the notion that there ought to be a blanket-wide exemption of min wages settings for new union contracts. Which is like the major union bosses wanting union health benefits exempted from PPACA laws... which is all kinds of hypocritical.

What I am saying is that there should need to be a minimum wage, much like the Nordic countries, because it can interfere with collective bargaining. Since a vast majority of their labor force in these countries are working under a collective bargaining agreement, everyone more or less gets along, because workers have the power to sit down with their employers and decide what is mutually beneficial.

It sounds hypocritical because it's being spun as such. If you sit down and think about why they are trying to do this it makes sense and goes back to a point I made earlier. The unions are pushing for an exemption because from an increased minimum wage because it can interfere with bargaining, but at the same time they recognize that most workers in a low-wage setting don't have the benefit of having a voice through collective bargaining and they are the ones that need the help. Does it look bad? Sure, I'll give you that... but Americans have been conditioned to automatically assume "union = bad." It's also worth pointing out that there isn't enough data to say that an increased minimum wage while allowing a collective bargaining exemption will cause an uptick in union membership or not. We'll have to watch what happens in the handful of cities where this has started to happen.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Eh... there's a need for min wage.

The question is "at what point" and "at what pace the increase" should be.

To me, the gradual increase to $15 over 5 years doesn't seem all that unreasonable in the City of Las Angeles. I would have more of a conniption fit if they tried to raise it to $15 by 2016.

:shrug:

I see your point that we really need to see more info... If the exemption is requested only for current collective bargained contracts, I can see the merits for that. (contract generally last 2-5 yrs..right?)

But, I challenge the notion that there ought to be a blanket-wide exemption of min wages settings for new union contracts. Which is like the major union bosses wanting union health benefits exempted from PPACA laws... which is all kinds of hypocritical.

What I am saying is that there should need to be a minimum wage, much like the Nordic countries, because it can interfere with collective bargaining. Since a vast majority of their labor force in these countries are working under a collective bargaining agreement, everyone more or less gets along, because workers have the power to sit down with their employers and decide what is mutually beneficial.

It sounds hypocritical because it's being spun as such. If you sit down and think about why they are trying to do this it makes sense and goes back to a point I made earlier. The unions are pushing for an exemption because from an increased minimum wage because it can interfere with bargaining, but at the same time they recognize that most workers in a low-wage setting don't have the benefit of having a voice through collective bargaining and they are the ones that need the help. Does it look bad? Sure, I'll give you that... but Americans have been conditioned to automatically assume "union = bad." It's also worth pointing out that there isn't enough data to say that an increased minimum wage while allowing a collective bargaining exemption will cause an uptick in union membership or not. We'll have to watch what happens in the handful of cities where this has started to happen.

Gotta love the US.
Unions = bad
Corporations = generally good
Capitalism = best thing evar
Socialism = anything at all that anyone disagrees with.

Look, I know people and it's not so simple that people can just jump into college, blaze through it and get into high education. One, our industry wouldn't work that way, two, look some people are just screwed over because life isn't fair.

And, dunno if it is just me but, unlike the revolution of agriculture and more, I'm feeling an increasing cynicism that, in the era of AI and automated machines that there will be a burgeoning of jobs (considering, from what it seems like the number is actually plummeting when it comes to new jobs and let's not even talk about America's deteriorating education system)

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
An E-3 PFC has a base pay of $21.6k annually.

An E-5 Sergeant with 4 years experience has a base pay of $30k.

I'm sorry, but no burger flipper deserves as much as an an E-3, to say nothing of an E-5.

If you're an adult working for minimum wage at a zero-skill job, you don't deserve the wages of a professional soldier who puts his life on the line 24 hours a day.

I say bump up E-3 and E-5 pay.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Minimum wage is, ideally, a product of a state-economy collaboration both sides profit of. Realistically, it most often is a shackle forged by the state to bind the economy's strong arms, a vicious tool forced upon us by idealogists, fueled by lies and deception, supposed to blind the sheep believing in their petty politicians feeding them what they want to hear. While the state tries to put those shackles on, however, they get swept to the ground by the ever-marching economy's feet, bringing righteousness back to the table, shaking off the shackles and breaking free again. Those shattered shackles' remains then come raining down from the sky, ultimatively hurting those their fellow leaders swore to protect, too late for them to realize their mistake and slain by their leader's mistakes.

