|
 |
October 17, 2003 YET MORE CLASS WARFARE....Following in the footsteps of our supermarket chains, California restaurant owners are trying to cut the wages of yet another coddled segment of our society: waiters. It's the usual story: waiters make such a gold mine in tips that they don't deserve $6.75 an hour. Why, some waiters make as much as $30 an hour in tips! Now, set aside the fact that the $30 an hour waiter is sort of like the welfare queen getting eight separate checks from the federal government: sure, there are some, but the overwhelming majority of waiters make only a few bucks an hour in tips. Instead, ask yourself why restaurants need to cut costs so badly. After all, it's not like they're competing with China. Hell, they're not even competing with Arizona.
After you've picked yourself up from the floor and stopped guffawing over the idea of all these kindhearted restaurant owners wanting nothing more than to redistribute a little income to the kitchen staff, check out explanation #2:
Ah, that's more like it. It's not competition, it's not concern for the cooks, and it's not a desire to reduce prices. They just want to increase earnings so they can pay their long suffering executives higher salaries. It never ceases to amaze me that businessmen are continually so outraged over the possibility that any decent paying non-executive jobs are left in our country. But they are. If you're just an ordinary schlub working in an ordinary job, you don't deserve a decent wage, you don't deserve decent healthcare, and you don't deserve any job security. And don't you forget it. So the next time some idiot in a suit starts prattling on about liberals and class warfare, take a minute to remind him who started it. And don't bother being polite about it. Posted by Kevin Drum at October 17, 2003 09:24 AM | TrackBackComments
"idiot in a suit" - you mean some who wear suits aren't idiots? kinda like how kids can't trust anyone over 30 - i'm 34 ;) - i find it difficult to trust anyone wearing a suit... Posted by: TAD at October 17, 2003 09:34 AM | PERMALINKBoy, what a suprise. Mr. Smith wants to sell something for x, and Mr. Jones wants to buy it for x-1. Posted by: Will Allen at October 17, 2003 09:35 AM | PERMALINKOkay, since i don't have to be polite, you're fucking nuts. I bartend two nights a week to make some extra money, and i've never had even a tiny problem with the fact that my hourly rate is less than minimum wage. And I felt the same way when i did it full time in college and right after college. And the reason why, at the place i work anyway, that there are cooks and dishwashers who have been working there for six or seven years is because the owner DOES pay them well and takes good care of them and he wouldn't be able to if every bartender and waitress was making $6.75 an hour. Further, the owner of the place i work frequently washes dishes if the guy gets backed up, jumps behind the bar if need be, and cooks every lunch and dinner rush and pretty much works 12 hours a day, seven days a week, so your snarky comment about restaurant owners is ignorant at best. And the crack about businessmen being outraged about "any decent paying non-executives jobs being left" was equally ignorant. Ironic that in a rant about class warfare, you would engage in so much of it. I would apologize for the tone, but again, you said we don't have to be polite. Posted by: greg at October 17, 2003 09:36 AM | PERMALINKGo here: http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/ and scroll down and click on "How to Defeat the Right in 3 Minutes". Bartcop had posted this awhile ago, and it fits into your argument perfectly. Posted by: Kevin at October 17, 2003 09:37 AM | PERMALINKgreg, you are soooo full of shit. Who gives a shit if you don't want to make a living wage. Seriously, if someone has to sacrifice so the poor cooks (i'm a fucking cook you idiot) can make some more bucks, then hows about asking the damn owners/executives who make *faaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrr* more than any waiter/waitress. They can get up off there asses and hand a little more over to the poor cooks, not the waiters. Anyways, the article, and Kevin's post make absolutely clear that the "poor cook" excuses is just that. An excuse. These fat cats want to make ever more by taking more from those who have less and less. So, go fuck off, idiot.* * Kev, you said we didn't have to be polite... Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 09:41 AM | PERMALINKI'm not convinced that it's quite that simple, Kevin. I think that another facet or perspective is people like me who have a great deal of our retirement savings in 401(k) and IRA accounts. In my particular case, they are both in mutual funds. Mutual funds hold a large section of the investing public's money, and as such they weild not a slight influence on the managers of the companies that they invest. When we, read me and other people who own the funds, exert pressure on the mutual fund managers to show growth and dividends, they, in turn, exert pressure on the companies to do so. I think that's a prime reason that managers are pressing for more and more profit. I recognize that your explanation is also a part of the reason. The widening difference between CEO and COO wages and work force wages is detestable, but I think that we may, in some slight way, be causing problems when we demand our mutual fund managers to produce results. In other words, it isn't as simple as it may seem. But, then again, I may be way off line. I'll shut up and read. Posted by: JMP at October 17, 2003 09:44 AM | PERMALINKGotta go with Kevin on this one. If companies can't afford to pay their workers minimum wage, they can't afford to be in business. Posted by: Emma Anne at October 17, 2003 09:45 AM | PERMALINKVery good points. Indeed, U.S. restaurants don't compete with China! Posted by: Aaron at October 17, 2003 09:46 AM | PERMALINKNever underestimate a liberal flib's ability to attach himself to whom he thinks is a victim. Sheesh. Two things: 1) If you sling food, i.e. wait tables, you determine how
much money you're going to make, NOT your boss, or the company that you
work for. 2) What socialist, bull-foo, system do you think this
is...THE FOUNDATION of BUSINESS in a capitalist system is to make money.
That is not evil, or bureaucratic, or 'hey, dude, that's not, like
fair, man.' That's called an economy... the overwhelming majority of waiters make only a few bucks an hour in tips Unlikely. Back in highschool waiting tables in the late 80's early 90's I'm guessing on average I made around $15/hour in tips at a breakfast restaurant. Posted by: Aaron at October 17, 2003 09:48 AM | PERMALINKOnly somewhat OT: From today's Krugman column: "George W. Bush is like a man who tells you that he's bought you a fancy new TV set for Christmas, but neglects to tell you that he charged it to your credit card, and that while he was at it he also used the card to buy some stuff for himself. Eventually, the bill will come due — and it will be your problem, not his."
Next time you are in your favorite restaurant, tell the owner that you support him raising the prices so the waitpersons can get a raise. Posted by: Ron at October 17, 2003 09:50 AM | PERMALINKAh, poor Adam. You can't deal in facts so you throw a few insults around. Okay, I'll play. First off, you fucking loser, you keep talking about executives, but only a small percentage of bars/restaurants are chains or corporate owned, you brainless dipshit. Most are owned by one or a few individuals, so there are no "executives" to take a paycut. Nice use of the word "fat cat" too. Yeah Kevin, you're right. There's no class warfare coming from the left. And who says I don't want to make a living wage, you moron? I already do and so does just about everyone else who works in the industry. That $30 an hour number isn't some gross exaggeration only enjoyed by a couple people, it's pretty standard and is way low in a lot of places. No wonder they keep you in the kitchen. They probably don't want such a blithering fucking idiot dealing with the actual customers. Posted by: greg at October 17, 2003 09:50 AM | PERMALINKyou're fucking nuts. you are soooo full of shit. go fuck off, idiot you fucking loser I'm kind of thinking that "don't bother being polite about it" was a little unwise... Posted by: jw mason at October 17, 2003 09:54 AM | PERMALINK1) If you sling food, i.e. wait tables, you determine how much money you're going to make, NOT your boss, or the company that you work for. So by being a good waiter, I can lower the prices on the menu, make the food taste better, and cause twice as many people to walk in the door. My boss has nothing to do with any of these things. In fact, I'm essentially working for myself! Idiot. 2) What socialist, bull-foo, system do you think this is...THE FOUNDATION of BUSINESS in a capitalist system is to make money. That is not evil, or bureaucratic, or 'hey, dude, that's not, like fair, man.' That's called an economy... Ideological claptrap that proves nothing. Implicit in the rant is the fallacy that the interests of the business and the interest of the people that work for it are one and the same. While it's true that the existence of jobs at a restaurant depends on the restaurant making a profit, that's pretty much as far as it goes. We're talking about cutting labor costs to ladle more money on stockholders here. Nice try, moron. Big difference between a chain of 127 restaurants and a small locally owned one. First, Kevin - great post. Next - Shesh! The always polite, centrist in any democracy except the U.S., Mr. Drum, who constantly makes calls for civility to his side, slips up and makes one little crack about "And don't bother being polite about it." and all hell breaks loose. Could everyone please take that statement of Mr. Drum to mean that you can be as non-polite he was in this post, which was, actually, rather polite. For you conservatives, think of it as an "original intent" analysis. Posted by: Decnavda at October 17, 2003 10:03 AM | PERMALINKSo the next time some idiot in a suit starts prattling on about liberals and class warfare... of course this idiot may have taken out a second mortgage on his house, sold off half his possessions, nearly ruined his credit by running up $50,000+ in credit card debt, payed his employees without paying himself for weeks at a time, gone without a vacation of anykind for over five years, worked 90+ hours a weeks for years just to make his business modestly profitable - but he's just an evil idiot in a suit. Posted by: kevin g at October 17, 2003 10:04 AM | PERMALINKBig difference between a chain of 127 restaurants and a small locally owned one. True, because now you're competing with chains. California Pizza Kitchen is a chain. The CFO is arguing for cuts in labor costs so that the stock price will increase (thus fattening his portfolio). This is not an unfounded accusation. It is his very argument for the tip credit. You can rationalize it as "helping small restaurants", and that will
be the public rationale for the tip credit if it passes, but that
doesn't enter into it. Soon they will ALL be California Pizza Kitchens.
Small restaurants can't compete with larger ones that can afford
lobbyists. of course this idiot may have taken out a second mortgage on his house, sold off half his possessions, [...blah blah blah blah..] just to make his business modestly profitable - but he's just an evil idiot in a suit. The CFO of California Pizza Kitchen? Are you on acid? Cutting waiter's wages isn't fair if the tips are being shared, as is the practice in many restaruants. Posted by: David W. at October 17, 2003 10:14 AM | PERMALINKI wonder if full-time restaurant workers (those who do this for a career, not just as a stop-gap in college) would agree with Greg's cavalier attitude about what constitutes an honest living wage. I tend to doubt it, but thankfully I'm not a career hash-slinger. If I were, though, this move by CPK would surely piss me off. Posted by: CREEP in '04 at October 17, 2003 10:14 AM | PERMALINKgreg, far be it for me to assume you could fucking read. The owners of California Pizza Kitchen are certianly executives. The owners of every major chain are executives. Hell, I don't give a shit, the owners of every mom and pop restaurant are executives for our purpose. Fact is, the owners are the ones who should give up there wages to help the poor cooks, not the waiters/waitresses. You are just a cheap labor conservative (actually a wannabe from the sounds of it ... how utterly pathetic) crying because people want to make a good wage. You want to cut others wages to enrich the people who need it the least. You are beneath contempt you cheap labor conservative loser. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 10:16 AM | PERMALINKI used to work as close to full-time as a bartender can around these parts. IIRC, while the minimum wage for ordinary workers was about $5.75/hour, the minimum wage for "tipped employees" (don't remember the official category) was $2.35/hr. I remember the management screaming bloody murder when the waitresses tried to get a quarter raise up to $2.60 an hour... And greg, all I'm going to say is that I would have killed to work for an owner like that. I know there are some like that hereabouts, but they're few and far between. Posted by: Anarch at October 17, 2003 10:17 AM | PERMALINKHey Monkey, your argument might be valid if this was only gonna apply to chain restaurants, but it doesn't. It's gonna apply to all of them. And kevin g is right. Considering that the statistic is that something like only ten percent of all new restaurants make it, it is a hell of a risk for any individual or small group to open one, and everything kevin g says applies to most people that do. The waiters and waitresses and every other employee aren't the ones who mortgage their entire future, it's the owner. So, the fact that they might make a tad bit more money than their employees when or if the place makes it isn't a bad thing for crying out loud. I don't really give a fuck about the CFO of California Pizza Kitchen--good pizza in California is an oxymoron anyway--but i do care about the small owner who is struggling to make ends meet. Posted by: greg at October 17, 2003 10:18 AM | PERMALINKkevin g: I started my own business too. It *is* tough going into debt and not paying yourself. But I still believe that if you can't afford to pay your employees at *least* minimum wage, you really need to find something else to do. Posted by: Emma Anne at October 17, 2003 10:19 AM | PERMALINKMonkey, Not a bad retort, but focus on the argument, not on me being a moron. Also, satire is like salt; use sparingly. 1) Yes (of course), there are other factors involved in the success and operation of a restuarant. My point (my attempt at a point) was that the wage is not on your mind as a server. Your tip is. When I slung food in college, my tips were probably 75 to 90 percent of my beer money, i mean, income. Your tip is your responsibility. 2)" the fallacy that interests of the business and the interest of the people that work for it are one and the same" We're not children here, monkey. Come on now. They are not one and the same (how did I make that implicit in my 'rant?') You cannot deny that there is a significant linkage. Well, if you can, please do. bj
Sorry, there was supposed to be a continuation after the ellipses: ...right after which he took a nice weeklong vacation to Las Vegas. Posted by: Anarch at October 17, 2003 10:19 AM | PERMALINKThe American businessman just can't catch a break can he? No vacation? Credit card debt? AND he paid his employees? If there isn't already a day set aside in which the rest of us honor the sacrifices made by this misunderstood group, may be the first to suggest one? Posted by: Hoyt Pollard at October 17, 2003 10:19 AM | PERMALINKWith Adam in MA's comment, I can see why no one followed up on my comment. From Adam: ...the owners are the ones who should give up there wages to help the poor cooks... So, I take it that you think the owners (who provided the jobs in the first place, and who provide customers a service they want) should shoulder the entire burden and that none of it should be placed on you? That's some fine solidarity with the workin' folks. Posted by: Ron at October 17, 2003 10:23 AM | PERMALINK"you're obviously a cheap labor conservative" Actually, I'm not a conservative at all, but you're obviously a broke liberal who despises the success of others as a way to make up for your lack of it. Keep it up Adam, with your week ass arguments. If you wanna keep getting bitch-slapped all over the place, I'll be here. Posted by: greg at October 17, 2003 10:25 AM | PERMALINKEmma Anne wrote: "Gotta go with Kevin on this one. If companies can't afford to pay their workers minimum wage, they can't afford to be in business."
