Minimum Wage?

[Ksandra]

ok, great, i'll bite. exactly how much over minimum wage does in 'n out pay?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-N-Out_Burger

The company's business practices have been noted for employee-centered personnel policies. For example, In-N-Out is one of the few fast food chains in the United States to pay its employees significantly more than state and federally mandated minimum wage guidelines – starting at US$10 per hour in California, as of January 2008.[7] The In-N-Out restaurant chain has developed a loyal customer base,[8][9][10] and has been rated as one of the top fast food restaurants in several customer satisfaction surveys

the highest tier store managers make 100k a year there.

^


[edit] and the store manager bit is standard. they higher in-company only, and you go through a tiered process where they actually have you go to "In n Out University" for three weeks for training (food and housing paid). They also offer a lot of benefits, retirement plans etc.

fixed no stock options, they refuse to go public/franchise

[mallister]

california minimum wage is $8 an hour. congrats, they make $2 an hour more. assuming a 40 hour workweek, that's $80 a week more, before taxes. they're awesome humanitarians, but, um, yeah.

[test123]

I think that Hey has to be a troll. That's the only logical explanation.

Otherwise, it seems like there's some agreement that rich people are assholes. Rich people will not stop being assholes until the government forces them to. Ergo, tying max CEO compensation to the lowest paid worker (or to some indexed national average) seems like a decent plan.

Ksandra has baffled me on how uneducated people are on these issues. Ksandra, go read some basic economic literature or at least watch some online lectures. What you have been stating so far in your posts is akin to communism.

Mandating that pencils should cost 1 million dollars is just as retarded as mandating price fixing for wages. That is why socialism goes the other way of taxing and redistributing the wealth instead, because socialists know that meddling with prices only ends in disaster.

[Sepukku]

california minimum wage is $8 an hour. congrats, they make $2 an hour more. assuming a 40 hour workweek, that's $80 a week more, before taxes. they're awesome humanitarians, but, um, yeah.

I will GLADY take $80 more per week. You do realize thats over $4000 a year, right? I'm pretty sure almost everyone on BG wouldn't mind an extra 4k salary.

I tend to not take anyone's POV into account on this issue if they can dismissively wave off $4000 as though its nothing because either:
(A) They're too rich and well off to understand what its like to be in the minimum wage / near minimum wage tremendously agonizing burger flipping / janitorial / retail field and then trying to make ends meet with the menial amount of money you slave for.
(B) They're too dumb to quickly multiply 50 or 52 by 80 and realize how much a difference $80 a week makes.

[Ksandra]

california minimum wage is $8 an hour. congrats, they make $2 an hour more. assuming a 40 hour workweek, that's $80 a week more, before taxes. they're awesome humanitarians, but, um, yeah.

I think that's pretty damn good for a brand new burger flipper. Remember that's the starting wage. My major point is that if they can afford to, than other companies that are just as successful could as well, but they don't have to because there's no regulation for it.

is akin to communism.

omg communism!

obvious troll has always been obvious

[hey]

If they can do it, why can't other extremely successful companies do it?

They could. It just doesn't make sense to do so, from a business standpoint.

And at $10, their ceo would still be limited to $624,000 per year, if we were going to limit him to 30x their lowest paid worker. Which might be fine for in n' out, but honestly, i think that would be pretty insulting to old jimmy skinner.


And mallister, what the fuck even. $10 is 25% more than $8. That's quite a lot more.

[Ksandra]

They could. It just doesn't make sense to do so, from a business standpoint.

which is why you need regulations...

And at $10, their ceo would still be limited to $624,000 per year, if we were going to limit him to 30x their lowest paid worker. Which might be fine for in n' out, but honestly, i think that would be pretty insulting to old jimmy skinner.

who gives a fuck if their "insulted"? omg only 624k a year and you wanna say that isn't something we should strive for to help the lower-income people in this country? seriously?

[hey]

who gives a fuck if their "insulted"? omg only 624k a year and you wanna say that isn't something we should strive for to help the lower-income people in this country? seriously?

Because you aren't helping the poor people by removing any incentive he has to keep expanding (ie building new stores and hiring people to run them, not to mention their suppliers, etc) McDonalds. You are hurting them. The better they do, the more people they hire. I'm sorry you don't care about the unemployed, but are willing to argue to the death for those working minimum wage, but last i checked, the unemployed were in greater need of help.

