SHOCKING: Restaraunts in Seattle closing down as $15/hour minimum wage approaches

[ghostwriterx]

Bolded for emphasis. I understand how a Board works but how in the world do you think its justified on principle for someone to spend X amount of their lives starting and building up their own company only to then tell them they can't pay themselves what they want?

Doesn't that come with going public and taking on shareholders? Didn't those shareholders help to build up the company? They shouldn't have a say in the matter?

 

[Paper Boi]

all i'm going to say is that a lot of these restaurants were probably already operating heavy in the red even if they claim they weren't. i've had both friends and family in the restaurant business and it's extremely hard unless you have a long track record in the area, are a major chain or at least own a couple other joints in the nearby area with a positive rep. hundreds of restaurants go out of business daily and they aren't paying people $15. the successful ones will survive. the ones closing likely already weren't successful.

 

[ill]

Doesn't that come with going public and taking on shareholders? Didn't those shareholders help to build up the company? They shouldn't have a say in the matter?

If thats how the companies bylaws are written then yeah, sure. The shareholders of public companies can vote for a new Board of Directors if they feel something is not up to par such as the CEO that the Board approved. The checks and balances are within the organization already. People like Carl Icahn buy up voting equity shares just so they can replace the company's Board of Directors so they in turn can place one of his guys at CEO to run the business.

 

[ghostwriterx]

If thats how the companies bylaws are written then yeah, sure. The shareholders of public companies can vote for a new Board of Directors if they feel something is not up to par such as the CEO that the Board approved. The checks and balances are within the organization already. People like Carl Icahn buy up voting equity shares just so they can replace the company's Board of Directors so they in turn can place one of his guys at CEO to run the business.

Yeah, don't get me wrong I'm not saying the govt. should step in or anything I just think its f*cked up. I get that companies are always going to try and exploit the working class if it helps to maximize profits/bonuses etc., I just think its short-sighted. A shrinking middle-class isn't good for anybody. I think its in everybody's bests to increase disposable income for middle/lower classes.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

so did the minimum wage increase take effect yet or no? Is this article crying wolf?

 

[JahFocus CS]

People take risks in their lives (education, career path, etc) in order to gain better rewards down the road. Minimum wage jobs tend to be risk-less and reward-less. Perceiving a higher self-worth because someone took on those risks and is now reaping the rewards (higher paying job, better career prospects) is most definitely not a false sense of superiority but rather a true sense of it and the aggregation of ones hard work and risk taking.

There would be no jobs for these workers if there was no market demand or in a more realistic scenario, market demand will go down as the prices of lets say fast food goes up. If theres no market to buy $12 Big Mac's, McD's can't hire anyone, period. If theres less demand as the price goes up, they have less of a need to hire/pay more competitive wages. I don't see why you're trying to raise the floor on entry level jobs when the real solution is raising the education/risk-taking of entry-level employees to be more than minimum workers. McD's might have been a bad example as its a multi-national conglomerate but substitute any local burger joint or mom and pop shop and now they can't hedge against the downfall in demand and can't operate.

No. I'm talking about the real, material interests and relationship to the means of production of an entire class -- the working class. A person who went to a top school, got a job at a top firm and got laid off during the recession quickly found out what that shyt is worth. If you sell your labor, you are working class; the illusions of everything else, whether it be prestige, presumed job security, etc., fades when push comes to shove. So yes, it is a false sense of superiority.

I would argue this is a circular bourgeois argument you're making, and it is common for the ruling class to make this argument. "We work hard, we take risks, we deserve what we have" - as if these enterprises are created in a vacuum, and the owners did everything (or even the majority of it) by themselves. This "risk-taking" wouldn't be necessary under a different system. The ruling class and its acolytes can't even conceive that.

Workers build things. Workers create everything we see in this world (besides nature). Yet they do not receive the full value of their labor, or have access to the means of production, because it is siphoned and cordoned off by the ruling class. Production is a social process. Wealth is socially generated. Yet under capitalism, wealth is privately accrued, and the value created by the working class is confiscated.

 

[R. Money]

No. I'm talking about the real, material interests and relationship to the means of production of an entire class -- the working class. A person who went to a top school, got a job at a top firm and got laid off during the recession quickly found out what that shyt is worth. If you sell your labor, you are working class; the illusions of everything else, whether it be prestige, presumed job security, etc., fades when push comes to shove. So yes, it is a false sense of superiority.

I would argue this is a circular bourgeois argument you're making, and it is common for the ruling class to make this argument. "We work hard, we take risks, we deserve what we have" - as if these enterprises are created in a vacuum, and the owners did everything (or even the majority of it) by themselves. This "risk-taking" wouldn't be necessary under a different system. The ruling class and its acolytes can't even conceive that.

Workers build things. Workers create everything we see in this world (besides nature). Yet they do not receive the full value of their labor, or have access to the means of production, because it is siphoned and cordoned off by the ruling class. Production is a social process. Wealth is socially generated. Yet under capitalism, wealth is privately accrued, and the value created by the working class is confiscated.

Throw this Marxist in the bushes.

Stay away from my yacht money, fukk boi.

 

[JahFocus CS]

Throw this Marxist in the bushes.

Stay away from my yacht money, fukk boi.

You're lucky I like you R-Money.