But to glibly say "fuck 'em" to the hundreds of thousands of small business owners whose entrpereneurial activity drives a good deal of the economic prosperity in the country but who, on average, face very long odds of ever being financially successful (Most small businesses - especially restaurants - fail), smacks of hubris of the first order. Posted by: sd at October 17, 2003 10:27 AM | PERMALINKBy the way, I don't know about this "Tip Credit", can someone explain or provide a link? Posted by: Ron at October 17, 2003 10:30 AM | PERMALINKHAH HA HAHH! That was awesome greg. So, you are saying your not conservative.... just cheap labor. Just a fucking tool. Good for you greg. I don't despise others success. In fact, I'm the one cheering for that waiter/waitress to have success. It is you that despises the success of these folks. Go have a long look in a mirror, or better yet click here. As for your "bitch-slapped" BS, why don't you take your woman hating, self-loathing, chump ass out of here. Of course, you won't do that so why don't you concentrate on justifying why these executives should be able to take money from the waiters to give to the cooks. Don't you cheap labor conservatives hate redistribution of wealth? Ahh, that's right, you're a fucking hypocrite too. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 10:32 AM | PERMALINKIf restaurant owners in general cut their portion sizes down to the level a non-glutton could handle they'd probably save a hell of a lot more money than they would by screwing their employees. Posted by: Mave Lawler at October 17, 2003 10:34 AM | PERMALINKYou are right Emma but I get annoyed when people assume that anybody who owns a business has tons of cash lying around and is just out to screw everybody. It is a struggle for small business owners and most people work for a small business. Posted by: kevin g at October 17, 2003 10:34 AM | PERMALINKSo, I take it that you think the owners (who provided the jobs in the first place, and who provide customers a service they want) should shoulder the entire burden and that none of it should be placed on you? What fucking burden you moron?! The owners want to take existing wealth, that of the the waiters, and redistribute it to themselves. Some, like you and greg, are insisting that they want to redistribute to the cooks (nevermind that the article we're debating said the opposite). No, if the owners are going to insist on redistributing others wealth, well they should redistribute their own, not the waiters. You cheap labor conservatives are such hypocrites. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 10:35 AM | PERMALINKWhat fucking burden you moron Is there someone reasonable out there? Posted by: Ron at October 17, 2003 10:37 AM | PERMALINKDrag on the economy? Well the Economy is a big place, but one aspect of it, inflation, does not seem to be negatively affected by increases in the minimum wages: "We created the minimum wage in 1938. We have raised it from time to time since then. Notable examples would be 1957, 1963, and 1996. Take a look at the inflation numbers for the years immediately following. Here is the source for those figures, by the way. (http://www.eh.net/hmit/inflation/inflationr.php) Just for good measure lets look at the inflation rate from 1957 through the end of the Johnson administration in 1969. 1957 3.38 How about the 1996 increase? 1996 2.96 Read the rest at http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/rightresponds.html Posted by: jri at October 17, 2003 10:37 AM | PERMALINKYou are right Emma but I get annoyed when people assume that anybody who owns a business has tons of cash lying around and is just out to screw everybody. It is a struggle for small business owners and most people work for a small business. You are right kevin g but I get annoyed when people assume that anybody who waits for a living has tons of cash lying around and is just trying to be greedy by not redistributing their hard earned wages by direction of the owners. Especially since the owners have much more wealth than the waiters. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 10:38 AM | PERMALINKOh, and the MW increases were followed by an increase in employment. Posted by: jri at October 17, 2003 10:39 AM | PERMALINKIs there someone reasonable out there? Can I get more intelligent CLC's? Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 10:40 AM | PERMALINKKevin, I understand what your getting at, but just how much do you need to pay unskilled labor? I think min wage would do. Sorry, but I did these jobs when I was a kid and made $10/hour (when the min wage was around $3/hour) with tips. I made a killing (for my age). What I would not expect (and still do not expect) to actually raise a family on what I could be paid as an unskilled laborer doing 40/hours per week. I could see making it with one kid, public schools and both parents working. Very modest house (say 1000-1200 square feet)or apartment and not living in high priced areas (like NY, San Francisco etc), but it would be tough - thus I worked through college and got a job (admittedly on the government dole as a pilot...) Bottom line if the wait staff is not making enough, they will go
somewhere else (which includes moving to another state if need be).
Where I live I see help wanted signs everywhere. Sorry for the spelling, and please lets get back to being polite. I'm less concerned about the lack of civility in here than I am about the lack of any grammar or spelling skills. If you two can't be mindful of other commenters, at least be mindful of your own writing—bad grammar makes this board look like a chatroom. Posted by: Kriston Capps at October 17, 2003 10:41 AM | PERMALINK"Well the Economy is a big place, but one aspect of it, inflation,
does not seem to be negatively affected by increases in the minimum
wages" Using inflation to depict an economy is like using the GDP: You need to be careful doing that. And, there's more to the economy than that. bj Posted by: bj at October 17, 2003 10:44 AM | PERMALINKI understand what your getting at, but just how much do you need to pay executive labor? I think min wage would do. Holy Shit! An upward bound on CEO pay? What are you nuts buffpilot? We'd never be able to find good executives or keep them interested in the job. No, if we let CEO pay dip below have a couple hundred million we'll never be able to entice good help. Besides, the very idea of placing a limit on the upward bound of the payscale is just unAmerican. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 10:49 AM | PERMALINK"Soon they will ALL be California Pizza Kitchens. Small restaurants can't compete with larger ones that can afford lobbyists...." While I acknolweldege that the generally is a (perhaps unfortunate) trend toward corporatization and centralization, I really don't know that the mom-and-pop resteraunt is headed for extinction anytime soon. Probably 95% of all resteraunts are mom-and-pop operations. It just doesn't cost much to open up a taco stand or a burger joint. Heck, franchises like Baskin-Robbins and Quiznos are within the reach of many working-class people. I worked at Wendy's for five years, and one of my coworkers, whose husband was a police officer, saved up enough money to open a successful Baskin-Robbins franchise in a local shopping center. These people are not "fat cats" by any stretch of the imagination. The CPK guy's remarks are absolutely revolting, but he is hardly a typical resteraunt owner. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at October 17, 2003 10:49 AM | PERMALINKIt was not fun working for a small business and having to race everyone else to the bank, because the banks put such long holds on corp accounts that only the first 2 people to the bank got to cash their paycheck. That is called BOHICA. It is not fun working for tips and having people leave me a newspaper instead of a tip. Or leave buttons for a tip, or have one person in the group collect the cash for the meal and leave a 15 cent tip for a $50 meal. Sorry guys, but I had taxes withheld on the assumption that I would be getting a 15% tip on those meals. And that $2/hour that I am getting because "but you get tips instead" all disappears into withholdings. Have you ever had to pay the IRS because your employer was embezzling the taxes you honestly thought were being withheld? can you say BOHICA? Does some waiter, somewhere, make $30/hour in tips? So you want to screw all waiters in America? So all the waiters in America can say BOHICA? I bet the average meal there is over $100 per couple. Or they turn tables over every 40-45 minutes. Posted by: Peter at October 17, 2003 10:49 AM | PERMALINKIt's nice that you read the Cheap Labor Conservative link Adam. And while I am conservative, I am not cheap labor. People are a valuable asset to a company. buffpilot makes some interesting points about unskilled labor; but in reality, the loss of any trained employee is not good for a business. Being a bachelor, I eat out a lot (if you'd ever tasted my cooking you'd know why) so I get to see a lot of waitpersons and taste the results from a lot of cooks. I like good food and good service, and if a waitperson/cook/whatever is good I'd like to think they are adequately compensated so they can continue to provide me good service/food/whatever. But I am also not willing to shortchange the owner, who put considerable time and effort into establishing the restaurant. The answer is: eat at expensive places. Do your fair share. Posted by: Ron at October 17, 2003 10:51 AM | PERMALINKbj - which is why I qualified my statement. However, as a working stiff, I am primarily interested in how much I can buy with my money and how available jobs are. From the evidence, it appears that increases in the minimum wage did not result in increases in inflation, and were acompanied by decreases in unemployment. Posted by: jri at October 17, 2003 10:54 AM | PERMALINKAdam, once again, learn to fucking read! My original point had nothing to do with the "redistribution of income". It had to do with Kevin's blatant ignorance of the restaurant industry and his utter hypocrisy of bitching about class warfare while engaging in it himself. He said most waiters only make a couple dollars an hour in tips. That's absolutely not true. Kevin says he lives in Orange County. If he went to any average, middle of the road restaurant within five miles of his house and asked any waiter or bartender there to break down ONLY their tip income to an hourly basis, I guarantee you almost all of them would fall between $20 and $30 an hour and a good number would be even higher. It depends, obviously, on what type of place it is, what the average bill is, where it's located, etc, but not every waitress is Alice, Flo, or Vera waiting on the same one customer at Mel's Diner. Second, his original point about CEO's and executives was dumb, because, FOR THE FOURTH TIME, most restaurants aren't chains like CPK. They're small businesses and even though you and Kevin would rather not admit it because it would interfere with your preconceived ideas, starting and maintaining a successful restaurant is one hell of a lot of work and it is taking one hell of a big risk. Posted by: greg at October 17, 2003 10:54 AM | PERMALINKUsing inflation to depict an economy is like using the GDP: You need to be careful doing that. And, there's more to the economy than that. Inflation is one of the prime arguments the cheap labor conservatives serve up to argue against the minimum wage. The idea is that the level playing field created by a minimum wage will necessarily raise every boat leading to inflation. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 10:55 AM | PERMALINKSo greg. You're one of those guys who thinks repititoin makes things true. How about backing up some of your assertions with citations? Posted by: jri at October 17, 2003 11:01 AM | PERMALINKAs someone who actually started a small restaurant I'll have to tell
you some of the comments really hit a nerve with me. It's always
refreshing to see people so ignorant of what it takes. The owner of a
small restauraunt generally works the most hours by far, and does not
get very well compensated - even by minimum wage standards. I would
have loved to pay my employees $10hr, but unless I wanted to go out of
business immediately I couldn't. I just love reading these comments - I
think some of you think money just grows on trees to be passed out to
everyone. Did somebody say we can take the gloves off? Redistributing income. That is what the article is about greg. Sorry, you are having such a hard time keeping up. And about the hypocrisy of bitching about class warfare while engaging in it... You just don't get it do you. It is cheap labor conservatives (I know, I know, you're only cheap labor, not conservative) that enage in class warfare and then bitch about it. Just like you are doing. The article describes a blatant attempt by the haves to redistribute the meager wealth of the have nots. That is class warfare started by cheap labor conservatives such as yourself. Kevin is saying that you started it so don't cry class warfare when we engage you. Which is exactly what you are doing. Because you are an idiot. And it is true that most waiters only make a small amount in tips. I have worked in the restaurant industry for more than a decade and have seen this time and again. You can't guarantee shit because you have no reputation worth shit and because you don't know shit. I know very well that a restaurant is a hard business. I've seen many go under. However, that is the responsibility of the owner to sink or swim. Don't you cheap labor conservatives believe in personal responsibility and all that? Don't you want less government interference and all that? Well, quit asking for the government to redistribute the wealth from the have nots to the relatively well off executives (California Pizza Kitchen or mom and pop). Until you do that you are nothing but a hypocrite. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 11:05 AM | PERMALINKsm, I am very aware of the risks involved in owning a restaurant. However, you shouldn't be asking for government handouts in the form of redistributing wealth from the waiters to yourselves. How about a little personal responsibility. If you can't be successful then perhaps you shouldn't be owning a restaurant. Don't you folks believe in the free market above all else? Why are you asking for government programs? Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 11:08 AM | PERMALINKYou know, every person I know who waits tables also WAAAY underdeclares the amount of tips they make so they don't get zapped at taxtime. And yes, folks can make pretty decent money. I had a friend who was a bartender at a fairly busy TGI Fridays in the mid-1980s. He cleared like $35,000 one year. But by way underdeclaring his amount of tips, it was like he made $40,000. That may not sound like a lot to some folks here, but in this town in N.C. with a low cost of living, it was pretty damn good. Posted by: Joey at October 17, 2003 11:14 AM | PERMALINKThank you sm. We, as consumers, demand low prices. Low prices means businesses must cut costs. Are there greedy owners out there? Sure. But aren't consumers being greedy by wanting low prices? Posted by: Ron at October 17, 2003 11:14 AM | PERMALINKAdam: Increased minimum wage is a very good deal for those who keep their job and have more money. But it's a very bad deal for the unemployed and unskilled labor who's not worth higher salary. Posted by: hoo at October 17, 2003 11:15 AM | PERMALINKAdam, "Don't you folks believe in the free market above all else? Why are you asking for government programs?" Oh, you mean those programs that mandate you have to pay a minimum amount + match taxes? That's a 'free market' handout!?!?!?! You sir, are clueless. Posted by: sm at October 17, 2003 11:23 AM | PERMALINKHere's what I don't understand about this whole topic. How can a tip, given by a customer to a waiter, even be considered as part of the cost of doing business? I mean, I have 2 jobs - should either of my employers pay me less money because I have income coming from another source? The tip shouldn't enter into the business owner's calculations at all. A tip is a transaction between a customer and a waiter. If you have waiters that are making an average of $30/hour based on what they earn in tips, you should be a pretty happy business owner, because you are talking about some very satisfied customers. I know it's hard to start your own business, particularly a restaurant, which is a very risky venture. Perhaps there could be some sort of exclusion for mom & pop type of restaurants (just like my boss doesn't have to provide Family Leave because we only have 20 employees). Or even extend it to restaurants who only have a small chain -- 2 or 3 branches. Posted by: Maureen at October 17, 2003 11:23 AM | PERMALINKHoo: Raising the minimum wage isn't a direct connection to inflation. Yup, you are right. As seen by the empirical evidence alread detailed. Other employers cut back on workers, benefits and other areas. Hence you'll have fewer job opportunities. Nope, you are wrong. Look at the empirical data. In 1963, the minimum wage was the highest its ever been in real terms. Did this lead to inflation? Nope. Did this lead to job loss? Sure didn't. Unemployment declined more or less steadily until Lyndon Johnson left office in 1969 -- with an unemployment rate of 3.5 percent.Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 11:28 AM | PERMALINK Bottom line if the wait staff is not making enough, they will go
somewhere else (which includes moving to another state if need be).
Where I live I see help wanted signs everywhere. Bottom line? You arrogant... There will always be unskilled labor. In fact our country is losing most of its skilled labor to other countries making the US a land of serfs and managers. While it's real nice in theory to think that if someone isn't making enough they'll just go somewhere else, walking around your neighborhood is hardly evidence you want to base all of your (wrong) assumptions on. First of all, why is it that unskilled labor should not be able to make a living off of their unskilled jobs? Why do they not deserve a wage they can live off of? I really don't understand that contention. Second, what land do you come from where it's easy and affordable, for someone making minimum wage, to move to another city or state just to find another low-paying job? In case you're completely ignorant of reality, minimum wage doesn't allow for your own apartment in much of this country, nor a car, let alone the kind of money it takes to relocate to a new state. What really fucking grinds me whenever I hear another "if they don't like it that can find a new [job, city, school, whatever]" is it's always dependant on convoluted scenarios right out of a fucking sitcom writer's grab-bag. If I say it's expensive to move to another state, especially if you work in a job that pays so little you can't save anything, someone will come back and say, "you can move with friends or family", or "you can ask for a loan from your family", or "you can arrange to have a job as soon as you get there" or whatever. Any fuckwit can make up a story in which their "free-markets cure all" theory will come out on top, the reality is imagining a scenario in which you're not wrong does not make something an absolute. Minimum wage is shit. It is not something you can live on without being dependant upon others. Housing is expensive. Transportation is expensive. Food is expensive. it's a fucking cop-out to claim low-paying, unskilled jobs can be filled with college kids so there's no need to pay a decent wage, many, many unskilled jobs are held by people who aren't living in the dorms. I live in LA and this fucking city runs on poor, working mexicans living 6 or 10 to a shitty 2 bedroom apartment. They can't even get waiting jobs because they're mostly filled with full-grown white people, not college kids. There isn't a lot of work to go around and, while the mexicans are used to living in 3rd world conditions, so don't mind as much all piling into one van to go somewhere else, it's not exactly a life anyone would want to live, nor a life that makes any sense given we're the richest fucking country in the world. Is it the ol' conservative/libertarian equation? Anyone who works hard in America can "make it", therefore anyone who hasn't "made it" didn't work hard and so is undeserving of... well, anything really? Is it contempt for unskilled labor? Contempt for people who aren't like you? What the fuck is it that makes "conservatives" have so little regard for anyone with a crappy job? What is it that makes most of you guys think unskilled workers don't deserve a wage they can live on? Or do you think someone can live on 6 bucks an hour? [cue story about how you struggled that one time making poor wages
but worked your way up and screw everyone else who didn't do what you
did. Or some story about how someone could have roommates, and take
buses, and spend their money wisely and do just fine... in the end
though, you all think anyone that's unskilled should suffer] And yet thousands of small businesses thrive, despite the existence of a minimum wage. Not only do small businesses thrive, but they are the engine that drives the economy. I'm sorry if I can't work up some pity for the business owner who wants to increase his profits by lower his worker's wages. If that is the only way he can do it, then he deserves the kind of workers who will work for him and he also deserves the ire his customers will give him for the crappy service. It's a false economy accepted by short-sighted greed and it doesn't take into account several facets of reality. Posted by: JRI at October 17, 2003 11:31 AM | PERMALINKWell, Adam, you've had three people who actually have owned a business and they all tell you you're full of shit and don't know your ass from your elbow. Is it getting through to you yet? Despite all your rants about "cheap labor conservatives"--btw, did you just learn that term yesterday? You sound like a three year old who just learned a new word and can't stop using it--you haven't made one decent argument. And you know damn well that most waiters make more than a couple dollars an hour in tips. A couple dollars is one table at a greasy spoon for crying out loud, although if your culinary skills are equal to your knowledge of business, that might be where you work. So, everyone that works for tips should also be paid as much as possible by the hour. Let me ask you, do you have a problem with salespeople who get paid strictly on commission? Should the gov't require that they receive a "living" base salary too? You know, just in case they have a bad month or something? Posted by: greg at October 17, 2003 11:33 AM | PERMALINKI'd like to ask a question to small business owners: If a small business fails, doesn't that mean it couldn't succeed? Isn't the scapegoating of minimum wages, insurance, etc., just that, scapegoating? There are certain rules you must follow to conduct business, right?
