national minimum wage LAWS. good or bad?

[MoonShadow]

Better yet, how about I actually highlight your errors, rather than respond to your attempt to pretend that you actually interpreted the discourse correctly the first time....

it's worth noting that the idea that we suffocate in an environment or an atmosphere without co2 is wrong -- we do not suffocate, we do breathe, even el 100% oxygen, because the body is producing co2 as you breathe so there's always enough co2 to in the lungs to trigger your respiration reflex.

Please note, if you will, that you highlighted the correct part of the original post that I was responding to.  However, you then completely misinterpreted it to mean something entirely differnet....

Oxygen makes up slightly less than 21% of Earth's atmosphere. CO2 less than .04%. Even replacing all CO2 with oxygen wouldn't be enough to noticeably change the percentage of O2 in the atmosphere.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_gases_make_up_the_earth%27s_atmosphere

You appear to conclude that he, and presumedly I, were talking about replacing 100% of CO2 with oxygen in the atmostphere.  That wouldn't be dangerous at all. Duh. No one was talking about replacing less than  a percentage point of anything with anything else.  And then you folow up with this...

100% Oxygen however, is lethal, not because we'd fail to breathe, but because the oxygen itself would kill us.

Which was almost exactly my argument.  So what do you do?

Sure. Care to point out where in this:


Quote from: MoonShadow on Today at 07:15:04 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity


You found this?

CO2 is used by the body to determine when to actually cycle breath, but the presence of pure oxygen in the lungs, and the lack of CO2 of some small percentage, tricks the system into waiting to breath until the CO2 that is coming back from the bloodstream is high enough to trigger a breath.  The problem is that the detection of CO2 is delayed for many reasons, so while the lungs aren't really running low on oxygen, the stagnation of the oxygen in the lungs, combined with it's elevated concentration in the bloodstream, contributes to oxygen toxicity syndrome.

'cause I don't see it. I do see a lot of pulmonary effects, most notably irritation, but I also see references to "48 hours on pure oxygen..." Is that on sleep deprivation, as well?

The reason that you "don't see it" is because that link was just a reference for oxygen toxicity syndrome, but it even does have a loose reference in there that you filtered out with your cognative disonance...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity#Pulmonary_toxicity

The lungs, as well as the remainder of the respiratory tract, are exposed to the highest concentration of oxygen in the human body and are therefore the first organs to show toxicity. Pulmonary toxicity occurs with exposure to concentrations of oxygen greater than 0.5 bar (50 kPa), corresponding to an oxygen fraction of 50% at normal atmospheric pressure. Signs of pulmonary toxicity begins with evidence of tracheobronchitis, or inflammation of the upper airways, after an asymptomatic period between 4 and 22 hours at greater than 95% oxygen,[34] with some studies suggesting symptoms usually begin after approximately 14 hours at this level of oxygen"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity#Mechanism

The biochemical basis for the toxicity of oxygen is the partial reduction of oxygen by one or two electrons to form reactive oxygen species,[49] which are natural by-products of the normal metabolism of oxygen and have important roles in cell signalling.[50] One species produced by the body, the superoxide anion (O2–),[51] is possibly involved in iron acquisition.[52] Higher than normal concentrations of oxygen lead to increased levels of reactive oxygen species.[53] Oxygen is necessary for cell metabolism, and the blood supplies it to all parts of the body. When oxygen is breathed at high partial pressures, a hyperoxic condition will rapidly spread, with the most vascularised tissues being most vulnerable. During times of environmental stress, levels of reactive oxygen species can increase dramatically, which can damage cell structures and produce oxidative stress

As noted elsewhere, CO2 is used as a method to detect when the body needs to breath, but the system has delays; thus a pure oxygen environment leads to slower breathing cycles than even a 99.6% oxygen to 0.4% CO2 ratio would, permitting more time for oxygen to proceed through the reduction process before being expleled and replaced with fresh oxygen.  This doesn't prevent toxicity, but does delay it as more of the oxygen ions are expelled with the rest of the breath.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

[MoonShadow]

You really are incapable of recognizing your own faults, aren't you Myrkul?

