Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
Legitimate possibly stupid question: California is a massively huge state with huge metropoli as well as tiny towns. How does a blanket rate increase work without harming the tiny towns?
But how does it work when the median pay in one place in California is $160,000, and in the other it’s $35,000? (Real numbers. Also bearing in mind that $20 on a 40 hour work week is $41,600/yr.) The economic structure of each town, village, or city is not the same. This makes people unable to buy food, or medicine. We sacrifice population to fix the wrongs of the past in an irresponsible way.
And by the way, I’m pro minimum wage increase so hard, it is stupidly broken. It seems though, that such dramatic increases at a large scale in a short time would forget the small communities and basically uproot them into chaos. Just so Apple engineers can go to work with their breakfast burrito made correctly, finally.
The one big employer in that tiny town can probably get away with paying whatever because there’s no competition in a tiny town, this is enforcing a wage increase for the lowest paid people.
To the extent prices increase, it’s only a percentage of a percentage. Even if the cost is 100% passed along to the consumer, it’s a 25% increase in the price of labor, which is 30% of the cost of a burger.
So apparently (from Google) the Big Mac combo is $18 already in California, and the $5.40 of that which is labor would go up to $6.75, for a total new maximum price of $19.35.
Meanwhile, the poorest people in the state are getting a 25% pay raise, from $33k to $41k annually if they’re full time. That’s a huge stimulus because poor people spend the money they earn.
Haha I mean I did get that number from a Fox News article so that is probably like LA prices but yeah. The point scales with price so I just picked one from an article.
Obviously I want all of us to be paid a reasonable salary, but it’s because of this concept you mentioned that I can’t wait for time to pass and we can see the outcome. It will absolutely help our argument if we can prove that a burger won’t cost $30 now and that stores won’t close because of it.
Because if it legitimately hurts local towns, you have even bigger issues to deal with. I live in NC and you very genuinely cannot live here on a minimum wage of $7.25. In fact, I’d argue that $12-15 (effectively the new minimum wage in my city going by what fast food pays) is pretty hard to live on in my southern state which is by most accounts pretty cheap to live in. California is much more expensive, so I’d argue that a $20 min wage is actually pretty reasonable.
Legitimate possibly stupid question: California is a massively huge state with huge metropoli as well as tiny towns. How does a blanket rate increase work without harming the tiny towns?
Because wage increases don’t actually hurt anyone. They actually grow the economy
But how does it work when the median pay in one place in California is $160,000, and in the other it’s $35,000? (Real numbers. Also bearing in mind that $20 on a 40 hour work week is $41,600/yr.) The economic structure of each town, village, or city is not the same. This makes people unable to buy food, or medicine. We sacrifice population to fix the wrongs of the past in an irresponsible way.
And by the way, I’m pro minimum wage increase so hard, it is stupidly broken. It seems though, that such dramatic increases at a large scale in a short time would forget the small communities and basically uproot them into chaos. Just so Apple engineers can go to work with their breakfast burrito made correctly, finally.
It benefits tiny towns more.
The one big employer in that tiny town can probably get away with paying whatever because there’s no competition in a tiny town, this is enforcing a wage increase for the lowest paid people.
To the extent prices increase, it’s only a percentage of a percentage. Even if the cost is 100% passed along to the consumer, it’s a 25% increase in the price of labor, which is 30% of the cost of a burger.
So apparently (from Google) the Big Mac combo is $18 already in California, and the $5.40 of that which is labor would go up to $6.75, for a total new maximum price of $19.35.
Meanwhile, the poorest people in the state are getting a 25% pay raise, from $33k to $41k annually if they’re full time. That’s a huge stimulus because poor people spend the money they earn.
A Big Mac combo is almost 20$?!? Who the fuck would buy that?
I’d rather go to a bomb ass Thai place for that money.
You can taste the depression of the workers when ya get food from burger king.
That said, there is no ethical consumption while living a capitalist way of life.
Haha I mean I did get that number from a Fox News article so that is probably like LA prices but yeah. The point scales with price so I just picked one from an article.
It’s 11 bucks in LA. Source, I live here. The 18 dollar price is in Connecticut, probably a franchise scamming tourists.
Obviously I want all of us to be paid a reasonable salary, but it’s because of this concept you mentioned that I can’t wait for time to pass and we can see the outcome. It will absolutely help our argument if we can prove that a burger won’t cost $30 now and that stores won’t close because of it.
Because if it legitimately hurts local towns, you have even bigger issues to deal with. I live in NC and you very genuinely cannot live here on a minimum wage of $7.25. In fact, I’d argue that $12-15 (effectively the new minimum wage in my city going by what fast food pays) is pretty hard to live on in my southern state which is by most accounts pretty cheap to live in. California is much more expensive, so I’d argue that a $20 min wage is actually pretty reasonable.
By being too low for them, too!