How does it make sense to essentially say, "if there were no rules, then
my business would be viable"? Because there are rules, and all businesses run within them... doesn't that mean any business that fails just wasn't a viable business? You need to step out of your little bubble and see how the real world works. sm, just because you failed at your business doesn't mean that is the real world. Take some responsibility man. Its embarrasing. I've already acknowledged that owning a restaurant is hard. That's the free market. Quit blaming capitalism for your loss. Quit blaming the minimum wage and the working poor for your business collapse. Quit blaming everyone else. For all your whining you were at least an owner of a business. Quit asking for others to shoulder the burden of your own loss. Especially those who have even less than you. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 11:34 AM | PERMALINKMy sister was a waitress for years and what she found was that as prices for meals went up over the years, people started leaving smaller tips, percentage-wise. A lot of diners seem to assume that someone else will pick up the slack if they give 10% instead of 15%. Yeah, there are a few incredibly generous souls who throw big money around (she got $100 one night on a $200 table), and there are a few 20% tippers out there, but the trend was going down as the meal costs went up. Given the prices out in California, $6.75 an hour is like $3.00 an hour anywhere else. And do the waiters have to share their tips with the rest of the front-house staff?
Obviously there aren't many people posting here who have ever actually worked in a restaurant, much less tried to start one up. Greg is absolutely correct in what he says about average tip income per hour, and in my experience it usually higher than $30/hour. If yur are a reasonably good looking woman and alcohol is served, you can make upwards of three times that. Something that's been completely ignored here is the fiduciary duty of those oh-so-horrible executives (pertaining to the discussion of chain restaurants only). Those executives have a legal duty to maximize their shareholders' (e.g. working stiffs with pensions, et al.) return on their investment, not to pay their cooks the most. If the staff doesn't like what they're being paid, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from seeking other employment. If the shareholders don't like what they're getting out of the deal, they will get out altogether which could cause the entire business to go away -- thus no jobs even for those who were happy with their pay. Moreover, the more that the wait staff is paid, the fewer wait staff will be employed (and consequently, the more tables each 'tron will have). What should be even more obvious is that with higher labor costs, fewer entrepreneurs will start new establishments, and thus fewer jobs will be created. Usually the ones seeking such an outcome are the chains and/or unions because it creates barriers to entry (i.e. less competition) and higher wages for skilled labor. And BTW, Adam, the kitchen and wait staff have no "wealth" that is being taken from them or redistributed by the owners. They have accepted an opportunity that the owner was under no obligation to offer in the form of employment. And as far as actual restaurant owners go, the vast majority of them never have a day off, are the first ones to work every morning and the last ones to close up. On top of this, it is their money that has been risked in the venture, not the staff's. If the owners were not able to extract a large enough profit for taking that risk, they would not open up restaurants, and you, I and all those workers would be worse off for it. Posted by: D.Citizen at October 17, 2003 11:36 AM | PERMALINKgreg, you wouldn't know a decent argument from a hole in your ass. You can't even back up any of your drivel with facts or citations. You have no reputation, no worthwhile input, no fucking clue whatsoever. Why don't you take that one neuron you have firing and come up with a reason for this redistribution of wealth your are so fond of. You know, the one from the waiters to the executives. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 11:40 AM | PERMALINKAdam: Furthermore, for some reason the cite doesn't mention that unemployment in '56 was 4.1, in 57 was 4.3. After the minimum wage of '57 unemployment spiked to 6.8 in '58 and never dropping below 5 percent until after JFK's tax reforms. Posted by: hoo at October 17, 2003 11:47 AM | PERMALINKAdam, what, exactly, are these citations you want? It's pointless to give them to you because you'll say A) "That's anecdotal" (provided you know what anecdotal means or B) "oh, so you and everyone you know in the industry make around $30 an hour in tips, that doesn't mean everyone else does" or C) "You're just a cheap labor conservate" (congratulations on going an entire post without using that, btw) Basically, you're a bitter guy who's unhappy with his lot in life and you deal with it by hating successful people. And really, i'm not gonna lose any sleep tonight due to the fact that some limp-dick in Massachusettes thinks i have no "reputation". Posted by: greg at October 17, 2003 11:52 AM | PERMALINKIt seems the argument is going back forth about two very different things. Some argue in favor of small restaurant owners while others argue against chain restaurants. There is no easy answer to the conflict. Require higher wages and the small restaurants die. Lower the wages and the chains clean up. Why not give small restaurants a tax break that larger restaurants do not get? Establish reasonable limits on the definition of small restaurant by income, number of employees, etc. (A business with $10 million in assets is not small.) Sorry, that damn Republican accountant I call Dad did manage to get some crap through to me. And don't be so damn cheap with the tips. Posted by: Snow at October 17, 2003 11:54 AM | PERMALINKI routinely give 20%. But I am a Liberal who believes in a living wage and doesn't buy the Cheap labor conservative baloney. Posted by: jri at October 17, 2003 11:56 AM | PERMALINKHoo: What the hell are you talking about. You yourself just said, "minimum wage increase in '63" and the "unemployment rate fell most dramatically after 1964". You can't refute that minimum wage does not cause unemployment so you are left with arguing that the minimum wage doesn't necessarily *create* jobs because it could be due to another of JFK's policies? You don't even attempt to tackle the low unemployment and inflation figures following the '96 wage increase. Basically, you are the one saying increases in minimum wage cause unemployment so the burden is on you to provide that evidence. Unfortunately, the empirical evidence available does not support this thesis. You are left arguing that minimum wage didn't *cause* new jobs to be created. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 11:58 AM | PERMALINKAdam, Shorter version of greg: I don't have any evidence, I don't have any citations, I can't back-up what I say in the slightest, so everyone else must be wrong. Basically, you're a stupid chump who's unhappy with his lot in life and you deal with it by hating poor people. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 12:02 PM | PERMALINK"So the next time some idiot in a suit starts prattling on about liberals and class warfare, take a minute to remind him who started it. And don't bother being polite about it." No, of course not. And while you're at it, don't just call them idiots in forums read primarily by those who agree with you; call them idiots to their faces as well. After all, if you came across as too polite or too reasoned, you might actually convince some people that your position is correct. And we wouldn't want that, would we? Posted by: Xrlq at October 17, 2003 12:04 PM | PERMALINKIt's amazing how much heat and how little light comments on these kinds of topics elicit. Posted by: raj at October 17, 2003 12:05 PM | PERMALINK... astronomical executive dollar amounts you claim mom&pop make. Perhaps you've missed the repeated statements I've made acknowledging that owning and successfully managing a restaurant is not easy. Endlessly coddling you and bemoaning your failed business does not constitute living in the real world. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 12:05 PM | PERMALINKjri, What fucking citations?!?!?!?! Okay, every bartender and waiter/waitress that i know, which is a lot. Is that fucking good enough for you? I know, Philly is a big city and this doesn't apply to everyone, but it isn't an unreasonable number. No, not every one makes $30 an hour in tips, but it's WAY more than Kevin--and you and Hank the Angry Dwarf--think it is. Christ, I was out last night, our bill was $50, and I left him $65. So he made $15 to just bring some calimari, chicken fingers, and six stoli and tonics (that's three for me, three for my girlfriend. I'm not an alcoholic) to the table. Not bad. Posted by: greg at October 17, 2003 12:08 PM | PERMALINKWhat I wanted to say is what Snow said - the genuine small business should be given some special considerations. I am also a good tipper, but I find I get better service when my husband is with me. My sister (former waitress) tells me this is because men generally tip more than women do. I used to attempt to be an actress, and at auditions, I would occasionally be asked why I wanted to be an actress, and my standard answer was that I really wanted to be a waitress and I thought acting was the best way to get my foot in the door. Posted by: Maureen at October 17, 2003 12:12 PM | PERMALINK"What fucking citations?!?!?!?! Okay, every bartender and waiter/waitress that i know, which is a lot. Is that fucking good enough for you? I know, Philly is a big city and this doesn't apply to everyone, but it isn't an unreasonable number." Is it representative of all Wait Staff? Canyou at least getus something from the Beareau of labor Statistics? I am sorry, but it is impossible to generalize from anecdotal evidence. If all you have is bluster and ideology to back up your argument, then you have just been blowing smoke and wasting our time. Posted by: jri at October 17, 2003 12:12 PM | PERMALINKAnd being particularly abusive while you were at it. Posted by: jri at October 17, 2003 12:13 PM | PERMALINKWhat fucking citations? Indeed greg. Shorter version of greg: Hey, *I* always tip great so those do nothing waiters should stop complaining. After all, who needs evidence when you can take my, worth a crap, word for it. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 12:14 PM | PERMALINKIf the staff doesn't like what they're being paid, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from seeking other employment. If the shareholders don't like what they're getting out of the deal, they will get out altogether which could cause the entire business to go away -- thus no jobs even for those who were happy with their pay Ahhhhh. Isn't it nice when a theory is so perfect it describes the reality more perfectly than anything else? Posted by: Tim at October 17, 2003 12:19 PM | PERMALINKAgam & jri - To be fair, you've both ignored the other anecdotal evidence offered in this thread, and what's stopping you from going and getting your own statistics? Furthermore, if you've actually had any experience in waiting tables (and frankly, Adam, you don't come across as too credible in the "restaurant experience" department), you would know that wait people tend to underreport their income a great deal. If you want evidence, go ask a waitress. Posted by: D. Citizen at October 17, 2003 12:19 PM | PERMALINKKevin, I hate to say this, but this post of yours only serves to illustrate that you have absolutely no conception of how markets are supposed to work. I'd already gotten that feeling by listening to your comments on Social Security and the joys of single-payer healthcare, but this particular post absolutely seals it. There is nothing sacred about waiting tables, or any other profession, that demands that anybody pay those who practice the profession more than the going wage - which is determined by the laws of supply and demand, rather than what a few outraged individuals might feel ought to be a "just" wage. Here's some friendly advice for you, as well as for most of the unbalanced cheerleaders on here who think demonizing "greedy" businessmen passes for rational argumentation: why not go down to your friendly neighborhood bookshop, or online to Amazon.com, get an elementary microeconomics textbook, and make an acquaintance with the way markets actually work, rather than making the sorts of ridiculous comments that are manifest above? Economics and evolutionary biology seem to be the only subjects in which a total ignorance of the contents of the field seems to be no bar to having strongly held and vocally advocated opinions, and what evolution is to the extremists of the religious right, the workings of the free market seem to be to you and most of your acolytes, Herr Drum. Posted by: Abiola Lapite at October 17, 2003 12:20 PM | PERMALINKAhhhhh. Isn't it nice when a theory is so perfect it describes the reality more perfectly than anything else? Umm ... exactly how is this only theory? Posted by: D. Citizen at October 17, 2003 12:20 PM | PERMALINKGot stats, Greg? I don't see any. Your $50 dollar meal and your 15 dollar tip (being a liberal, I'd have left 20, btw) is just anecdote. I have no idea whether it's typical, high, low, or anomalous. By contrast, I just ate at a greasy spoon here in New York. I happen to like them. Want to wager on what any of THOSE waiters make per hour? Or what a waiter on 127 and Broadway makes during the graveyard shift? No stats, no case. Who knows you may be right. But it up to you, my friend, to prove your case. And no one said you had to be polite, true. I'm sure Kevin assumed the subject would attract commentators that would be polite as a matter of course. Y'know writing "fuck" all the time is sooooooooo...David Mamet without ideas. . Posted by: tristero at October 17, 2003 12:21 PM | PERMALINKAdam, jri, I'm not gonna try and help you make your argument. If you believe what you do, you go find it. I've already accomodated you and that nitwit Adam way more than i should have. Besides, as someone said earlier, you're not gonna be able to get accurate numbers. People under-declare what they make. My old girlfriend used to waitress at the same place i bartend and they have to hand in countdown sheets at the end of their shift. One of the things they put on the sheet is the amount of tips they're declaring. If she made $150, she'd declare $100, if that. Posted by: greg at October 17, 2003 12:25 PM | PERMALINKJulia Grey - Yes we do. We tip out to the bus boys. Its standard in pretty much all restaurants. And you know damn well that most waiters make more than a couple dollars an hour in tips. A couple dollars is one table at a greasy spoon for crying out loud, although if your culinary skills are equal to your knowledge of business, that might be where you work. greg - You are an idiot. I currently work in the restaurant business, to put myself through college, and the fact is that servers make between $30-$50 per shift in California. As the tips per table increase, the tables per server decrease. Some (very rare) servers in the highest do ok, but they are also burdened by a HUGE tax responsibility. Oh, and btw, 'greasy spoon' restaurants are no easier to work than fine dining. I have worked both. So Adam has as much knowledge and ability in a restaurant as you do. I take that back, probably more, since you seem to be clueless about what it would do to the economy of California to cut server wage. Tim - Thank you for the sensible view of owning a restaurant. One of the guys I work with is always complaining that his business failed because he wasn't able to make a profit after paying his employees, and that deregulation was the answer. Reality: He was not good at what he did. Every time I hear that kind of argument for deregulation, I think of Henry Ford' quote. "I need to pay my employees enough so they can buy the cars I make." Did it break Henry Ford? No. Why? Because he knew how to run a business. Posted by: Jesse in SD at October 17, 2003 12:26 PM | PERMALINK"And you know damn well that most waiters make more than a couple dollars an hour in tips." If this were true, there would be a lot of competition for waitstaff jobs, since you would pretty much be guaranteed to make more than minimum wage at an unskilled labor job, right? Yet, oddly, unemployed people do not seek to maximize their utility by waiting tables at the Waffle House vs. Greeting at Wal-Mart. They must be stupid. "A couple dollars is one table at a greasy spoon for crying out loud," Assuming the customer even leaves a tip. And it is bill-appropriate. Again, the owner gets to shift the vast majority of his labor costs directly to the customer......who pays no penalty whatsoever by declining to pay said labor costs. Therefore, the only loser in the system is, you guessed it, the worker. If you the customer don't pay the owner, you get arrested for theft. If you don't pay the worker, well, hopefully they won't spit in your food next time. "although if your culinary skills are equal to your knowledge of business, that might be where you work." America's brightest minds and most productive workers all flock to waiting jobs because of the guaranteed high income. They don't? It's unskilled labor? Then it can't be high paying, can it. "So, everyone that works for tips should also be paid as much as possible by the hour." Why is it OK to establish a mandatory service charge (found in every restaurant in America) for groups of ten and not for groups of three? "Let me ask you, do you have a problem with salespeople who get paid strictly on commission?" Owners who do not pay employees their commissions are commiting fraud and go to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. There is nothing wrong with sales jobs- you do the work, you get the cash. That's fair. Customers who stiff waiters get no negative consequences. Owners whose customers stiff waiters get labor at less than mininum wage. You do the work, you get.....whatever the customer feels like giving you. If this is a great system, then owners should have no problem with my paying them based on my arbitrary decision on their quality. A "tip". What's that, they have fixed costs? So do workers who pay rent. "Should the gov't require that they receive a "living" base salary too? You know, just in case they have a bad month or something?" Why not put waiters on commission? The more they work, the more they get paid- AS A GUARANTEED PERCENTAGE OF THE AMOUNT OF THE CHECK. Not on the whim of the customer. "Greg is absolutely correct in what he says about average tip income per hour, and in my experience it usually higher than $30/hour." Data is not the plural of anecdote. "If yur are a reasonably good looking woman and alcohol is served, you can make upwards of three times that." I'm an ugly man working at the Waffle House. I guess I don't deserve wages based on the quality or my work, how hard I do it, or how much profit I bring in. My wages should be based on how big my tits are. While Larry Flynt agrees with you, that is no way to run an economy. "And BTW, Adam, the kitchen and wait staff have no "wealth" that is being taken from them or redistributed by the owners." Correct. But the owners get to pass all their labor costs directly to the consumer, who can decline the honor. When you buy a car, do you directly pay the salesman the commission? No. If you could stiff the salesman, how many cars do you think dealers would