Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Applebee’s exec urges using high gas prices to push lower wages, sparks walkout

www2.ljworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 582 posts

Re: Applebee’s exec urges using high gas prices to push lower wages, sparks walkout

#191

Post by imgabe »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #180
imgabe wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass confusion. Every location has to have a custom minimum wage based on the local real estate market? How are you going to enforce that? How about people figure out how much money they need to afford the lifestyle they want and then get a job that pays that much?

That was my initial reaction, but the more I think about it—is it really so unreasonable? Right now, we force employees to deal with the burden of ever-changing real-estate markets. Why not make employers do that? And if it's too much of a hassle for the employer, just pay your employees substantially above the minimum.

Most people are more than capable of dealing with the burden of managing their personal finances and budgeting. The more responsibility you want to shove off on institutions to take care of for you, the greater you increase your dependence on them and the more susceptible you make yourself to their control.

Re: Applebee’s exec urges using high gas prices to push lower wages, sparks walkout

#192

Post by ramones13 »

jpcfl wrote: post #174
quantum_magpie wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>two people being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment within a 1 hour drive without traffic. My immediate reaction to this statement was.. it's insane? In my opinion it should read 'a single person able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment within an hour of public transport commute.' Otherwise it sounds like you don't think anyone should be able to live anywhere reasonable without roommates?

>Otherwise it sounds like you don't think anyone should be able to live anywhere reasonable without roommates? I think your confusing "should be able to" with "shall be able to, enforceable by law". I don't expect that a 15 year old working his first job as a fry cook at an Arby's should be compensated enough that he can afford to live on his own. In fact, that could be dangerously disincentivizing his hard work towa…

But should a 27 year-old fry cook make enough money to live alone? Labor is labor. Pay shouldn’t be less because it’s going to an acceptable to abuse class of person.

Re: Applebee’s exec urges using high gas prices to push lower wages, sparks walkout

#193

Post by Bermion »

jpcfl wrote: post #174
quantum_magpie wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>two people being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment within a 1 hour drive without traffic. My immediate reaction to this statement was.. it's insane? In my opinion it should read 'a single person able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment within an hour of public transport commute.' Otherwise it sounds like you don't think anyone should be able to live anywhere reasonable without roommates?

>Otherwise it sounds like you don't think anyone should be able to live anywhere reasonable without roommates? I think your confusing "should be able to" with "shall be able to, enforceable by law". I don't expect that a 15 year old working his first job as a fry cook at an Arby's should be compensated enough that he can afford to live on his own. In fact, that could be dangerously disincentivizing his hard work towa…

Why shouldn't someone working as a fry cook be able to live on his salary? It's not dangerous to have a system where not everyone needs a university degree to earn a living.

Re: Applebee’s exec urges using high gas prices to push lower wages, sparks walkout

#194

Post by glenstein »

tshaddox wrote: post #85
Grollicus wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There'll be a bunch of cheap singular apartments spread all over the US - let's for convenience's sake assume they're about a one hour drive apart from each other but that's a totally random number of course. You can rent them for very cheap but just as you're about to move in they suddenly become unavailable for whatever reason? Probably the owner lost their keys or something and then lawyers can argue for years if…

> You can rent them for very cheap but just as you're about to move in they suddenly become unavailable for whatever reason? I mean, presumably in this hypothetical situation we wouldn't want to simultaneously dissolve basic renter's rights.

Yeah, and this is the trouble with trying to get people to engage with hypotheticals on the internet in thoughtful ways.

The usual formula for any engagement with hypothetical ideas is for it to be reflexively dismissed with a "that'll never work" response. Most of the time I think this is the instinctive friction we feel at being asked to engage with a new idea, and saying that'll never work for [insert reason] is intended not to express a counter-argument so much as it is to reject the invitation to participate in the exercise.

But even in the genre of "that'll never work" responses, this one is uniquely strange. Normally the "that'll never work" response suggests that there's some obstacle that arises as a consequence of the change to the status quo. But here, it's just a list obstacles that aren't connected to any underlying principle. It doesn't even feel like the usual "that'll never work" response.