[Ksandra]

Because you aren't helping the poor people by removing any incentive he has to keep expanding (ie building new stores and hiring people to run them) McDonalds. You are hurting them.

mcd ceo isn't going to expand because he makes 624k a year instead of 17 mil? then he can leave.

In n Out is slowly expanding with their model. They can stay. Let's make more like them too.


Also, not to like add more shit to the pile or anything, but was just thinking about how it'd be nice if there were some more incentives to get certain companies to do the credit unions business model (no CEO). It would obviously not work for every company so don't try starting shit like "it wouldn't work for X" but it'd be interesting to see which companies could do it well.

[mallister]

25% more of not a lot is still...not a lot. it's unskilled, disposable labor, which is why they make not a lot. anyone can do it. i did it for $4.75 an hour. it sucked. sure, i'd have loved a 25% raise then (hell, i'd lvoe one now). it would have still sucked.

[Komm Suesser Tod]

Mcdonald's had a net profit of $8000000000 in 2011. Split that up amongst 420000 workers and that's an extra $19000 a year per employee.

[hey]

Also, not to like add more shit to the pile or anything, but was just thinking about how it'd be nice if there were some more incentives to get certain companies to do the credit unions business model (no CEO). It would obviously not work for every company so don't try starting shit like "it wouldn't work for X" but it'd be interesting to see which companies could do it well.

Sure, that'd be great. Unfortunately, there'slittle incentive to create such businesses.

[Ksandra]

Sure, that'd be great. Unfortunately, there'slittle incentive to create such businesses.

hence why I said "it'd be nice if there were some more incentive"....

[test123]

There are "co op" companies out there where the wages are the same for every employee, even the managers. But usually they all share the same background high school or college drop-outs.

When people with different backgrounds enter the big playing field, most likely those with higher education trumps those with without it. And rightfully so.

If you think the role of the Government is to regulate the poor into the middle class then go ahead, vote that way. But you better ask yourself what if the role of Government is to only keep you safe i.e police, military and enforce contracts you enter into with other parties, what the outcome would be.

[hey]

hence why I said "it'd be nice if there were some more incentive"....

Like by paying people lots of money to start them?

[Cantih]

hence why I said "it'd be nice if there were some more incentive"....

Hell, I don't even need more incentive to do something like that, I just need the initial capital.

[Psion]

Still laughing at hey comparing in and out to some mom and pa shop no one's ever heard of. ROFL.

[Coren]

What the fuck is In n' out?

I'm guessing there's a reason i've never heard of them. Paying employees more than they are worth just because you're nice is great and all, but it makes zero business sense.

I imagine well paid employees are happy employees who do their job well which in turn makes their customers happy leading to more business.

Aside from this fairly obvious answer, you do realize that there is something to business other than fucking over people to make money, right? I think a fundamental difference between libertarians/conservatives, and liberals, is that we don't see making more money as the ultimate goal. I want to make a comfortable living while taking care of my employees and my customers. Publicly traded companies exist purely to make money for stockholders, but as a small business owner, I could make a shitload more money if I was willing to just fuck over customers and my employees. My company does IT repair and installations. This includes residential shit like virus removals and tuneups up to server work, network wire installation, phone systems, etc. I could easily lie to people and charge them double just like Best Buy does. But I have morals, and I'm not a douchebag. And that's a huge difference. You shouldn't have to legislate morals, but if that's the only option... well.. raising the minimum wage is a good place to start.

[hey]

Still laughing at hey comparing in and out to some mom and pa shop no one's ever heard of. ROFL.

When did i do that? All i did was say i've never heard of it.

but if that's the only option... well.. raising the minimum wage is a good place to start.

Actually it's a terrible place to start. Since when is paying unfairly high prices for things considered to be a moral action? Furthmore, how the fuck is raising unemployment moral?

[Coren]

When did i do that? All i did was say i've never heard of it.

Actually it's a terrible place to start. Since when is paying unfairly high prices for things considered to be a moral action? Furthmore, how the fuck is raising unemployment moral?

Do you think we should just do what chinese companies do? Pay $.30 per hour, force workers to work 30+ hours shifts, and let them suicide by jumping out of windows? What is a "fair" minimum to you?

You could argue that by raising minimum wage, millions more workers have a little more disposable income. Yes, increasing the minimum wage does increase unemployment among some demographics, it's not that substantial.

Assuming that we can all at least agree that forcing somebody to work 100 hours per week just to eat food and have a shelter and decent health, where would you start? You say that there should be no minimum wage. What is your brilliant idea?