sell? I'm guessing not a lot. "They have accepted an opportunity that the owner was under no obligation to offer in the form of employment." It's the only industry except farm workers that doesn't have to pay mimimum wage. I think the owner gets the big opportunity, thanks. When you get your car fixed, Jiffy Lube doesn't get to pay the mechanic $1/hr. and you make up the difference cause you are a nice guy. "And as far as actual restaurant owners go, the vast majority of them never have a day off, are the first ones to work every morning and the last ones to close up." Yes. "On top of this, it is their money that has been risked in the venture, not the staff's." How Randian. Yes, the people who cook the food and bring it to the customers have little to do with the success of the venture. Is that you, Rocco DiSpirito? "If the owners were not able to extract a large enough profit for taking that risk, they would not open up restaurants," There are restaurants that operate as cooperatives. Other situations are possible. "and you, I and all those workers would be worse off for it" It is an economic certainty that people would continue to consume food, unless conservative economics contains a provision for human evolution. Posted by: MC Hawking at October 17, 2003 12:26 PM | PERMALINKAdam: JFK's tax cuts in 1964 reduced the costs of doing business dramatically. I'd argue they caused a wave of new investment and expansion b/c business costs were cheaper than they were in 1962, even after the minimum wage hike. My point is that you guys are citing statistics and acting like a minimum wage hike is the ONLY policy that affected the economy. If you claim '96 shows minimum wage and unemployment are not connected, then why I can't simply cite the unemployment explosion after '57 as evidence they are connected? Nevermind the fact, that Congress often passes tax cuts for businesses as a way to reduce the effect of a minimum wage hike. Posted by: hoo at October 17, 2003 12:27 PM | PERMALINKWhy don't you acknowlege that. Because it flies in the face of the facts. If you don't like facts, that's your problem. Hoo is the only one, to his credit, who's even bothered to argue that minimum wage increases cause unemployment and he failed horribly. Whatever you raise the minimum wage to will become the new minimum everything else will adjust to it. You will still have the same unemployment, poverty and everything else. Yes, that will be the new minimum. Great way of stating the obvious. What you don't want to acknowledge (to bad it is a fact) is that the MW does not lead to higher inflation. It doesn't lead to unemployment. It does put more money in the pockets of people who need it. if government could banish poverty that easy then it would. No, it wouldn't because you cheap labor conservatives have been consistently fighting on the side of increased poverty and unemployment for decades and decades. Fact is, the New Deal did lead to the banishment of poverty and did lead to more jobs, prosperity and all the other *evils* you cheap labor conservatives hate so much. Clinton's economy was another rousing success, but you folks can't *stand* success. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 12:31 PM | PERMALINKJesse, you're the idiot. I currently work in the restaurant business too, and just Wednesday night the waitress that closed walked with over $200 for a 5:00-1:00 shift. And this is at a place where there isn't a single item on the menu more than nine bucks. Maybe you're just not very good at what you do. Posted by: greg at October 17, 2003 12:35 PM | PERMALINKWait a minute -- Greg is a bartender here in Philly? I sooo want to find out where so I can go stiff him. Just kidding. Mostly. Posted by: slacktivist at October 17, 2003 12:35 PM | PERMALINKHoo, your original thesis was that increases in MW cause unemployment. You are just restating your argument that MW doesn't necessarily *create* jobs. It does not follow that because MW increases don't necessarily create jobs, that increases kill jobs. In fact, you can't prove that because it is contradicted by reality. At the zentith of MW increases unemployment fell. Markedly. You just can't get around that no matter how much tap dancing you'd like to do. Once again, it is you that is promoting the hypothesis that increases in the MW lead to unemployment, therefore it is upto you to prove it. You obviously can not. If we can both cite offsetting statistics then the best you can say is your hypothesis is a wash. MW increases neither create nor destroy jobs. They just help the poor in our society which is the worst possible evil to a cheap labor conservative. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 12:38 PM | PERMALINKSlack, it's on Walnut Street in Center City. Bring it on! Posted by: greg at October 17, 2003 12:39 PM | PERMALINK"cheap labor conservatives" what? do you call that to everyone who disagrees with you? How about I call you a "Cheap consumer" if you would just pay 500% higher for everything then there would be enough to pay everyone a living wage. I loved Clinton!!! I guess I'm just mistified why he didn't raise the minimum wage to $25 dollars an hour - or at least propose to. I guess he figured that it would tank the economy, but wait - how can that be? It wouldn't have had any bad side effects like inflation or unemployment, according to you anyway. Posted by: sm at October 17, 2003 12:42 PM | PERMALINKI've also known a lot of waiters/waitresses and $30 an hour is a lot. All the folks I've known have all worked in locally-owned, usually single store restaurants so, "mom and pops" as you guys would put it. They made enough to live on, cheaply. Usually. In Seattle they could afford to spend half or over half of what they made on their own studio apartment somewhere within the city itself, or spend a bit less (maybe) and live with roommates. Actually, affordable studios were very hard to find even before all the dot-com bullshit. If they had a car it was a peice of shit, mostly they used the buses. Moving out of the city to some suburb, like Kent or Renton or some other shit-hole would mean a job they probably would have a hard time reaching by bus (whether they worked in the city or in the suburb). Their housing would be cheaper, but then they'd live in some apartment complex off the side of the highway. Anyway, working at some drunk cowboy bar they'd probably make more money, working at Applebees or something they'd probably make the same- hicks don't tip well. If they lived sort of in the greater-Seattle area they'd have a little bit cheaper housing and a long damn bus ride, and a neighborhood that sucked. There are some fancy-shmancy restaurants in Seattle and surely folks working there make more, but the vast majority of restaurants are middle-of-the-road. So, what does this all mean to the topic at hand. First of all, Greg is an idiot because he can't seem to imagine what it's like to work in a restaurant that apparently isn't some Philly hot-spot (whaddaya think it's like to work in a restaurant in Salinas CA, or Yakima WA?). Second- the whole "they can move on" theory is just a nice story told to children at night. Yeah, people can move, but what if they don't have the money to move? What if moving means living in a shit-hole town like Renton? What if it means living in an apartment on the side of the highway, working at an Applebees off an offramp? There's no one rule that can cover the options available to an unskilled worker. "They can move" is such a horse shit cop-out. All the fucking theories being thrown around have one thing in common- they reduce people to mere economic entities, either simple wage-earners or consumers. As if working in a shitty restaurant, in a shitty town, living in an
apartment you hate, all because you can't make more than $5-$10 bucks an
hour in tips- working part-time- in the city you love... as if that's
just a simple option that completes the equation. "At the zentith of MW increases unemployment fell. Markedly. You just can't get around that no matter how much tap dancing you'd like to do." HOLY COW - I've seen the light, if we just raise minimum wage enough then there will be NO UNEMPLOYMENT. Posted by: sm at October 17, 2003 12:44 PM | PERMALINKI'm still trying to wrap my brain around this idea that "every bartender in Philadelphia" is making $30/hour. Like most people here, I'm not making anything near that. (I got into journalism for the money. I was misinformed.) Most people everywhere aren't making anything near that. What incentive does the majority of the country -- those of us making less than $60k -- have to tip these guys anything? Is it just protection money to keep Greg from spitting in my Yuengling? Consider the history of the gratuity -- a class-laden custom if ever there was one. Doesn't it seem a bit odd that (IF we accept Greg's numbers here) tipping has now become, more often than not, a trickling UP rather than a trickling DOWN? Posted by: slacktivist at October 17, 2003 12:47 PM | PERMALINKOh, and on a side note to all in regards to the original thread - I think waitresses should be paid at least min. I've just can't follow the logic on the living wage argument. Posted by: sm at October 17, 2003 12:50 PM | PERMALINKActually, Tim, i can completely understand what it's like to work in a small town establishment. That's why, if your reading comprehension wasn't on the same level as Adam's, you'd notice that nowhere did i say that i'm adamantly opposed to paying some servers a higher hourly rate. What i took exception to was Kevin's idiotic assertion that all restaurant owners are filty rich fatcats who don't care about anyone but themselves, and his assertion that the number of servers and/or bartenders who make in the $30 an hour range in tips is such a small number. But hey, you created a nice strawman and probably felt like you made salient points, so good job tiger. Posted by: greg at October 17, 2003 12:50 PM | PERMALINKsm, you are being idiotic again. Only in your two-state mind does that logic follow. Everything isn't black and white you nimwit. Now, you, like Hoo, are reduced to arguing that MW increases don't necessarily increase jobs. You are a master at stating the obvious today sm. Stupid cheap labor conservatives. But not all in the industry back the tip-credit campaign. Look sm, a couple of successful restaurant owners who accept personal responsibility and want to increase the MW too. How novel. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 12:51 PM | PERMALINKI think a few of you might have missed the main point concerning businessmen in suits. Kevin isn't talking about every restaurant owner, franchisee, manager etc. He's talking about the big corporate chains. They don't give a rats ass if this applies to other owners, Mom and Pop, the 20 year old Wendy's manager and so on. Their only concern is the bottom line of their big fat corporation, and their big fat corporate bonus. This isn't about how much the waiters make, whether they make $30k or $20k or $100k. They want a tax cut for the big fat corporation, and if they have to take it from the guys and gals making $40,000 a year, well, that's just fine by them. bush doesn't care if a bunch of rich people get a tax cut, he's only concern is that his buddies get one, and if having some collateral beneficiaries is how that gets done, so be it. Jeebus Smith on a Segway, don't take things so personally people! Posted by: Duckman GR at October 17, 2003 12:54 PM | PERMALINKSlack, I said everyone I know, not every one. I'm sure the day guy at the Locust Bar doesn't make that much. Nice Yuengling refernce though. (for you non-Pennsylvanians, that's a local beer that's been pretty hot for the last five or so years). And never get into journalism for money. One of the reasons I kept bartending after college is because my Temple journalism degree didn't pay as well as bartending. Posted by: greg at October 17, 2003 12:54 PM | PERMALINKWhat is great about this thread is the ability to see theory vs. reality. Adam in Ma sounds as though he is a third year liberal arts student who is taking his first economics class (and if he is truly in MA, then it is intuitive to think his professor is somewhat liberal). He is trying to take two very divergent data points and paint a complete pitcure with them. Obviously, he is failing miserably. Then you have others who live in the real world. They realize that there is a big difference between the theory that is taught in the classroom (where I bet Adam spends most of his nights) and the reality that people who are in business for themselves face everyday. It is easy for anti-capatilism folks such as Adam (and others) to espouse that this story is about wealth redistribution or Corporate 'evil doers' trying to screw the avg. guy. It's not. It is about people in their respective jobs trying to do their job to the nest of their abilities. Which means the CFO of CPK has a job to do also. That job is to maximize the stock price, not only for himself, but for the millions of shareholders of CPK. Otherwise, he could potentially be neglecting his responsibilities and could be fired. Reality is, everyone in business - is in it for personal benefit. Otherwise they would do charity or non-profit work. Adam also likes to state that folks who go into business for themsleves, and those said businesses fail, shouldn't blame anyone else for that failure. They should take responsibility and own up? I agree. But I would also like to point out two things: 1) Isn't it odd that most of the educated elite liberals in this country go into higher education. Where once tenured, they are not held accountable? Sure they have to publish. But they can publish outlandish shit and don't ever have anything to deliver. They don't have to deliver sales, earnings, savings, etc. They get paid to pontificate and that is all. Talk about folks who are scared to death of being accountable! 2) I would like to pose to Adam a personal question. When was the last time you put everything on the line and took a huge risk (one such as opening up a resteraunt) if ever? Instead of being a angry waiter, why not step up to the plate (nice pun, huh?) and try to see what the other side goes through (i.e. start your own business). Are you tough enough to place your entire life into somethign you beleive in? Are you tough enough to work 18-20 hour days 6-7 days a week for the first 2 years? Are you tough enough to place other people lives and families above yours for the hope of a successful patyoff down the road? Or are you full of sound and fury, signifying NOTHING! Posted by: Chris at October 17, 2003 12:56 PM | PERMALINK"... Kevin's idiotic assertion that all restaurant owners are filty rich fatcats who don't care about anyone but themselves ..." greg, you can't even handle facts about the original post let alone facts involving the national average wages of various food service workers in this country. Since you are so flumoxed trying to come up with a cite proving your ridiculous allegations regarding all those $30/hr waiters out there... why don't you try and come up with a cite proving that Kevin said anything like this. Oh wait, you can't because you pulled it completely out of your ass. Same place most of your mindless spittle is coming from no doubt. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 12:57 PM | PERMALINKThat hardly answers my question, if you're going to increase MW then why not increase it all the way to a real living - make everyone rich. I even posted that unless you massivly increase MW then it doesn't do anything. Everything will adjust to the new number. Seriously. Posted by: sm at October 17, 2003 12:58 PM | PERMALINKMaybe you're just not very good at what you do. Of course there's nothing over $9... you're a BARTENDER. There's a big difference between that and waiting tables. Then again, you're probably just lying about making $200, since I know several bartenders, and the only time I've heard any of them breaking $200, is when there's some special event (birthday, wedding, etc.) Therefore I'm going to have to disregard what you have to say on this, since it is obviously skewed. Posted by: Jesse in SD at October 17, 2003 12:59 PM | PERMALINKMC Hawking: Data is not the plural of anecdote. I'm an ugly man working at the Waffle House. I guess I don't deserve wages based on the quality or my work, how hard I do it, or how much profit I bring in. My wages should be based on how big my tits are. While Larry Flynt agrees with you, that is no way to run an economy. You're free to offer an opposing account, but I've been around the restaurant business all my life, and in my experience it's pretty easy to make at least $30/hr., especially when you are an attractive female. If you are an ugly man yo will most certainly have to work harder to get big tips, but that doesn't mean that it can't or won't be done. Plus, your wages aren't based on the size of your chest, even if that is a factor in decising the amount of your tips. But the owners get to pass all their labor costs directly to the consumer, who can decline the honor. When you buy a car, do you directly pay the salesman the commission? No. If you could stiff the salesman, how many cars do you think dealers would sell? I'm guessing not a lot No they don't unless they face little to no competition. Plus, I'm not really sure how your example has anything to do with the fact that only "wealth" invested is that of the owner. The staff invest time and effort for which they receive a wage plus tips (which the owner doesn't get any part of BTW). The only return the owner gets is if the ventire turns a profit. It's the only industry except farm workers that doesn't have to pay mimimum wage. I think the owner gets the big opportunity, thanks. When you get your car fixed, Jiffy Lube doesn't get to pay the mechanic $1/hr. and you make up the difference cause you are a nice guy. First of all, this post was all about the fact that the wait staff are already making ABOVE federal minimum wage (although I don't know about CA min. wage) so your comment doesn't follow. For the sake of argument, you are still wrong because the list of industries that don't have to pay minimum wage is actually quite long, including those who only get paid on commission or those who receive a salary. You're right that the owner is taking advantage of a big opportunity, but that's exactly what creates jobs. The way you are presenting the situations makes it look like the employees create the business opposrtunity.
I don't mean to sound ignorant, but who are Randi and Rocco DiSpirito? If they agree with F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman then I guess I am "Randian" or "DiSpiritoan" (sp?), but frankly, I never claimed that that the staff had nothing to do with the success of the venture. I merely pointed out a very basic fact that the owner is the only one that bears the risk. If the staff lose their jobs, they can get another one. The owner loses a great deal more. There are restaurants that operate as cooperatives. Other situations are possible. It is an economic certainty that people would continue to consume food, unless conservative economics contains a provision for human evolution. You are correct that some people would open restaurants as coop's, but how many? What incentivizes someone to do so? Whatever it is, it apparently is not very motivating because the ratio of coop's to regular business-type restaurants is pretty low. Furthermore, people managed to eat for tens of thousands of years without restaurants, I'm not sure why they are so vital in your scheme of the world. And finally, it's not "conservative economics" it's called "textbook economics."
