'Biden's inflation crisis is here': Inflation jumps to 5%

[Tenshot13]

Sounds like your business should try offering more than an extra $2/hr.

When the economy is bad and businesses "have to" lay people off, it's a business decision.
When prices increase - as they have for all of our lives - it's a business decision.
But when people aren't lining up to apply for low wage jobs (and everyone who is complaining is offering low wage jobs), suddenly it's a national outrage.

And it's not hard to find success stories of companies who have decided that maybe offering more money ISN'T the end of the world:

The owners of Klavon’s Ice Cream Parlor had hit a wall.

For months, the 98-year-old confectionary in Pittsburgh couldn’t find applicants for the open positions it needed to fill ahead of warmer weather and, hopefully, sunnier times for the business after a rough year.

The job posting for scoopers — $7.25 an hour plus tips — did not produce a single application between January and March.

So owner Jacob Hanchar decided to more than double the starting wage to $15 an hour, plus tips, “just to see what would happen.”

The shop was suddenly flooded with applications. More than 1,000 piled in over the course of a week.

“It was like a dam broke,” Hanchar said. Media coverage that followed his decision soon pushed other candidates his way.

From the same article:

For Patrick Whalen, co-owner of the 5th Street Group, comprising five restaurants in Charleston and Charlotte, the breaking point came in late March. The restaurants were getting busier as more people started venturing out to eat. But applicants for the dozens of positions the company was trying to hire for were scarce. Understaffed and busy, the company was starting to get shredded with negative reviews online.

After one of his managers told him that a line cook needed to borrow money to get groceries, Whalen was moved to reconsider wages at the company.

“It was just one of those moments where you just kind of stop and you say, ‘Is there a real problem in our industry?’” he said. “We always kind of knew it was there, but we didn’t really know what to do with it.”

The company raised the starting wage for all of its staff to $15 an hour, up from $12 to $13. And it created a “tip the kitchen” program, adding a second line to table checks for gratuity for the back-of-the-house staff, which the restaurant matches up to $500 per night. That move has increased wages for non-tipped employees such as line cooks and dishwashers to an average of $23.80 an hour, Whalen said.

Applicants began pouring in nearly overnight, Whalen said. A manager at one of his restaurants, Tempest, told him that 10 people walked in to drop off résumés over the course of one week after the policy change, compared with just 15 people over the four previous months.

Within three weeks, the restaurant group went from about 50 to 60 percent staffed to nearly fully staffed.

“There is no one in Charleston or Charlotte that can compete with what my guys are making,” Whalen said.

Aaron Dearing, a sous chef at Whalen’s 5Church Charlotte, said the tipping initiative had raised his pay by about $1,000 a month — the biggest raise he has received in 20 years in the industry.

“It puts everybody in a better position in their home life, so they come to work a lot happier,” he said.

---

People in this country are legitimately pissed at the idea of lower income workers having enough income to live a decent life.  This is why you see people fighting against increases to the minimum wage, while arguing that you're not supposed to be able to provide for your family working somewhere like McDonald's or Walmart... even though millions of Americans have to do so every year.  They talk all this trash about "Go find a real job if you want a decent income," and when workers try to do so, these same people complain that no one wants to work these crappy jobs for terrible wages.

If you actually ran a business you wouldn't be so clueless about this. 

[Fau Teixeira]

If you actually ran a business you wouldn't be so clueless about this. 

if your business relies on underpaying staff so you can make a living, maybe re-think your business. Capitalism .. market pressures .. bla bla bla ayn rand .. bla .. free market .. blah.

[Tenshot13]

if your business relies on underpaying staff so you can make a living, maybe re-think your business. Capitalism .. market pressures .. bla bla bla ayn rand .. bla .. free market .. blah.