 

[ill]

No. I'm talking about the real, material interests and relationship to the means of production of an entire class -- the working class. A person who went to a top school, got a job at a top firm and got laid off during the recession quickly found out what that shyt is worth. If you sell your labor, you are working class; the illusions of everything else, whether it be prestige, presumed job security, etc., fades when push comes to shove. So yes, it is a false sense of superiority.

I would argue this is a circular bourgeois argument you're making, and it is common for the ruling class to make this argument. "We work hard, we take risks, we deserve what we have" - as if these enterprises are created in a vacuum, and the owners did everything (or even the majority of it) by themselves. This "risk-taking" wouldn't be necessary under a different system. The ruling class and its acolytes can't even conceive that.

Workers build things. Workers create everything we see in this world (besides nature). Yet they do not receive the full value of their labor, or have access to the means of production, because it is siphoned and cordoned off by the ruling class. Production is a social process. Wealth is socially generated. Yet under capitalism, wealth is privately accrued, and the value created by the working class is confiscated.

Lets be honest here. A person from a top school that's worked at a top firm will still have an advantage over everyone else and their resume will always be at the top of the short list. Are you really saying prestige, wealth, title at the company (aka job security) are fake illusions? If thats the case then everyone thats not an owner worth a few billion is pretty much wasting their lives for nothing. Superiority is relative to your surroundings so what you view as fake, someone else views as their dreams come true.

You label working class too broadly. There's an enormous financial gap in your "working class". If its everyone thats working for someone else then a burger flipper is in the same category as a CEO. There's less than 1% of the 1% that have never worked for someone else.

"This "risk-taking" wouldn't be necessary under a different system"

Yes, its called communism. Everyone is equal and we all share everything in this mythical utopia. However, we live in a capitalist society and always have. Its blissful ignorance to think our society works any other way. I grew up learning that the capitalist society rewards ownership so I've never had disillusions about my status as a worker. It made me strive to become an owner, since I wanted to be wealthy. The path is literally written and laid out for everyone; some people just choose to ignore it and believe we don't live in a dog eat dog capitalist society.

 

[88m3]

Lets be honest here. A person from a top school that's worked at a top firm will still have an advantage over everyone else and their resume will always be at the top of the short list. Are you really saying prestige, wealth, title at the company (aka job security) are fake illusions? If thats the case then everyone thats not an owner worth a few billion is pretty much wasting their lives for nothing. Superiority is relative to your surroundings so what you view as fake, someone else views as their dreams come true.

You label working class too broadly. There's an enormous financial gap in your "working class". If its everyone thats working for someone else then a burger flipper is in the same category as a CEO. There's less than 1% of the 1% that have never worked for someone else.

"This "risk-taking" wouldn't be necessary under a different system"

Yes, its called communism. Everyone is equal and we all share everything in this mythical utopia. However, we live in a capitalist society and always have. Its blissful ignorance to think our society works any other way. I grew up learning that the capitalist society rewards ownership so I've never had disillusions about my status as a worker. It made me strive to become an owner, since I wanted to be wealthy. The path is literally written and laid out for everyone; some people just choose to ignore it and believe we don't live in a dog eat dog capitalist society.

I'd have a hard time saying I work for a living without blushing.

 

[88m3]

so did the minimum wage increase take effect yet or no? Is this article crying wolf?

the article is utter garbage. restaurants have one the highest failure rates of any business and the law hasn't come into effect and will take over 7 years to be implemented.

 

[88m3]

how democratic...

firing on all cylinders

 

[ill]

I'd have a hard time saying I work for a living without blushing.

Sounds like a good problem to have

 

[tmonster]

People take risks in their lives (education, career path, etc) in order to gain better rewards down the road. Minimum wage jobs tend to be risk-less and reward-less. Perceiving a higher self-worth because someone took on those risks and is now reaping the rewards (higher paying job, better career prospects) is most definitely not a false sense of superiority but rather a true sense of it and the aggregation of ones hard work and risk taking.

There would be no jobs for these workers if there was no market demand or in a more realistic scenario, market demand will go down as the prices of lets say fast food goes up. If theres no market to buy $12 Big Mac's, McD's can't hire anyone, period. If theres less demand as the price goes up, they have less of a need to hire/pay more competitive wages. I don't see why you're trying to raise the floor on entry level jobs when the real solution is raising the education/risk-taking of entry-level employees to be more than minimum workers. McD's might have been a bad example as its a multi-national conglomerate but substitute any local burger joint or mom and pop shop and now they can't hedge against the downfall in demand and can't operate.

since we are going to talk theory, Consider that the market you are referring to is a fantasy, and rare as the unicorn.
How does the housing bubble happen if there is a free market? simple answer is, it doesn't, at every level of commercial interaction there are legislative barriers and high speed bypasses set up for particular agents, be it consumers or corporations. Currently however, the balance is grossly skewed in favor of the latter.

In the information age the market is never free for any significant amount of time, it is always engineered, and not by supply demand but by incumbent forces, collusive with "government", looking to avoid disruption; this wage debate is nothing short of that. These fragile businesses you guys speak, why not let them fail and let demand bring them back?

If supply/demand dictates all, then why don't you sit back, let us raise wages and let the market correct the wage debate; in this scenario, a wide majority will live better, a small minority will make less money or go out of business, I think that's worth it. In your scenario the wide majority continue to struggle and live shorter unhealthy lives, while the minority stay wealthy.

 

[A Real Human Bean]

delete