Adam, you really are an idiot. How many times do things have to be explained to you? I'll try this again, and then you can show me a site that proves you're not a child molester. 1) Any data...am i talking slow enough for you..is gonna be low because people under-declare 2) I never said all of them or most of them, I said a lot more than Kevin thinks and says. Now go back to jerking off in someones french toast. Posted by: greg at October 17, 2003 01:04 PM | PERMALINKWhat i took exception to was Kevin's idiotic assertion that all restaurant owners are filty rich fatcats who don't care about anyone but themselves, and his assertion that the number of servers and/or bartenders who make in the $30 an hour range in tips is such a small number. He didn't make that assertion. It's idiotic to say he did. The context was corporate chains. About the $30 I think you're more than a bit myopic. And I have known bartenders who make real good money. Pretty much in any large, metropolitan area bartenders working at hip places will make good money- same for the waitstaff. But the vast majority of eateries in this country aren't hip bars in Philly or Seattle or LA. Hell, in LA you simply CANNOT even get a bartending job because the competition is so stiff. Hip restaurants being frequented by well-tipping clientele is not the
norm. The best waiting jobs in towns of 100,000 or so that aren't part
of a metropolis (like Santa Monica) or a rich town are going to pay
enough to live on, and that's about it. Hip, urban restaurants are the
exeption to the rule, Greg, I assume you'd at least be able to
understand or admit that. Instead of being a angry waiter, why not step up to the plate (nice pun, huh?) and try to see what the other side goes through (i.e. start your own business). I don't know about Adam, but that's exactly what my long term plan is. I'm going to school for culinary arts. I'll work in a fine dining establishment for a while, save up some cash, and go on to open my own restaurant. But one little thing: I'm going to do it because I enjoy the restaurant industry, I love food, and I want to do it as a career. NOT because I want to get rich. I just want to do something I enjoy. Posted by: Jesse in SD at October 17, 2003 01:05 PM | PERMALINKAdam in Ma sounds as though he is a third year liberal arts student who is taking his first economics class ... Another cheap labor conservative who can't read. I said I worked as a cook you moron. Just another cheap labor conservative dreaming up an inner fantasy world to live in. It is easy for anti-capatilism folks such as Adam ... It is easy for anti-American folks such as Chris to believe this is about all those greedy waiters who are out to take an undeserving living wage from all those poor corporate executives who can't help but be greedy for their constituents... After all, they're contractually bound to do so... Isn't it odd that most of the educated elite liberals in this country go into higher education. Isn't it odd that most cheap labor conservatives couldn't bother with such piddly things as facts or evidence to back-up there idiotic assertions? Most liberals go into higher education? Citation please. No doubt you'll be just as miserly as greg. When was the last time you put everything on the line and took a huge risk (one such as opening up a resteraunt) if ever? I've never owned nor attempted to own a restaurant. I have known many good people who do and I've acknowledged that it is tough. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 01:07 PM | PERMALINKJesse, I hear you and respect that. After you get marrried, start a family and have a big mortgage (not to mention a couple car payments) - lets revisit the ide aof doing somethign for love. I love business, I also do it to make a lot of money. No one says you can't do both. Posted by: Chris at October 17, 2003 01:09 PM | PERMALINKJesse, I SAID THE WAITRESS THAT WORKED WALKED WITH OVER $200!!!! So, your point is moot. Jesus Christ, can anyone that supports Kevin's points actually read?!?! Posted by: greg at October 17, 2003 01:10 PM | PERMALINKThat hardly answers my question, if you're going to increase MW then why not increase it all the way to a real living - make everyone rich. Because you have no question you complete and utter moron! Your logic is faulty. Probably because you can only hold two abstract ideas in your head at one time. Let me make this really clear for you dumb ass: Cookies are good. I like cookies. It does not logically follow that I should eat cookies all the time. I even posted that unless you massivly increase MW then it doesn't do anything. Everything will adjust to the new number. Yes, you posted this, but it doesn't make it true. Seriously, sm, do you cheap labor conservatives really believe that just because you say something that makes it true? You see, I provided empirical evidence to refute you. We know, empirically, that increases in MW do not increase inflation proportionally. Do you understand that? This means that you are wrong. Not because I said so, but because that is a fact. Damn dittoheads. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 01:13 PM | PERMALINKChris- Are you stupid or on drugs? Isn't it odd that most of the educated elite liberals in this country go into higher education. What the fuck are you talking about? Really, what the fuck could you possibly be thinking to type that out??? Are you insane? Out of everyone I've ever known who's an educated liberal not one has gone into university teaching. By your reckoning there's only a few thoussand liberals out there every year that are educated? What are you talking about? Do you realize how completely you are full of shit now? How everything you ever say is worthless? Anyone who can state that "most of the educated elite liberals in this country go into higher education" without parodying Ann Coulter is a complete and utter tool. I can't even begin to explain completely just how asinine it is to make such an unfounded, absolute assertion as that. Anyone else care to explain why that's so idiotic? I'm just too shocked.
"I've never owned nor attempted to own a restaurant. I have known many good people who do and I've acknowledged that it is tough." Do you tell all those people that they should drive themselves into poverty to lift others out. Or is it "Do as I say, not as I do" I'm still waiting for a serious answer on why, if there are no bad consequences, don't we just raise the MW to a level where everyone is well off. This is a serious question - how is it economically feasable. Waiting to be enlightend. Posted by: sm at October 17, 2003 01:14 PM | PERMALINKCome on greg. Everyone can see your underwear. You said Kevin said, "... all restaurant owners are filty rich fatcats who don't care about anyone but themselves ..." Back. It. Up. You can't. You can't back it up, because Kevin never said this. You were lying. All you have to do is provide the cite. Just one. Come on greg, put up or shut the fuck up. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 01:16 PM | PERMALINKSaw your response above. So nice to know that the answer to my question from you is that I'm an moron. Such reasoning. Posted by: sm at October 17, 2003 01:16 PM | PERMALINKI don't think it matters much whether a waiter is making $30 an hour or $80 an hour or $200 an hour because of tips. That should not have any sort of impact on how much an employer pays that server. An employer should not be able to pay an employee less simply because said employee is making money from a source other than the employer. My BIL, btw, is a chef at a very chichi restaurant in CT, and the best servers make $50K a year, which is less than $30/hr, and that is for a work week that is frequently more than 40 hours. There is no way in hell that the average waiter/bartender makes $30/hour, though, not if you're looking at their earnings for a full 40 hour work week. I have no doubt that many servers can make that much on a Friday or Saturday evening, or at lunchtime if you work at a good lunch counter type of restaurant, but there is no way that is average across the board. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb11.txt Maybe there is a better place to look for data, but according to this
table, employees in the Leisure & Hospitality field make an average
of $223/week. ... why, if there are no bad consequences, don't we just raise the MW to a level where everyone is well off ... You people really are that stupid. Damn. The fucking reason why we don't raise the minimum wage to an acceptable level for everyone is because of people like you! You are the reason sm. Because of your ignorance. Your stupidity. And because the people you envy and look up to, the people who really are well off, are blocking it in every way possible. Through lies, intimidation, media manipulation and every other stategy of the cheap labor conservatives. Enlightended yet? Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 01:19 PM | PERMALINKOkay, there seems to be some confusion over the facts of the argument, so let me clear them up: 1. California's minimum wage is $6.75/hour, and that is all the resuaurants are required to pay. 2. When the minimum wage law went into effect, servers then became responsible for 8% of their sales as taxable income, whether or not they actually make that much. 3. If servers are not paid enough to live on, they end up on public assistance, thereby raising the costs on the government, thereby raising the costs to the taxpayers. A restaurant owner would have to pay a larger chunk of this, since they have commercial property that is valuable and making money. It is better for business to pay their employees than to pay the government to do it for them. Okay, that's all people. I need to go to work, and there are plenty of you who can fight it out with these idiots in my absence. Have fun. Posted by: Jesse in SD at October 17, 2003 01:20 PM | PERMALINKMaureen, I didn't say it was average. I said more people than Kevin thinks. What's so hard to understand about this? And Adam, it called paraphrasing you moron. I know he didn't use those specific words. It's what he meant. Get a fucking life. I think whiffing all that grease is starting to fry your brain. Posted by: greg at October 17, 2003 01:22 PM | PERMALINKYou don't have a question sm. You don't even have a response. For you, if minimum wage is a good thing, then it necessarily follows that we should raise it to a hundred million for everybody. That is the viewpoint and logic of a two year old. Do you like war sm? Some wars sm? Well, your logic says that if one particular war is a good thing, then why don't we just make war on everyone. You see, you are an idiot. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 01:22 PM | PERMALINKMaureen - I don't think it matters much whether a waiter is making $30 an hour or $80 an hour or $200 an hour because of tips. That should not have any sort of impact on how much an employer pays that server. An employer should not be able to pay an employee less simply because said employee is making money from a source other than the employer. That employee isn't "making money from another source." Without the job, the employee makes no tip. The customer pays extra on top of the bill of fare, but to the customer its all one transaction. It is exactly because the wait person doesn't have to share the tips with the employer that in most states owners don't have to pay minimum wage to such employees. Posted by: D. Citizen at October 17, 2003 01:25 PM | PERMALINKOh yeah, don't forget that the pretty people got tipped significantly more than the not-so-pretties. I have greying hair that is falling out. My room mate at the time was skinny, GQ looking and had a very expensive hair-piece. He could always get the gigs waiting where he could make the kind of money you are whining about. Not me. So, you guys are begrudging people about $3 per hour. Wow. You probably never had one of the owners claim to be seating folks so that he can also dip into the tips at the end of the night. I guess the payments on his Porsche were a little too high, or something. Yes, I have worked for folks who were one step from bankruptcy for years. I have also worked for folks who were putting the screws to everyone in sight: customers, staff, government. Any night I made more than $20 per hour over the whole evening was a major celebration. Folks here who are bitching and whining about minimum wage, have not had to make a living at one. Nor tried to find a different career in their 40s when their industry got sent piecemeal overseas. Changing careers is far easier said than done. Being a greeter at Walmart? Not a chance: they turned me down every time. Did you realize you can only apply no more often than every 90 days? I have applied anywhere and everywhere I could in the 8 months I have been out of work, just THIS YEAR. As the IT industry gets sent to India and Russia, you will see more people who used to be making $40,000-60,000 per year losing everything they owned, so some exec somewhere can fly in a new $60,000,000 bizjet. No, I never, ever met anyone making $100k per year in the IT industry. The many month process of trying to find a new career costs you everything you own. And then some. It is very cheap living with friends when you don't own anything any more. If you wonder why the alleged economic recovery is so slow, it is because folks like me have been mega burned in the last 3 years. I keep my income in pure cash. I only buy what I absolutely need, and no bank is getting my deposits: because they would loan the money to assholes like you. Buy a new lexus? the hell with that. I have a bike. Thank you for turning the USA into some 3rd world nation. I hope you enjoy driving around in your armored cars. You will need them. Posted by: Peter at October 17, 2003 01:25 PM | PERMALINKgreg, so now you've devolved into telling people what they think. You can't stop at making up an inner reality all your own and then hocking it to everyone else as a true depiction of the real world, now you are a fucking mind reader. Please, greg, provide the phrase you are "paraphrasing". You see, this doesn't mean reading something, making some shit up out of thin air, and then saying that another person said it. See, just as I said, you couldn't back it up because you are a liar. A bad one at that. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 01:27 PM | PERMALINKIn the interests of getting Adam to calm down, sorry about the Red Sox, man ... I fucking hate the Yankees and now I don't care at all about the WS. I really thought they were going to finally get rid of the Curse. Posted by: D. Citizen at October 17, 2003 01:28 PM | PERMALINKAdam, Without being rude, I think you are a bold faced liar. You may be a cook (during the day), but no line cook that I have ever meet likes to pull stats of Inflation and GDP growth. I would assert that you are not what you claim to be. For the record... I am for cheap labor. I also am a fiscal conservative. I also believe that capitalism is the greatest gift to mankind. It allows schleps like you to grow up and one day become productive members of society and eventually (god willing) contribute something (rather than forcing you to stay in poverty generation after generation). I am sure you would prefer the latter! As for why I am for cheap labor. It allows American business to compete. Need an example, look at Detroit. If you would like to debate the cost structure of the big three automakers vs. say Toyota/Nissan/Honda. Name the time and place. You stated, 'It is easy for anti-American folks such as Chris to believe this is about all those greedy waiters who are out to take an undeserving living wage from all those poor corporate executives who can't help but be greedy for their constituents... After all, they're contractually bound to do so...' This is the closest you have come to being right all thread. Unfortunately, you got two things wrong. 1) You labelled me as Anti-American. I have been called lots of things, but that isn't one that fits. 2) You seemed to insinuate that Corp. Execs are greedy because they want to maximize returns for their shareholders. Let me ask you these two easy questions? If I make the price of a stock go up $2 per share. And there are 2 billion (with a B) shares owned by the public. Didn't I just add $6 billion dollars in wealth to the economy and the country in general? Does adding value to the country and the public at large make me greedy? If so, call me greedy all day long! Finally, regarding liberals in higher education. Please!! If you are going to play ostrich and stick your head in the sand about this one. You may be beyond help. I recommend that you do a little more homework and get a better sense of reality, before you try to pick an arguement with folks you are obviously ooverwhlemed by. Posted by: Chris at October 17, 2003 01:29 PM | PERMALINKWhew, this is getting heated. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Some things we all seem to agree on: 1. Waiters, waitresses and bartenders work hard and deserve a decent living. 2. Some of these folks do make decent money. Some don't. 3. Some of these folks are employed by small businesses who may not have a lot of flexibility. We would all like to see these small businesses succeed and thrive, and recognize that something valuable is lost every time one of these places is replaced with, say, a Bennigan's. NOW -- is it possible to imagine ways to do right by the hardworking people in #1 above without overly burdening the folks in #3? Discuss. (Profanity optional.) Peter- We're seriously, really, and actually starting to resemble a banana republic precisely because everyone in the middle is being squeezed out. It's the folks on the top and the ones on the bottom. I feel for you, man. The most I've been unemployed is 2 straight months, which isn't much, but it didn't take much to realize how easily everything compounds once you're out of work. It's all right and good for these assholes to say you can move where the jobs are at, but it's not that simple. I'm sure you'll find no sympathy here, though. These guys only feel for the entrapenuer, which is fine, but their contempt for the working man really strips away their pretense of "caring about those whom deserve caring about". Just don't vote Republican, and eat a lot of TVP (textured vegatable
protein- it's a soy thing that eats like meat, but it's cheaper than
meat, high in protein, low in fat- good when you need meat but things
are tight, if you can find it). Adam keeps posting links to this "Conceptual Guerrilla." Please note where the Guerrilla gets it handed to him here: http://www.nicedoggie.net/archives/002636.html And here: http://www.nicedoggie.net/archives/002650.html Posted by: Joey at October 17, 2003 01:37 PM | PERMALINKChris, Without being rude, I think you are a bold faced liar. You may be a cook (during the day), but no line cook that I have ever meet likes to pull stats of Inflation and GDP growth. I would assert that you are not what you claim to be. Good for you. I have worked in restaurants, off and on, for over a decade. I was a physics major in college and I've worked as a computer programmer for the last couple years. I was layed off in May and went back to work as a line cook. You can think what you wish, but don't confuse it with reality. In the interests of getting Adam to calm down, sorry about the Red Sox, man ... I fucking hate the Yankees and now I don't care at all about the WS. I really thought they were going to finally get rid of the Curse. D. Citizen, I've only recently moved to MA from OR (about a year and a half ago). I'm a mariners fan through and through. I hate the yankees too though ;) Unfortuantely, my wife is a big yankess fan as she grew up in NY ;) Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 01:38 PM | PERMALINKChris, So here we have it folks, a self-identified cheap labor conservative. This is the closest you have come to being right all thread. Unfortunately, you got two things wrong. ... You labelled me as Anti-American. I have been called lots of things, but that isn't one that fits. You labeled me as anti-capitalism. If you can't take the heat... Finally, regarding liberals in higher education. Please!! If you are going to play ostrich and stick your head in the sand about this one. You may be beyond help. I know, I know, you can't be bothered with backing up your stupid assertions just like greg. A hallmark of the cheap labor conservative? ... before you try to pick an arguement with folks you are obviously ooverwhlemed by. You guys are a joke. Seriously, it is like arguing with 2 year olds.