Our business is thriving, we're essential.  It's a dirty job that no one wants to do.  We pay well, and it's all you can eat overtime.  The only requirement is having an active driver's license, you don't even need a high school education.  Our only other technician just got a 10k bonus in December.  None of that matters in this climate when people can collect a check for doing nothing.  Once again, you guys are completely ignorant on the subject, you're just parroting shit your read online which is equally clueless.

[dolphins4life]

Our business is thriving, we're essential.  It's a dirty job that no one wants to do.  We pay well, and it's all you can eat overtime.  The only requirement is having an active driver's license, you don't even need a high school education.  Our only other technician just got a 10k bonus in December.  None of that matters in this climate when people can collect a check for doing nothing.  Once again, you guys are completely ignorant on the subject, you're just parroting shit your read online which is equally clueless.

Hence why I switched parties

[pondwater]

if your business relies on underpaying staff so you can make a living, maybe re-think your business. Capitalism .. market pressures .. bla bla bla ayn rand .. bla .. free market .. blah.

I'm not sure what your point is. If any business doesn't pay enough for people to want to work there. They will have to offer more in terms of wages and/or benefits to attract workers or simply go out of business. It's a problem that will fix itself naturally. If you pay people to do nothing, the problem won't ever get fixed.

Also, you still never answered these questions.

Does everyone get UBI equally? Also, where you going to get the money to give people free money?

[Spider-Dan]

We've upped starting pay for our business by $2 more an hour and can't get one interview.

Our business is thriving, we're essential.

If your "thriving" business can't get a single person to interview for positions you're trying to fill, you and I have a very different definition of "thriving."  Perhaps you mean "profitable" or "lucrative," which are positions that are very much compatible with, um, low wage expenses.

Once again: if $300/week in temporary unemployment is so much money that you can't even get an interview - for "a dirty job that no one wants to do"! - maybe you should be paying more.

[Fau Teixeira]

I'm not sure what your point is. If any business doesn't pay enough for people to want to work there. They will have to offer more in terms of wages and/or benefits to attract workers or simply go out of business. It's a problem that will fix itself naturally. If you pay people to do nothing, the problem won't ever get fixed.

ok great .. we agree

Also, you still never answered these questions.

Does everyone get UBI equally? Also, where you going to get the money to give people free money?

Yes, everyone would get UBI equally.

You get the money the same way you get money in government. Taxes. Maybe a wealth tax, or a higher corporate income tax. Maybe a corporate tax based on the delta between CEO and lowest worker pay. I'm sure we can figure out a way to make it work.

[ArtieChokePhin]

ok great .. we agree

Yes, everyone would get UBI equally.

You get the money the same way you get money in government. Taxes. Maybe a wealth tax, or a higher corporate income tax. Maybe a corporate tax based on the delta between CEO and lowest worker pay. I'm sure we can figure out a way to make it work.

And you know who pays for corporate income taxes?   People like you and me.  Corporations don't really pay taxes.  You try to up their taxes, they raise the prices of their goods and services to make up for it.

[Spider-Dan]

Artie, do YOU know who pays for low minimum wage jobs?  People like you and me.

Because when these businesses are allowed to pay poverty-level wages, their employees still qualify for federal assistance like section 8, food stamps, and healthcare subsidies, which come out of our pocket.  If these companies were forced to pay a decent wage (by raising the minimum wage), we wouldn't have to spend so much picking up their slack.

Corporations don't really pay taxes.  You try to up their taxes, they raise the prices of their goods and services to make up for it.

Corporations will always raise their prices as high as they think the market will allow, regardless of their tax burden (or lack thereof).  That's how capitalism works.

If we made corporations tax-exempt tomorrow, it would result in increased profits, not lower prices.  We know this because when Republicans have come into office and drastically lowered corporate taxes, prices don't go down... profits simply increase!

[Fau Teixeira]

The free market is a race to see who can squeeze the most out of the most people.  If McDonalds opts to raise their prices 10% to cover increased worker pay, then i'll be "hypothetically" buying greasy crap burgers from burger king instead, or wendy's, or maybe i'll just stop buying greasy crap burgers all together.