I feel like I already read this, carved on a monument in a leaky dystopia at the bottom of the sea.....

 feeder wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Minimum wage is, ideally, a product of a state-economy collaboration both sides profit of. Realistically, it most often is a shackle forged by the state to bind the economy's strong arms, a vicious tool forced upon us by idealogists, fueled by lies and deception, supposed to blind the sheep believing in their petty politicians feeding them what they want to hear. While the state tries to put those shackles on, however, they get swept to the ground by the ever-marching economy's feet, bringing righteousness back to the table, shaking off the shackles and breaking free again. Those shattered shackles' remains then come raining down from the sky, ultimatively hurting those their fellow leaders swore to protect, too late for them to realize their mistake and slain by their leader's mistakes.

I feel like I already read this, carved on a monument in a leaky dystopia at the bottom of the sea.....

And so Sigvatr asked himself, in what country was there a place for men like him - men who refused to say "yes" to the parasites and the doubters, men who believed that work was sacred and property rights inviolate?

The other thing that occurs to me is that if people strop about the prospect of paying $12 for a burger takeaway, it's because maybe other things have their costs heavily subsidised and the real cost is hidden. A huge amount of white goods and furniture in the US is made dirt cheap by prisoners who have no unions, no insurance and very small pay. Those could be jobs to many decent people but they are not. If you always had to buy goods made by honest people at minimum wage, they would be quite a bit more. Unless you want convicts slaving away in McDonalds, you'll have to buy food that was made by people earning an honest wage.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The other thing that occurs to me is that if people strop about the prospect of paying $12 for a burger takeaway, it's because maybe other things have their costs heavily subsidised and the real cost is hidden. A huge amount of white goods and furniture in the US is made dirt cheap by prisoners who have no unions, no insurance and very small pay. Those could be jobs to many decent people but they are not. If you always had to buy goods made by honest people at minimum wage, they would be quite a bit more. Unless you want convicts slaving away in McDonalds, you'll have to buy food that was made by people earning an honest wage.

By that logic we should launch a Butlerian Jihad against automated manufacturing. It requires far fewer people to build a car in 2015 than it did in 1955 because a majority of the assembly line work is automated. I can put gas in my car, buy groceries at the store and order goods online and never interact with human employee. The driving goal of technological advancement is increased productivity, technological progress means doing the same amount of work with fewer workers. If the amount of labor required decreases why would the cost of that labor increase? McDonald's needs less labor to make burgers today than ever before and the pool of qualified applicants is vast so does the government need to interfere with peoples' right to contract by artificially inflating the cost of that labor? The decreasing need for labor is a function of technological progress, which can't be halted and can't be mitigated with unionization, labor laws, or wage minimums.

McDonald's has no moral or legal responsibility to cover all of the living expenses of their employees. McDonald's only needs to offer a high enough wage to get qualified applicants to work for them. IF minimum wage is $15/hr a McDonalds employee who is single, young and lives in his/her parents' home now has more disposable income, a McDonald's employee who is a middle aged single parent with 3 children is still heavily dependent on government assistance programs to survive. Both have the same job skills they'd have if minimum wage was still $10/hr and consequently both are still "trapped" working at McDonalds.

You can raise minimum wage and employers can offset the increased cost of labor by increasing prices but the vast majority of private sector employees don't have salaries or wages that are tied to the Consumer Price Index. When the price of milk and bread and gasoline goes up I don't suddenly get an automatic raise from my employer to help defray my increased cost of living. Likewise, if burgers cost more at McDonald's it doesn't trigger a raise for everybody else so McDonald's can raise wages and prices but doing so will shrink their customer base and hurt their bottom line potentially leading to franchises/restaurants closing leaving the employees jobless. Increasing prices will decrease commerce which reduces jobs and job growth.

In the US, a lot of union labor is tied to minimum wages, CPI and COLA. Depending on the contract, a lot of people get automatic raises tied to inflation.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
In the US, a lot of union labor is tied to minimum wages, CPI and COLA. Depending on the contract, a lot of people get automatic raises tied to inflation.

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2014 only 6.6% of the private sector was unionized and 35.7% of the public sector was unionized. The vast majority of employed people in the US are nonunion and don't get raises triggered by CPI increases. Raising wages in a way that raises prices only makes it harder for most Americans to afford things.

It also depends on the specific type of job, some are more unionized than others. Which means specific areas will get hit by wage hikes as a result of minimum wage while others won't.

Either way, expenses rise for everyone, but only a few people get the benefit of a higher wage.