Mean, nasty, greedy two year olds who have absolutely no reason for
their sad state. Hardly overwhelming, but thanks for you concern Chris. Adam, Since all you've been yelling is "cite,cite,cite" I went out and got you a cite. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html You'll have to cut&past cause I dont feel like creating the href. Posted by: sm at October 17, 2003 01:43 PM | PERMALINKFinally, regarding liberals in higher education. Please!! If you are going to play ostrich and stick your head in the sand about this one. You may be beyond help. Chris, you're a fucking idiot. I can't even comprehend what you're talking about. Where the fuck did you pull out that? I'm an educated liberal, my boss is, my girlfriend is, my brother is, all my friends are, all my former bosses were, all my former girlfriends were- whoops! One girl is at a university, she wanted to be a professor since she was a kid, there's one- pretty much everyone I've been friends with that went to college is a liberal and only one went on to higher education. There's about 2000 colleges and universities in the US, are you telling me that the majority of liberals with college degress choose to teach? So that means that every year there's only a few thousand liberals graduating with college degrees? How can you defend (well, you haven't) such an unfounded assertion. Show me you're not a complete idiot, Chris. Tim, You are correct. That statement came out wrong, completely wrong. The point was not to make such a general observation about liberals and/or higher eeducation. The point I was trying to make, was to put into perpective the idea of accountability. Adam in MA was harping on folks who had gone out and started their own business, in my view, putting it all on the line. Some of them had failed and he was stating that he felt they were complaining about going belly up. In trying to tie back to the basic theme of theory vs. reality, I attempted (obviously very unsuccessfully) to analogize that businesss owners are held fully accountable because they have to deliver (whether it be sales, profit, etc.) something tangible or they go out of business. Conversely, many academics are not held nealry to that level of accountability once they have tenure. There are many examples imho(don't have time to research and find them now), of academics, who once they are tenured, feel that they can espouse completely absurd ideas more based on idealogy than facts. While I do stand by the basis for that point, I obviosuly painted the picture with far to wide a brush. Posted by: Chris at October 17, 2003 01:48 PM | PERMALINKHere's a page with links galore for you, by all sorts of different institutions instead of that crackpot site you keep linking to. http://www.swcollege.com/bef/policy_debates/increase_minimum.html Posted by: sm at October 17, 2003 01:56 PM | PERMALINKsm, are you finally enlightened now? Do you understand that the empirical evidence shows that MW increases do not necessarily lead to higher unemployment and/or inflation? When you understand that I'll talk with you. What part of the Cato link you were to lazy to link refutes this in your mind. At the zenith of the MW, 1963, unemployment dropped. In 1996 the same thing occured. Your cato site does not disprove or refute this. The fact is it is upto you, since it is your thesis, to prove that increases in MW necessarily cause unemployment, which you can't because of the solid empirical evidence contradicting this thesis. You keep repeating that increases in MW cause businesses to go out, unemployment increases, inflation jumps, but I've repeated asked you to explain the empirical reality which refutes your ideas. You can't do that. Until you can, you are a waste of time. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 01:56 PM | PERMALINKTo adam that is. It's nice to see some calmer heads around. Posted by: sm at October 17, 2003 01:57 PM | PERMALINKAdam, At least you admitted that you aren't the 'run of the mill' line cook as I expected. Admittedly, I have never employed a line cook who studied Physics, but then again - none ever applied! You still did not answer my baisc question to you. Two easy questions? If I make the price of a stock go up $2 per share. And there are 2 billion (with a B) shares owned by the public. Didn't I just add $6 billion dollars in wealth to the economy and the country in general? Does adding value to the country and the public at large make me greedy? I know you will probably respond without providing a direct answer. That is Ok, as I believe that you may not be able to bring yourself to say what you know to be true. 'Greed, for lack of a better term, is good.' Posted by: Chris at October 17, 2003 01:57 PM | PERMALINKGentlefolk, Minimum wage laws have very little economic effect, unless one postulates a psychological one, as long as the minimum wage is lower than the local prevailing wage. Try thinking of a wage as the price at which the worker willingly sells his labor. Workers compete with each other for sales, so employers know that as long as unsold labor (unemployed workers) exists, they can depress the price of labor. We can scarcely blame employers for seeking the lowest-priced labor (of acceptable quality). And we can scarcely blame workers for trying to place upward pressure on the price of labor. The problem for labor is the institutionalized glut of labor for sale we call unemployment. To the extent unemployed workers' labor quality is so low that no one will buy it at any price, enemployment makes no difference. To the extent that capitalists have created a pool of unsold labor of high quality, it keeps wages down and hurts workers. It is the nature of goods to alternate between scarcity and glut. Prices regulate this cycle to a degree, because when the price falls, production of a good declines until equilibrium is reached. But production of new labor does not respond to price pressure, because we don't stop having kids when labor prices drop (though that would be the rational reaction), and we must sell labor to pay the costs of existence. For good or ill, this is the Capitalist system. BTW: RSS - Free trade will ultimately change the US economy drastically, by forcing us to rely on our comparative advantage. And I would argue that it hurts our security, because we will lose the skills (manufacturing) necessary to an effective defense. If we want free trade, we need to be building the democratic international institutions that will make self-defense less necessary. If we want to hold onto soveriegnty, we need to protect our means of production, and stop letting it migrate. I think you make a good point, albeit one that's a little off topic. In response, wouldn't the spread of free trade, in effect relying on our comparative advantage, serve that very interest (i.e. making self-defense less necessary)? As you will have noticed, liberal democracies do not attack one another. Posted by: D. Citizen at October 17, 2003 02:03 PM | PERMALINKWaaaaaaay to wide and it didn't make your point. What about politicians? Don't plenty on both sides of the aisle get away with being complete nincompoops because they're in gerrymandered districts? Aren't there business owners who phone it in? Aren't there local monopolies (I know in the town I grew up in the local magnates, councilmembers, etc., all conspired to make sure one man owned every theater in the city)? What about tight labor markets? Surely there are employees who simply can't be fired because there's no way to fill their job? It was an extremely poor analogy. And, just in my experience, shitty university professors who are tenured tend to simply be shitty teachers. No one likes a shitty teacher whether they're liberal or conservative, and whatever the professor's politics are is besides the point- the issue is their teaching ability, not their politics. Also- so what if many entrapenuers put it all on the line? You're dividing the world up into the "money makers" and the "workers" and there's a lot more to life than that. Some guy puts it all on the line to open a burger joint? So what? Does he deserve a fucking plaque? Anymore so than the honest, loyal, hard-working worker whom the employer can always count on? Anymore so than the tortured artist who lives in poverty for years to pursue his dream and then one day he's bankable and all kinds of people are making money off of him? Business owners are just one cog in the wheel. What's important is
not simply their "owner" status, or "risk-taker" status, just like
what's important about professors isn't their politics. What's important
is what they're doing- and if someone's running a business, treating
their staff like dirt so they can make a wage themselves, or a tenured
professor teaching like a fuck becuase he's sheltered, I don't give a
shit what kind of risk they're taking or what it is they're preaching-
they're assholes just the same. There is nothing wrong with shareholders making money. You go into business to make and that is a good thing. But you also have to take care of your people. Period, end of argument. And we're talking about minimum wage, the min-i-mum. That is the least you should pay someone when they are just starting out. Once they become a valuable, productive member of your team, pay them more. Why should I make money for you if you are not going to share it with me; I'll just go out and make the money for myself if you can't share. That's capitalism, or atleast a part. And a $2 dollar share price increase does not create $6 billion in new wealth. No one realizes a gain until they sell the stock. And that ain't gonna happen when management takes all the profits and screws the shareholders. Posted by: Snow at October 17, 2003 02:06 PM | PERMALINKIf I make the price of a stock go up $2 per share. And there are 2 billion (with a B) shares owned by the public. Didn't I just add $6 billion dollars in wealth to the economy and the country in general? A direct answer: no, not necessarily. In this case, providing an extra stock boost to all those companies employing waitstaff in California will have a negative impact upon the common economy, because it will hurt working people, precisely those people who need the money the most. No, greed is not good. It is not a virtue. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 02:07 PM | PERMALINKRSS, You stated that, 'Free trade will ultimately change the US economy drastically, by forcing us to rely on our comparative advantage. And I would argue that it hurts our security, because we will lose the skills (manufacturing) necessary to an effective defense. If we want free trade, we need to be building the democratic international institutions that will make self-defense less necessary. If we want to hold onto soveriegnty, we need to protect our means of production, and stop letting it migrate.' Would it also be intuitive to state that orgnaized labor and their collective attempts to drive up the price of labor and reduce pressure on labor productivity also contributes to the US having to rely on our Comparative Advanatge? Posted by: Chris at October 17, 2003 02:10 PM | PERMALINKChris, should we just let all those Enron executives off the hook for increasing their shareholder stock price? Is their greed good? No? Hmm, I half expect you to tell me it is/was... Fact is, some of the restaurant owners of California, as a group, are looking to stick it to working people through a government handout to redistribute the wealth. That is not good. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 02:11 PM | PERMALINKGood God Adam, I can't even believe I'm wasting my time with you. R.S. Scott - well said. Posted by: sm at October 17, 2003 02:14 PM | PERMALINKChris or anyone else who doesn't like unions- We had a time in this country when there were no labor laws, there were no unions, there was no SEC, there weren't, for all practical purposes, no laws governing business. It was not a nice time or place. The argument I always hear is there's no need for a minumum wage or unions because, simply, people aren't going to do that! (referring to what it was like pre-Hoover) People will end up paying good money because the free market will all work out so that wages will rise because of... blah, blah, blah. Bull-shit. Employers (not counting the rare mom and pops thats truly care for their employees) pay as little as they can. Sure, they have to pay a certain amount to keep people around, but if the median wage could drop any further it most certainly would. We had a country like that once before. It sucked. If I make the price of a stock go up $2 per share. And there are 2 billion (with a B) shares owned by the public. Didn't I just add $6 billion dollars in wealth to the economy and the country in general? No. A change in stock price will affect the buyer and seller to opposite effect. One could just as easily ask whether adding $6 billion dollars to the collective cost of the stock has negatively affected the economy because the same thing is now more expensive. Does adding value to the country and the public at large make me greedy? This question is disingenuous. It assumes that when greed criticized that "adding value to the country" is also being criticized. What happens when greed detracts from value? Or when value is added without greed? The question uses the Black or White fallacy. Posted by: Spinning Tops at October 17, 2003 02:22 PM | PERMALINKTim, Tim, I get your point on the other examples, but you are using examples that don't fit. I specifically used Professors because once tenured they are truly 'untouchable' (I know of professors who have shown up for office hours drunk). Your example of politicians, sure they are 'protected by gerrymandered districts'. But that can be changed anytime (e.g. Texas redistricting fiasco). Same can be said for just about all of your other examples. Re: 'Some guy puts it all on the line to open a burger joint? So what? Does he deserve a fucking plaque? Anymore so than the honest, loyal, hard-working worker whom the employer can always count on? Anymore so than the tortured artist who lives in poverty for years to pursue his dream and then one day he's bankable and all kinds of people are making money off of him?' Short answer, yeah he does. Imo, because he puts it all on the line and makes it possible for the 'honest, loyal, hard-working worker whom the employer can always count on'. I am not saying that those workers are not incredibly important and extremely valued. My point was, the 'small business owner' takes on a degree of risk that is not shouldered by the others. That risk/burden also has other implications besides financial (these are qualitative, no numbers to back up). There are impacts to health, mrrriage, friendships, etc. Re: 'What's important is what they're doing- and if someone's running a business, treating their staff like dirt so they can make a wage themselves, or a tenured professor teaching like a fuck becuase he's sheltered, I don't give a shit what kind of risk they're taking or what it is they're preaching- they're assholes just the same.' I agree. I was not suggesting that 'owners' be given a free pass to shit on people. No one should take their employees for grnated. That is the first way to go out of business in a hurry! Posted by: Chris at October 17, 2003 02:27 PM | PERMALINKMy point is that MW doesn,t affect anything for crying out loud. Yah, the minimum wage doesn't help anything except paying the working poor more money they desperately need. Why give anyone a raise sm? It doesn't change anything, right? Hell, why don't we all go work for a buck an hour. You are to stupid to even comprehend. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 02:28 PM | PERMALINKD. C.-- Roger, I guess a bit off topic. I've found that once a comment thread extends over 100 posts, very little topicality remains, and I suppose that for this I am partially to blame. But isn't this germaine to a discussion of competition between capital and labor? Are American businessmen, in fact, slowly destroying this country by pursuing profits to the exclusion of all else? Can markets reach equilibrium even with a tempered pursuit of profits that involves support by the wealthiest of the poorest by foregoing some profits in the name of redistributive wages? Not as long as the definition of a successful (and therefore worthy of investment) company relies on steadily increasing profits as oppposed to level but stable profits. Hopefully, as states like China become more Capitalist, they will also become more democratic (small d), though I think we reduce the likelihood when we ourselves reject institutionalized democracy in favor of realist international relations policy. Indeed, some might point out that China's economic policy, in practical terms, amounts to an economic war on the US. The strategy: destroy our industrial base, make us dependent on their technology and industry, and reduce our share of the world's wealth. I don't myself make that case, but it is something to think about. We either need to support institutions that can "regulate interstate commerce," or we have to be willing to fight. Free markets don't cause democracy--democracy sets the stage for free markets. Also: raising a stock price $2 does not add wealth to the economy. It adds the perception of wealth, which may be borrowed against. But if I sell the stock at the higher price, someone bought the stock, taking their money out of the economy temporarily. In the end, stock wealth exists only on paper. I know, I sold $30 shares of Worldcom stock for $1.12. Didn't hurt, because I know never to take to the poker table more than I can afford to lose. Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at October 17, 2003 02:29 PM | PERMALINKTim - We had a time in this country when there were no labor laws, there were no unions, there was no SEC, there weren't, for all practical purposes, no laws governing business. In truth, this is mostly incorrect. Maybe you are thinking of 18th and 19th century Britain. Unions were around long before there were any labor laws. The labor laws enacted in the 1930's simply gave unions statutory tools to use in negotiations and prevented firms from fighting back. Prior to that time there were labor laws in most states, albeit very few at the federal level. That is until WWI when the federal government took over the entire economy. Hoover, and then FDR, mostly adopted the wartime mechinations of Wilson when it came to labor laws and policy. As for the SEC, there is no appreciable difference in market returns between ante- and post-SEC enaction. It was not a nice time or place. Were you alive then? And what makes you think that your new-found socialism will make things better? Posted by: D. Citizen at October 17, 2003 02:34 PM | PERMALINKGreg says: Jesse, I SAID THE WAITRESS THAT WORKED WALKED WITH OVER $200!!!! So, your point is moot. Jesus Christ, can anyone that supports Kevin's points actually read?!?! Greg, I have a question for you: Can you do math? Kind of reminds me of my stepson who wanted to be an engineer but couldn't be bothered to take math in his senior year of high school. When he ended up waiting tables, he breathlessly reported he was making over $30/hour in tips. After I paid the mortgage, the car note, the electricity, the phoneco, the water and sewerage, etc., I always seemed to have more walking around money than he did. Since I really made $32/hour, let me be the first to tell you that when people with numeration skills such as yours make an average of "over $30/hour", it really is a lot less than you think. Posted by: wolf at October 17, 2003 02:39 PM | PERMALINKAdam, Two things: 1) 'Chris, should we just let all those Enron executives off the hook for increasing their shareholder stock price? Is their greed good? No?' No, Enron was horrible. Enron, imo, is a perfect example of a lack of oversight. I would not have had a problem with Enron, if they hadn't been manufacturing their earnings. I am all for successful companies (as you should be to, since they create jobs, income, opportunity, etc.). I love what Michael Dell has done, I love what Bill Gates has done, I love what Herb Keller has done. For every Enron you can come up, I will be able to match that many times over. Greed (in all its different forms) by these companies have benefitted everyone. Whether it be fueling the economy, adding jobs, providing incomes, etc. 2) You state, 'A direct answer: no, not necessarily. In this case,
providing an extra stock boost to all those companies employing
waitstaff in California will have a negative impact upon the common
economy, because it will hurt working people, precisely those people who
need the money the most.' The problem with your post is that you only
seem to be worried about the local economy. Reality is, the positive
impact on wealth and consumers willingness to spend said wealth, will
outweigh what you percieve to be psotive feedback on a negative action.