[Dolphster]

The free market is a race to see who can squeeze the most out of the most people.  If McDonalds opts to raise their prices 10% to cover increased worker pay, then i'll be "hypothetically" buying greasy crap burgers from burger king instead, or wendy's, or maybe i'll just stop buying greasy crap burgers all together.

Yes, and that is exactly the way it should work.  Although I don't 100% agree with your "squeeze the most out of the most people" comment, I can definitely see where it looks that way until you start to peel a lot deeper into the onion.  Adam Smith captured the concept of "the invisible hand" in what is considered the Bible of Capitalism, "Wealth of Nations" (the whole title is too long to bother typing, LOL) about 280 years ago.  And what you explained in your comment is a key concept in how the free market is supposed to work.  Although businesses can decide what they want to charge for their product, it is the market that ultimately makes that determination as they can "shop elsewhere" or not buy the product at all.  Of course that is a huge simplification and the actual moving parts of it all are a LOT more complicated than my example.  So although businesses most likely would love to "squeeze the most out of the most people" because the purpose of business is to maximize profits, the market ultimately determines just how much the people are willing to be squeezed.  Although not a perfect system, it does allow for some checks and balances.  Before anyone jumps all over this post, bear in mind that I said myself that my comments are a huge oversimplification.  But I'm sure nobody wants to see me go on for hours about the differences between Keynesian Economic Theory and the Friedman school of laissez faire economics. 

[Fau Teixeira]

Yes, and that is exactly the way it should work.  Although I don't 100% agree with your "squeeze the most out of the most people" comment, I can definitely see where it looks that way until you start to peel a lot deeper into the onion.  Adam Smith captured the concept of "the invisible hand" in what is considered the Bible of Capitalism, "Wealth of Nations" (the whole title is too long to bother typing, LOL) about 280 years ago.  And what you explained in your comment is a key concept in how the free market is supposed to work.  Although businesses can decide what they want to charge for their product, it is the market that ultimately makes that determination as they can "shop elsewhere" or not buy the product at all.  Of course that is a huge simplification and the actual moving parts of it all are a LOT more complicated than my example.  So although businesses most likely would love to "squeeze the most out of the most people" because the purpose of business is to maximize profits, the market ultimately determines just how much the people are willing to be squeezed.  Although not a perfect system, it does allow for some checks and balances.  Before anyone jumps all over this post, bear in mind that I said myself that my comments are a huge oversimplification.  But I'm sure nobody wants to see me go on for hours about the differences between Keynesian Economic Theory and the Friedman school of laissez faire economics. 

And for what it's worth I know it isn't that simple. And Adam Smith's work was too naive by a mile. The problem is that the free market is in no way free. Companies have too much power over government and laws and the free market for corporations must be countered by robust worker organization. That's the crux of the problem with specifically the American system. Companies only care about workers en masse realistically because that's how they work. But the average american psyche is wired with this idea of rugged individualism that the rest of the world doesn't really have.

This is especially glaring in the health care industry. At the point of sale, it's treated as a free market (albeit with regulation). Unfortunately your life isn't the same as an optional commodity like a big mac. So they have literally a captive audience.  The best way to provide healthcare has be unequivocally proven to be by funding it at a national level and having universal health care. It costs less, it provides better outcomes, and it leaves very few behind. But insurance companies have too much influence in government and too much money to appeal to that unrealistically individual nature of Americans that makes sure they remain in place. The largest leeches the world has ever seen.

[Dolphster]

And for what it's worth I know it isn't that simple. And Adam Smith's work was too naive by a mile. The problem is that the free market is in no way free. Companies have too much power over government and laws and the free market for corporations must be countered by robust worker organization. That's the crux of the problem with specifically the American system. Companies only care about workers en masse realistically because that's how they work. But the average american psyche is wired with this idea of rugged individualism that the rest of the world doesn't really have.