Re: Applebee’s exec urges using high gas prices to push lower wages, sparks walkout

#195

Post by XorNot »

shafyy wrote: post #148
quantum_magpie wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>two people being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment within a 1 hour drive without traffic. My immediate reaction to this statement was.. it's insane? In my opinion it should read 'a single person able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment within an hour of public transport commute.' Otherwise it sounds like you don't think anyone should be able to live anywhere reasonable without roommates?

Exactly. Even the mindset of thinking in "driving" vs. walking or public transport shows a lot.

It is however realistic given the the US's urban layout and population preferences. Also nowhere has succeeded in keeping essential, low paid workers living near where they work - gentrification forces them out.

Re: Applebee’s exec urges using high gas prices to push lower wages, sparks walkout

#196

Post by gruez »

rpmisms wrote: post #162
freeone3000 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When, exactly, was American capitalism about anything other than extracting maximal value from labor?

Henry Ford, capitalist extraordinaire, famously paid his workers $5 a day, double the average automaker's wage at the time. This extracted maximum value from said labor.

I know the popular story is that:

1. pay workers extra (ie. above the market rate)

2. workers are richer now

3. they use that money to buy the stuff you make

4. ???

5. profit!

Has this actually been studied empirically? If you had to choose between paying your workers $1000 more and pocketing it, surely the latter option is the better one? Sure, they might use some of that money to buy your product, but they're not going to spend all of it, and after your own costs (eg. cost of goods sold), you're going to end up with less than $1000? How is that extracting "maximum value from said labor"?

Re: Applebee’s exec urges using high gas prices to push lower wages, sparks walkout

#197

Post by munk-a »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #155
endisneigh wrote: post #3

I wonder what the USA would look like if minimum wage was defined as; two people being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment within a 1 hour drive without traffic. The static (both in the nominal and inflation adjusted sense) for minimum wage doesn't make sense imo. Minimum wage should be tied to some level of living (not necessarily a great living, but something ) This guy smh

>I wonder what the USA would look like if minimum wage was defined as; two people being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment within a 1 hour drive without traffic. A lot of stuff would be automated or simply not exist. I don't see how high minimum wage can "work" to solve social issues if companies can choose between not hiring people and paying a high minimum wage.

If automation was free it'd be here already. Automation creates high skilled jobs to manage the automation - it can be a significant labour save but the way healthy economies work that freed labour is going to find some other service to offer.

Re: Applebee’s exec urges using high gas prices to push lower wages, sparks walkout

#198

Post by kbelder »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #121
shadowgovt wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently, a little under 1 in 10 US workers have a 1-hr-plus commute time ( https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio... ).

That's with traffic though. I live about 45 minutes from downtown LA without traffic. Which turns into 2.5 hours with traffic.

My commute is 45 minutes without traffic... 46 minutes with traffic. (I live in Oregon.)

Re: Applebee’s exec urges using high gas prices to push lower wages, sparks walkout

#199

Post by s1artibartfast »

tshaddox wrote: post #88
gruez wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder what the USA would look like if minimum wage was defined as; two people being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment within a 1 hour drive without traffic. More labor being "outsourced" to cheap counties, for one. Rather than a restaurant making meals on site, they'll do most of the prep work 50 miles away where the CoL (and minimum wage) is cheap and truck it in.

I'm pretty sure any restaurant in the United States that prepares meals on site does so because that's a crucial part of the product they're offering, not because it's cheaper to prepare the meals on site.

If it is a crucial part of the product, some restaurants will switch products and others would go out of business.

Re: Applebee’s exec urges using high gas prices to push lower wages, sparks walkout

#200

Post by awa »

V-eHGsd_ wrote: post #57
darth_avocado wrote: post #20

Rising gas prices mean we can lower wages to keep employees? Outside of the moral implication, this doesn't even logically make sense. People are already facing higher costs, if you pay them lower, they will not work for you, because you know, commuting to work at your place will eat into the budget.

> Outside of the moral implication, this doesn't even logically make sense. If I'm reading his point correctly ... He's saying there _was_ an employment crunch, and companies were competing with each other for employees by raising wages. He supposes that an increase in gas prices means that people need more money, so there are more employee hours "to go around". Therefore, companies don't need to compete as much with…

I think the point was since the stimulus money has stopped they don't have to compete with the government and with inflation these folks will need to find a job.
Post reply on HN