'The pain is worth the gain' for the whole. Were you alive then? And what makes you think that your new-found socialism will make things better? Ahhhh, it warms my heart seeing you cheap labor conservatives pining for the good old days of the Great Depression, child-labor, robber-barons, etc, etc. You cheap labor conservatives should check out Guatemala? No minimum wage, pesky unions, social security, medicare, welfare, environmental regulations down there. You'll absolutely love it. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 02:41 PM | PERMALINKAdam, Last post. Some of you others, I've enjoyed your posts - even Tim, though I don't agree. Adam, I would wish you could learn to discuss things civilly. Posted by: sm at October 17, 2003 02:43 PM | PERMALINK'The pain is worth the gain' for the whole. No, it is not. What gain for the 'whole'? The 'whole' does not consist of the unified set of restaurant owners. It does not consist of the unified set of the executives of major corporations. What you wish to say, is that the pain of the waiters is worth the gain of the restaurant owners. Only in your world, Chris, only in your world. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 02:46 PM | PERMALINKAdam in MA: Stupid phrases don't sound smarter based on the number of times you repeat them. Besides, since when is it a bad thing to economize on costs? If avoiding unnecessary expenses makes someone a "cheap labor conservative," what does that make the other side? "Overpriced crap liberals?" Posted by: Xrlq at October 17, 2003 02:50 PM | PERMALINKSpinning Tops and RSS, Let me first state that I beleive based upon your first couple of posts, that my arguement is going to be completely overwhelmed. But, I view this as a great learning opportuntiy. You both state that having stock prices rise is not beneficial because the markets are built to be net zero institutions (for lack of a better term). I will respectfully disagree. I believe that their is benefit, as stated by RSS, 'in it adds the perception of wealth, which may be borrowed against.' Doesn't this perception and the corresponding spending drive GDP growth - which in turn drives jobs, incomes, productivity, etc.? As an aside... you both also fail to take into account that not all transactions are net zero (at the time of the sale or purchase of stock). On the NYSE, Market makers sole responsibility is to maintain liquidity and maintain efficient markets. Sometimes those market makers may be forced to take a loss on a stock in order to do so. Posted by: Chris at October 17, 2003 02:54 PM | PERMALINKYou cheap labor conservatives should check out Guatemala? No
minimum wage, pesky unions, social security, medicare, welfare,
environmental regulations down there. You'll absolutely love it. Well that's exactly the point isn't it? Where you have a socialist, planned economy where all the laws "protect" labor at the expense of industry, you have no industry. Of course, to be fair, American protectionist tariffs, subsidies, etc. have a huge adverse affect on Guatemala and other developiong nations because we deprive them of markets for their goods. Incidently, such policies also hurt Americans despite claims to the contrary. Relatedly, RSS, I think China is in a trade war with us, but I'm not one to complain about it. At the surface it will cost us manufacturing jobs (for which I'm not necessarily opposed to some sort of federal cushion -- it would be cheaper than the subsidies). However, it is also what will spur innovation and much needed change in our industrial economy -- i.e. it will force firms to become more productive or expire. I can appreciate the challenge to American jobs this may cause, since technology is currently outpacing new ideas for enterprise, but I think this is exactly the sort of competition that will create the next boom. And I recognize your point about the threat to our security, however, an expanded economy will lift those boats too. If we are too valuable to lose as a trading partner, we have less to worry about as to cheating by our suppliers. Posted by: D. Citizen at October 17, 2003 02:55 PM | PERMALINKI'm done with you. Goodbye idiot. I've tried to talk - all you do is attack and refuse to answer any points. I feel like I'm arguing with a two year old who just goes 'la,la,la' can't hear you. I've tried to respond to what you say - you've failed to respond to any of my concerns. It's called projection. I have responded to all your stupidness, no matter how lame. You keep offering up the same crap which is not supported by reality. And then you get mad when I point that out *and* back it up. Which you can not do. You keep insisting that increases in the MW cause inflation despite the fact that it doesn't. That is what the facts say and you can't stand it. Again you come back with raise the MW, but if raising the MW would help the working poor soooo much then why not raise it to a level that would actually have an effect on poverty. I've already fucking answered this you to-bit, lame brained, idiotic slug of a human being. Get it through your think fucking empty ass skull!!!! We can't raise the minimum wage because of pin prick morons such as you and your fellow cheap labor conservatives. We, progressive liberals, would *love* to raise the standard to a more acceptable level, but whenever we try you fuckwits always cry out in your ignorance "but it'll raise unemployment" and "no, it'll raise inflation" despite all evidence to the contrary. That is why we can't raise the MW and you damn well know it. Let's raise it you idiot? Is that what you are trying to say, that you support raising it? Bottom line - if there was a way to legislate the county out of poverty simply by ordering everyone to pay more - it would have been done a long time ago. No, because once again, you fuckwits won't allow it. You love poverty, you love unemployment. That's why you and yours have been so impotent in doing anything about it over the course of the last century. Fact is, we did legislate the country out of poverty, it was called the New Deal. Maybe you have heard of it? I think you have, since you and your ilk have been desperately trying to roll it back, along with the all the amazing successes we've had because of it, ever since. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 02:56 PM | PERMALINKI think I may take Kevin up on the opportunity to be impolite if anyone refers to employees as unnecessary expenses. Posted by: Snow at October 17, 2003 02:56 PM | PERMALINKTim, I believe that workers deserve protection from unethical employers. That being said, I can honestly say that I think the day when Unions were useful - is long since gone. I think there are several examples of where non-Unionized labor is fairing far better than their Union brothers/sisters (just within the Auto Industry). It also does not strike me as pure coincidence, that said companies are able to have higher productivity per man hour and lower overall cost of goods. Posted by: Chris at October 17, 2003 03:03 PM | PERMALINKBlokes (even Adam), It has been fun. Enjoy! Posted by: Chris at October 17, 2003 03:07 PM | PERMALINKActually, one could make the argument that increasing a stock price is not nearly as good for the country as puitting actual money working people's pockets, because the working folks' propensity to actually spend that money will increase the speed of circulation. Most economists would prefer consumer spending over capital appreciation in a jobless recovery.
sm- What free market? We have a regulated market. Not as regulated as it should be in some ways, maybe more than it should be than others, but it's a regulated market. And I would argue the practical difference between, say, Walmart and a 1920's monopoly are few when you consider Walmart can act as a monopoly in certain locals. As much as they drive down costs they also drive down labor. D- Was I alive then? So I have no merit because I didn't live then? Pretty dumb thing to say. No SEC has nothing to do with market price. The point is there were no laws governing the issuance of equity or debt. It was not illegal for a company to lie through its teeth re: it's assets, worth, etc. Companies could give shares away without a proper issuance. If you were wily enough you could issue shares in a company that didn't exist. There was no oversite whatsoever- it was a free market and there was a lot of fraud. Was I alive? Were you? No? So I guess it all evens out? I've read, D, I've seen Docs. In chicago one local magnate promised his investors an 8% dividend on their shares every year- what he did was change the wage at his factories to accomodate it. It wasn't illegal because there were few labor laws. The same guy required all workers to live in his own little town he made, requiring them to pay rent, not consume alcohol, have their drapes a certain color. Here in CA were all the labor camps for fruit pickers which amounted to indentured servitude. The textile mills in the east working 12 hour hour days, 6 days a week, of course prior to, what 1914? little kids would hold those jobs. It was a free market except for the protectionism, and that's exactly
what the movement conservatives want. Norquist has said that much-"like
before Hoover, except without the protectionism"- that's what they
want, and it does not bring out the best in man, no matter how much Adam
Smith hoped it would. you people saying the average waiter makes upwards of $30 an hour in tips are completely full of shit. I'll bet one thing: they sure as hell aren't making it from any of you. Most freepers I know are the worst tippers imaginable. For them to give 10% freakin' percent is like pulling teeth. Pretty damn pathetic bunch... Posted by: CREEP in '04 at October 17, 2003 03:17 PM | PERMALINKDidn't Nancy Reagan say that she never tipped? Posted by: jri at October 17, 2003 03:19 PM | PERMALINKHowever, it is also what will spur innovation and much needed change in our industrial economy -- i.e. it will force firms to become more productive or expire. Productivity in the US is the highest it's ever been. It's still cheaper to ship jobs to China because the labor costs are so much lower. Wages will always outstrip productivity as long as there are 3rd world countries on the cusp of development. Hell, Mexico is losing all the jobs it got from the US and Europe to China too. There's always someone cheaper and the more tied together the global economy becomes the easier it will be to move labor. I think it's crazy at best to think we can become so productive that
modern manufacturing facilities in a country that pays a dollar a day
for labor will cost more than our own. Tim - Was I alive then? So I have no merit because I didn't live then? Pretty dumb thing to say. What was "pretty dumb" was trying to make a case without actually having your facts straight and then making a blanket claim, "things were pretty bad back then." When? What are you talking about? Do you know? I've read, D, I've seen Docs. In chicago one local magnate promised his investors an 8% dividend on their shares every year- what he did was change the wage at his factories to accomodate it. It wasn't illegal because there were few labor laws. It's still not illegal. Nor should it be. Either the "magnate" can get away with lowering the factory wages (doubtful) or he will default on his promise and be in breach of contract. There is nothing about this situation that changes the fact that you were wrong in your assertions. The same guy required all workers to live in his own little town he made, requiring them to pay rent, not consume alcohol, have their drapes a certain color. I think you may be conflating the "magnate" with Robert Owen (among others who tried this scheme). Owen was a self-made man who became very rich in the mid-1800's and decided that, like all good progressives at this time, he could create a better society. He bought some land in America (he was from Scotland) and set about building a company town in which the workers were treated well, BUT everything in their lives was controlled by the company "for the good of the society." This was the first known attempt at establishing a More-ish utopia and failed miserably. Ergo, it wasn't big bad capitalism that caused the problems you're citing, it was ... wait for it ... SOCIALISM! Here in CA were all the labor camps for fruit pickers which amounted to indentured servitude. The textile mills in the east working 12 hour hour days, 6 days a week, of course prior to, what 1914? little kids would hold those jobs. What's your point? Are you saying that these workers had better opportunities elsewhere? Why didn't they go to them? Oh, that's right, you don't seem to think that people will travel to get to a better situation ... even though that's how this entire country was founded. All your describing is people who's best alternative was not as great as the alternatives that we have to day. Again, this isn't the fault of capitalism. You need to look at what the next best alternative was to working on that farm in that textile mill. Posted by: D. Citizen at October 17, 2003 03:32 PM | PERMALINKTim, There is no guarantee that any restaurant (or any business for that
matter) will succede. Waitstaff jobs are service jobs. Wages are
linked to how busy the restaurant is and so waiters/bartenders/bussers
really do not have much control over their wages. If they provide
adequate service, their wages are pretty much entirely dependent on how
popular the place is and what nights of the week they are working.
Waitstaff at slow restaurants (or succesful restaurants during slow
shifts) aren't going to make very much money. Some might even be sent
home early (this also happens with cooks and dishwashers). That's a
risk inherent in the job of waiting tables. If you're waiting tables at
a slow joint and you aren't making enough to stay alive you should
quit. The same goes for working at any failing company. If your job
can't afford to pay you, you have to quit and try to make a living
somewhere else. Of course I'm talking about working at a failing
company, not a greedy successful company. Companies that can do so,
should be obligated to pay a living wage. Their wage changed with every paycheck. It was a guaranteed 8% return on their stock every year, or quarter, or whatever it was. It wasn't debt, it wasn't a preferred, there was no contractual obligation to meet payments or be forced into bankruptcy (such laws regarding debt didn't even exist). That was 8% regardless of profits or anything else, he simply used his employees as a bank upon which to draw. It is not legal to change an employee's wage at the end of a pay period. Employees enjoy a certain amount of protection through enumerated rights in labor code. An employer who gives a much smaller check to an employee one month because they wanted to make more money that month is breaking the law and would be successdully sued. These workers had no recourse because there were no laws governing such behavior. What's your point? Are you saying that these workers had better opportunities elsewhere? Why didn't they go to them? Oh, that's right, you don't seem to think that people will travel to get to a better situation ... So is it your contention that an employer should be able to treat his employees however he wants, because the employee has a right to leave? Then I would ask you, what right does the employer have to set up and
operate a business? That right is derived from the state and can be
given or taken away just as easily as labor laws. Why do the rights of
the employer to treat employees however they want trump the rights of
the state to set standards of conduct? I'm confused as to why this thread ended up with such vitriolic back and forth with respect to the minimum wage. If you increase the minimum wage, the cost of operating a business goes up. This will affect some businesses more than others (those with lots of minimum wage employees versus those without.) Businesses will also deal with this in various ways which include doing nothing at all to going out of business (and everything in between.) However, its a cost, like any other, that a business now has to pay that it didn't have to pay before. Of all the things that could happen as a result of rising costs, I have a hard time believing that more employment or even no change in employment could be one of them. At best, the economy is doing so well that most businesses can simply absorb the new cost and employment doesn't change. At worst, well, you can guess. Am I missing something? Posted by: Haplo at October 17, 2003 04:10 PM | PERMALINKHaplo, here's another possibility: the increased income of all minimum wage employees increases spending in the economy, and all the businesses make more money, including restaurants. Wow...what goes around comes around, in the good sense. Who knew? Posted by: Julia Grey at October 17, 2003 04:18 PM | PERMALINKThe minimum wage could be raised with few negative consequences. What people who argue against such things always come back to is the value of minimum-wage labor. Basically they don't think someone working a menial job should be paid enough to live on, because such jobs aren't worth that much. If the minimum wage had mearly been adjusted for inflation since the early 70's it would be about $15 an hour- which is a decent living wage. What these guys also fail to address, or even understand I think, is just how much wealth in this country is basically completely out of the loop. Billions and billions of dollars do nothing but move in and out of world markets collecting interest or gains, doing very little for the actual economies. S.E. Asia, for example, the only thing the huge flux of money in the early 90's did was give more access to capital. Once people panicked and pulled their money out to other markets the capital dried up, businesses couldn't operate, people went out of work, no one could buy anything- and ecomomies tanked. It's the same here. This country desperately needs some sort a massive wealth-transfer from the super-rich back into the economy. The estate tax was created to address this, somewhat. But the bulk of the wealth in this country is owned by the top 5% or so, and the bulk of that wealth is not helping anyone out- it's just growing and never being fed back into the economy. I don't think most people realize just how much money is out there, basically floating above the economy and feeding off of it. All these guys have been talking about business owners in a way that suggest they think of business owners as hard-working people maybe making 200,000 a year. That's certainly true, but there are billions of dollars held by a few hundred families that if maybe 10% were plowed back into the economy via a tax and a subsequent big minimum wage increase, there would be a huge difference in the standard of living in this country. I find people who are conservative mostly because they're business minded usually don't even believe there are billions being locked up out there, nor do they believe none of it is helping the economy. Fact is there's a cloud of trillions that moves all around the world through money managers and pensions and funds and banks, etc.,etc., and all it does is tap into markets and get bigger. It's pretty foul, if you ask me. And we can have capitalism right along with a populace that can afford to take care of itself. Posted by: Tim at October 17, 2003 04:31 PM | PERMALINK