This is especially glaring in the health care industry. At the point of sale, it's treated as a free market (albeit with regulation). Unfortunately your life isn't the same as an optional commodity like a big mac. So they have literally a captive audience.  The best way to provide healthcare has be unequivocally proven to be by funding it at a national level and having universal health care. It costs less, it provides better outcomes, and it leaves very few behind. But insurance companies have too much influence in government and too much money to appeal to that unrealistically individual nature of Americans that makes sure they remain in place. The largest leeches the world has ever seen.

Very well thought out points you make there.  And of course Adam Smith's work was "naive by a mile", but you have to keep in mind that it was written in the 1780's (I think).  But it was groundbreaking for the time and laid the foundation for future economic theories.  Same principle as when Alexander Fleming "discovered" penicillin.  His work was rudimentary and archaic by modern standards.  But we wouldn't have modern antibiotics if the ground work had not been laid by Fleming.

You definitely won't get any argument out of me regarding your comments on insurance.  Insurance is the biggest scam in this country (well, arguably the second biggest scam after religion but I'm not going to open that can of worms in here, LOL).  My wife is an RN and spent most of her career working in hospitals but a couple years ago she took a job as a Medical Case Manager for a very large insurance company.  It has worked out very well for her personally, but she always says that she sold her soul to the devil for a little more money, working from home and not having the wear and tear on her body of running around the hospital 12-13 hours per day.  But she says that insurance is even more evil than most people realize. 

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Very well thought out points you make there.  And of course Adam Smith's work was "naive by a mile", but you have to keep in mind that it was written in the 1780's (I think).  But it was groundbreaking for the time and laid the foundation for future economic theories.  Same principle as when Alexander Fleming "discovered" penicillin.  His work was rudimentary and archaic by modern standards.  But we wouldn't have modern antibiotics if the ground work had not been laid by Fleming.

You definitely won't get any argument out of me regarding your comments on insurance.  Insurance is the biggest scam in this country (well, arguably the second biggest scam after religion but I'm not going to open that can of worms in here, LOL).  My wife is an RN and spent most of her career working in hospitals but a couple years ago she took a job as a Medical Case Manager for a very large insurance company.  It has worked out very well for her personally, but she always says that she sold her soul to the devil for a little more money, working from home and not having the wear and tear on her body of running around the hospital 12-13 hours per day.  But she says that insurance is even more evil than most people realize. 

And for what it's worth I know it isn't that simple. And Adam Smith's work was too naive by a mile. The problem is that the free market is in no way free. Companies have too much power over government and laws and the free market for corporations must be countered by robust worker organization. That's the crux of the problem with specifically the American system. Companies only care about workers en masse realistically because that's how they work. But the average american psyche is wired with this idea of rugged individualism that the rest of the world doesn't really have.

This is especially glaring in the health care industry. At the point of sale, it's treated as a free market (albeit with regulation). Unfortunately your life isn't the same as an optional commodity like a big mac. So they have literally a captive audience.  The best way to provide healthcare has be unequivocally proven to be by funding it at a national level and having universal health care. It costs less, it provides better outcomes, and it leaves very few behind. But insurance companies have too much influence in government and too much money to appeal to that unrealistically individual nature of Americans that makes sure they remain in place. The largest leeches the world has ever seen.

Adam Smith’s model has a few basic assumptions that are absolutely essential for capitalism to work fairly that have not been incorporated into our current system.  Chief among them is transparency and equality of information. Others include a prevention of monopolies or near monopolies and equal access to resources.

[ArtieChokePhin]

Adam Smith’s model has a few basic assumptions that are absolutely essential for capitalism to work fairly that have not been incorporated into our current system.  Chief among them is transparency and equality of information. Others include a prevention of monopolies or near monopolies and equal access to resources.

All of which are good points.  Why can't we choose any health insurance company in any state?   Why can't we choose which company we want for cable/internet?