Does Kevin really think that a chain restaurant with 165 stores in 27 states is typical? The vast majority of restaurants are sole proprietorships or small partnerships. In many cases, individuals have gone into a great deal of debt to open them, and run severe personal financial risk if they don't succeed. And many of them don't; the failure rate for small businesses is about 90 percent. Kevin's attempt to stereotype these people as fat-cats in suits is absurd Marxist rhetoric. Just how much do you think the average owner of a mom-and-pop restaurant chain makes? Don't forget to take into account the investment capital (often on high interest rate credit) that they had to put up, or the long hours that they generally put in. "Adam in MA": SHUT UP YOU GOATFUCKER! Hope that got your attention. Seriously, I am tired of reading 50 profanity- and insult-laced posts that all say the exact same thing. You have added nothing of value to this discussion and have only dragged down both the intellectual level and the level of civility. Your claims that small businesses deserve to lose in the marketplace because they can't comply with 50 miles of government red tape, and that allowing employers and employees to freely enter into agreements on wages is "redistribution", are both insulting and absurd. And you have provided no evidence for any of them, merely repeated (and profane) assertion. Although I suppose I should thank "Adam in MA" for saying in much plainer terms what has been the Democrats' implicit motto for quite some time: "Fuck the small business owner!" You're welcome to take that message onto the national political stage if you'd like. Somehow, I doubt it will win you many votes, though. "Tim" asks: "What if moving means living in a shit-hole town like Renton?" Living in NYC or LA is not an entitlement. These areas have a very high cost of living because the demand for housing there greatly exceeds the supply. (Idiotic 'open space' restrictions in California, and rent control that makes it impossible to build profitable new construction, certainly doesn't help.) You socialists can trash talk all you want about how business owners should take it in the ass without complaint. But what's going to happen if you increase the burden too much on restaurant owners is that these owners will simply return to W-2 employment (thus throwing ALL their employees out of work), or will go into another line of business that the demagogues aren't focusing on at the moment, or move to another state where people aren't quite as economically illiterate. It's not the large chains that will suffer the most. It never is, with government regulations. It will be your favorite local restaurant that will feel the hardest squeeze. Posted by: Firebug at October 17, 2003 04:34 PM | PERMALINK"At best, the economy is doing so well that most businesses can simply absorb the new cost and employment doesn't change. At worst, well, you can guess. Am I missing something?" Haplo, No, you aren't missing anything, though a lot of other people on here apparently are. Posted by: Abiola Lapite at October 17, 2003 04:35 PM | PERMALINKFirebug- Way to say the same sad shit that's already been said 12 times. Pat yourself on the back. The "socialist" quip was surely the mark of brilliance. I am in awe of your mighty intellect. It's all I think about. It's all I can think about. In fact, you're in my thoughts constantly. Please, Firebug, help release me from this prison that is the gloriousness of you. I'm out of here. "Haplo, here's another possibility: the increased income of all minimum wage employees increases spending in the economy, and all the businesses make more money, including restaurants." The logical absurdity of this blanket statement becomes apparent when we extend the argument to it's logical conclusion - raise the minimum wage to $10,000 an hour! The problem with this sort of simplistic take on Keynesianism is that it fails to account for inflation. Printing money does nothing to increase the store of wealth; only productivity growth does. Unfortunately, the problem with "fair wage" advocacy is that to the extent it is successful, it removes all pressure for change, and thereby hampers productivity growth. This is one of those cases in which one ought to be wary of getting one wishes for. Posted by: Abiola Lapite at October 17, 2003 04:41 PM | PERMALINKJulia - I think I understand what you are getting at. However, it seems to me that by that logic, just about any increase in the cost of doing business is bound to "come around" because it benefits someone else somewhere. While that may be true in some circumstances, I wouldn't bet a business on it. Another problem - if that effect is true, then it seems unlikely to benefit all business equally. For example, minimum wage earners are probably unlikely to be paying to build houses, regardless of whether the homebuilding industry employs a lot of minimum wage workers. (And thus was a "payer" of the minimum wage increase.) Posted by: Haplo at October 17, 2003 04:43 PM | PERMALINKAbiola, You know you've hit close to the mark when pathetic ass-twits such as firebug are reduced to, "I normally disagree with you Kevin, but here you've just gone too far" Does Kevin really think that a chain restaurant with 165 stores in 27 states is typical? First, Kevin never said it was. Second, yes they are typical. I know of *many* national chain restaurants. Third, who the fuck cares... the article specifically mentioned California Pizza Kitchen executives and their greedy efforts to redistribute the wealth of the waiters into the pockets of their shareholders. They wanted a government handout and you cheap labor conservatives love those. Right? Firebug, you idiots don't have any intellectual ground to stand on. When you folks enter the argument the intellectual level drops into the deep sub-basement. Hell, we just had D.Citizen arguing that the Great Depression really wasn't all that bad. And you have provided no evidence for any of them, merely repeated (and profane) assertion. Yah, I provided none... except all the evidence I provided. The 1963 MW increase. The relative stability (with cites) of inflation and unemployment over a large historical period, seeded with MW increases. Only in your fantasy world is this considered "no evidence". Is this another of the "black is white" dichotomies you cheap labor conservatives love so much? "Fuck the small business owner!" You're welcome to take that message onto the national political stage if you'd like. So, for you, a story detailing the attempts of the restaurant owners of California demanding a redistribution of wealth away from the waiters and food service staff is somehow anti-business. So, you are pro-poverty, pro-unemployment, pro-idiocy. You socialists can trash talk all you want about how business owners should take it in the ass without complaint. You cheap labor conservatives can your logical feces all you want, but it still doesn't turn this into business owners "taking it in the ass". You want to take from the needy and give to the less needy. Robin Hood in reverse. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 05:17 PM | PERMALINKI have the same problem as you, raise MW high enough to make a decent living and the economy will suffer severe inflation. Yah, except reality keeps contradicting you. I feel sorry for you sm. Unfortunately, reality isn't going away no matter how frustrated you get. One more time, the largest increase in the MW in this nations history did not lead to inflation. No matter how you fight it, no matter how much you protest, you can't get away from the facts sm. Its like fighting gravity. You are buckling and kicking, trying to fight it, but you can't because the saddle of reality is to hard to shake. Posted by: Adam in MA at October 17, 2003 05:35 PM | PERMALINKFrom Kevin G: "[Quoting Kevin Drum: 'So the next time some idiot in a suit starts prattling on about liberals and class warfare...' "of course this idiot may have taken out a second mortgage on his house, sold off half his possessions, nearly ruined his credit by running up $50,000+ in credit card debt, payed his employees without paying himself for weeks at a time, gone without a vacation of anykind for over five years, worked 90+ hours a weeks for years just to make his business modestly profitable - but he's just an evil idiot in a suit." Let me get this straight: Kevin G. expects us to blubber over how much harder the average business owner works for each dollar he earns than his employees do? Really. In that case, why the hell does anyone ever want to own any businesses in the first place? Your site attracts some very strange people, Kevin D. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at October 17, 2003 06:26 PM | PERMALINKChris-- Hope you're still here... All states must rely on comparative advantage all the time...unless government policy protects some means of production, as when it raises the prices of imports with tariffs or lowers the prices of exports with subsidies. Free trade, by eliminating tariffs and subsidies, maximizes productivity and minimizes costs by forcing everyone to produce where they produce most efficiently. Labor in the US, even if made more expensive by unionization, still moves to its most efficient function, so such upward pressure finds equilibrium in the market and does not affect comparative advantage. Yes, the perception of increased wealth, especially if it causes credit-based spending, does increase aggregate demand. But this demand increase does not increase productivity. Even if more workers are making more goods to meet the demand, productivity has not increased unless they produce more per unit of labor. This will only happen if workers' skills improve (education) or new tools allow them to allow them to work faster (technology). Which brings us to the role of the stock market in the economy. Companies can use the market for liquidity, though only by issuing new stock, or buying and selling previously issued stock. The market does help lenders evaluate the health of a company, which means that companies with more highly valued stock can borrow money more cheaply (that is, they can issue bonds at more favorable rates). Otherwise, the market is a giant casino, where dummies like me bet that Worldcom will absorb Sprint, and I will be able to sell my $20 shares to some other gambler for $40. Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at October 17, 2003 07:19 PM | PERMALINK D.C. - But there is no guarantee that the waiter will get a tip. Gratuities may be expected or recommended (or tacked directly onto your bill for a large crowd), but there is no guarantee that the waiter will get a tip. The business owner shouldn't have any sort of say in the whole tipping business - it is between the customer and the server. Yes, the server wouldn't earn a tip if they didn't have a job as server, but I've never signed anything with a restaurant owner indicating that I am willing to share the burden of paying his employees directly. So what you're saying is that the employer deserves a piece of the tip pie just because he gives the server a job? How is that an incentive for better service? The better server you are, the more money you will be losing to your boss? I don't understand this way of thinking. Posted by: Maureen at October 17, 2003 08:08 PM | PERMALINKThree things: 1) I worked as a "full-time" bartender for two years here in Madison -- not actually full time, mind, because that wasn't allowed, but as close to full time as possible with bartending my sole source of income -- and I don't know anyone working full-time in this manner who reliably made over $30/hr in tips for every hour they worked. Anyone. It's certainly true that if you only worked the money shifts (and if you were fortunate enough to be scheduled for them, another matter entirely) you'd be looking at something close to that... but what with variability of clientele and the hours spent before and after the rush doing prepwork and cleaning? Not even close most nights. [I should add that I'd routinely clear $20/hr in tips in my job on weekend shifts, but morning or afternoon shifts? Forget it. Weeknight shifts were also generally a waste of time; I only kept them because a) I couldn't only get weekend shifts, and b) I got employee discount on my meals, so that was a day I didn't have to cook.] 2) The minimum wage was $6.25/hr around these parts, IIRC (I think it got raised to $6.40/hr a few years back). The minimum wage for tipped employees (don't remember the official category) was $2.35/hr. There were any number of shifts when I didn't make minimum wage after adding tips back in; had I not been working two bar jobs at the same time, I wouldn't have been able to make ends meet. Once I made it to the good shifts and got a raise under my belt I was able to support myself on a single job... but from where I stood, I literally don't think it would have possible to support myself on a single job for that first year, simply because there weren't enough good-paying hours available to work. 3) Kevin Drum: Please, for the love of god, don't ever rescind courtesy around these parts again. Posted by: Anarch at October 17, 2003 08:46 PM | PERMALINKMaureen: So what you're saying is that the employer deserves a piece of the tip pie just because he gives the server a job? How is that an incentive for better service? The better server you are, the more money you will be losing to your boss? I don't understand this way of thinking. Welcome to the world of progressive taxation. Mario, I understand the basic point that you are trying to reach, and I can agree to an extent. The problem with your comparison is that there is no redistribution occuring when the wait-staff gives a higher amount to the owner. This extra return is not then being passed amongst the cooks, host, etc... In progressive taxation, the idea is that the money paid to the government is to provide services to the people of the country. Call it socialist if you will, I do not find the term to be slander. Your analysis is completely correct. It does not provide personal incentive to the income generator, at least not in the capitalistic sense, and it is here that socialism falls short of reality. It can only work if individuals feel that after a certain reasonable income level, there is inherent worth to equalizing the income with another that has greater need. It's too damn idealistic to function. Capitalism works because it appeals to base competitive instincts. In regards to Kevin's post, I would have to say it was a fault to expand the discussion from coporate interests to an umbrella that includes independent restaraunt owners. Posted by: tripleg at October 17, 2003 10:32 PM | PERMALINKWhew! "You F#(@) *@)@*_(^ cheap labor conservitive - blah blah blah" Posted by: joe at October 17, 2003 10:51 PM | PERMALINKGreg, sm, Chris, and others in their category, You people remind of the biggest arrogant asshole in the country--Shithead George. I'm sure he's your hero(With Ahnold now, too). You lowlife slugs deserve each other. You're all SCUM! Posted by: rover at October 17, 2003 11:23 PM | PERMALINKrover at October 17, 2003 11:23 PM That was an informative retort. Why don't you tell us what you really...uh...think. Gee, this was !an informative topic. Let's see. Employees want to make more money. Companies want to make more profit, preferably without raising prices, because they fear that, if they raise prices, they might lose customers. I'm surprised that nobody seems to be bashing customers for their selfishness. Posted by: raj at October 18, 2003 05:56 AM | PERMALINKCompanies want to make more profit, preferably without raising prices, because they fear that, if they raise prices, they might lose customers. So, what you're saying is that, its acceptable to cut the pay of servers for them to maximize profit? Posted by: Jesse in SD at October 18, 2003 08:45 AM | PERMALINKI'll tell you what, as the employer has to pay for the waiter, THEN let the tips get reduced. Want to see waiters running the other way? Begin by suggesting to customers they don't have to leave tips. That way the employer can charge MORE for food. And, I bet the average tab, if it could go up by $6 would BENEFIT the employer. Not the other way around. Tips are a marvelous way to make money. Where you get hurt is where the IRS came in and began to realize all the economy that was slipping under the table. Want to know how much waiters and waitresses (and others who get their money out of tips) really earn? The IRS has established this scale. I bet there are a lot of people who make their livings 'waiting' who then put 'student' into the job description on the IRS forms. Where there's money, and there's this UNION idea that the 'pay scale' can improve, there's a massive denial that doing this won't cause people to LOSE, big time. Think about it. I just said we can live in a world where tipping goes out the window. Where the surcharge is added to the bill. And, passes through the owners' hands first. But labor is known for collectively stupid decisions. Posted by: Carol in California at October 18, 2003 03:12 PM | PERMALINKMemo to self: If, like Kevin or Henry Ford, you should happen to suggest that workers should be paid enough to get by on their earnings, you will invoke the spluttering wrath of a handful of angry, angry people who will choose to perceive this as advocating "socialism." Yes, they will really call it "socialism." They really do talk like this. Reminder: Ignore these people. They are not interested in achieving
honest disagreement or in advancing the discussion. Paying them the vast
amount of attention they demand only detracts from your ability to
interact with the reasonable majority who are capable of noting the vast
distinctions in degree and in kind between Stalinism and minimum wage
laws. The only way labor will get paid 'fairly' is if you kill off a lot of people. The Black Death did this in about 3 waves in the middle of the 1300's. When enough people die and fields lie fallow; and industries lose their workers, the big changes occur. Do you know the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, itself, was a benefactor of the Plague? How so? Well, the priests were the teachers in schools across England. French was the language taught. Even in Edward I's house FRENCH was spoken. (He was the English king.) However, once you lose the French speaking literate class, and you still have students going to school, you get the tranfer to teach the language of the common folks. Want to know how different English sounded, then? Try reading Chaucer. Born in 1340. Who cemented the English language? Probably Shakespeare and King James. Since one was a breathtaking artist (we still read his words with joy); and King James, in defiance of Catholic teaching, said the average person should have access to the Bible. And, that Bible should be written in the vernacular of the people. That's about it. History teaches that changes happen at pivotal points. And, socialism's ghosts have already been buried. When workers gather together to form unions what they get is the death of jobs. Jobs then uncouple from their reach. IF there's any sense of responsibility, here, it goes to the workers who end up paying lots of dues to their unions; while they forget that the money they get comes from their corporations. Want to know how bad it is for unions? Look at that ferry accident in Staten Island. That's the unions at work, folks. Sure, Dickens wrote about the plights of the common man. Because of the fact that once you have more labor than you have jobs, it tips the balance away from labor. What unions have done, by looking away from anything but their own interests, was in creating a monster where a few could whip up the many against self-interest. Socialism is gonna fail ya, if you embrace it. Unless you can cut into the supply pool, itself. Posted by: Carol in California at October 18, 2003 04:28 PM | PERMALINKExactly why doesn't someone suggest a few studies (which would be extremely simple for any university or state agency to carry out) to DETERMINE how much the average California waiter gets paid in tips, and what his real total income therefore is? We can argue this point perpetually, and uselessly, until we get some actual empirical data. (The trouble with tips is that they're a sort of "legitimate black market".) The question of whether the minimum wage should be replaced by an enlarged Earned Income Tax Credit is separate. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at October 18, 2003 04:53 PM | PERMALINK>>So, what you're saying is that, its acceptable to Absolutely. Why else is the company in existence except to maximize profit? The question is, whether cutting waiter pay maximizes long-run profits, since it would likely encourage the better waiters to find other jobs. Posted by: georges at October 19, 2003 08:58 AM | PERMALINKonline casinos | casino bonus | casino directory | high roller casinos | casinos Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 08:31 AM | PERMALINKbig boner bonus - Naked Teens - Hardcore Amateur Movies - Hardcore Digital - Hardcore Maidens - Hentai Studios - Asian Exxxtasy - Average Girls - Babes N Cars - Cute GirlFriend Posted by: all sites access at June 30, 2004 09:18 AM | PERMALINKPosted by: Lyrics at July 23, 2004 07:49 PM | PERMALINK 7960 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 03:22 PM | PERMALINK1272 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - 7672 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com Posted by: cialis at August 10, 2004 02:27 PM | PERMALINK1749 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 07:46 PM | PERMALINK5893 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: Viagra at August 14, 2004 05:23 AM | PERMALINK1513 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: online poker at August 15, 2004 02:55 PM | PERMALINK4214 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 3904 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 18, 2004 10:47 PM | PERMALINK7744 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for 1701 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 22, 2004 09:26 PM | PERMALINK85 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 03:41 PM | PERMALINK2866 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 11:38 PM | PERMALINK7219 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 09:34 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