[Rassah]

That they're competitive at all is a minor wonder, IMO.

Not to me.  They make damn good burgers.  Zero comparison to McD's or Burger King.  They're competitive for the same reason true "restaurant" burger joints are competitive.

So do Checkers and Hardee's. Their burgers are great. And they may pay higher than the minimum wage, too.

FirstAscent would argue that the reason is: Minimum wage laws, or something else, increases wages> Employees get paid higher wages > Employees are more competent and more satisfied > Employees make better burgers > Company makes more money due to sales, I guess?, because their burgers are as cheap as McD's

I'm saying that's somewhat ass-backwards, and it's actually Company differentiates itself by wanting to make better burgers > Company sets up quality standards for the burgers > Company pays for better ingredients and higher wages for better employees > Company sells better burgers, and charges a premium on the improved quality of food and service.

Minimum wage has nothing to do with it, and the burger quality improves from the top down (the company), not bottom up (employee's good intentions). And even these better burgers follow supply/demand/quantity/price: If there are not enough people willing to pay for the more expensive burgers, even if the burger chain makes a killing on profit margins, it is limited by how much it is able to sell and expand. That's probably why In-n-Out is still only on the west coast, while McDonalds is around the world.

[Rassah]

You really are incapable of recognizing your own faults, aren't you Myrkul?

Yeah, myrkul, what the hell was that? O.o

[myrkul]

You really are incapable of recognizing your own faults, aren't you Myrkul?

Why do you have such a hard-on for me? I'm in a committed relationship, I'm sorry.

He said that humans would continue to breathe, even in an atmosphere of 100% oxygen... and specifically started by saying "with no co2."

I don't believe anyone denied that it would be slowed. The oxygen would damage the lungs, yes. But we'd still breathe autonomically. Less frequently, and during those long breaths, the oxygen would have more time to do damage, but we sure as hell wouldn't suffocate, which is what he said, and what you failed to disprove with your little tirade on Oxygen toxicity.

And I am perfectly capable of recognizing my own faults. Are you?

[myrkul]

You really are incapable of recognizing your own faults, aren't you Myrkul?

Yeah, myrkul, what the hell was that? O.o

Pay attention, MoonShadow, I'm about to acknowledge my own faults:

It was not the best formatted post. I probably should have simply stopped after calling him out on the Strawman.

[SgtSpike]

That they're competitive at all is a minor wonder, IMO.

Not to me.  They make damn good burgers.  Zero comparison to McD's or Burger King.  They're competitive for the same reason true "restaurant" burger joints are competitive.

So do Checkers and Hardee's. Their burgers are great. And they may pay higher than the minimum wage, too.

FirstAscent would argue that the reason is: Minimum wage laws, or something else, increases wages> Employees get paid higher wages > Employees are more competent and more satisfied > Employees make better burgers > Company makes more money due to sales, I guess?, because their burgers are as cheap as McD's

I'm saying that's somewhat ass-backwards, and it's actually Company differentiates itself by wanting to make better burgers > Company sets up quality standards for the burgers > Company pays for better ingredients and higher wages for better employees > Company sells better burgers, and charges a premium on the improved quality of food and service.

Minimum wage has nothing to do with it, and the burger quality improves from the top down (the company), not bottom up (employee's good intentions). And even these better burgers follow supply/demand/quantity/price: If there are not enough people willing to pay for the more expensive burgers, even if the burger chain makes a killing on profit margins, it is limited by how much it is able to sell and expand. That's probably why In-n-Out is still only on the west coast, while McDonalds is around the world.

Yes, I completely agree with you.  The fact that In-N-Out is in business and NOT paying minimum wage only further proves the argument.  The market had set a natural wage floor for burger-flippers at the "higher quality" fast food joints.  There's no requirement for In-N-Out to pay anyone extra wages - they CHOOSE to do it because they want the better workers that come along with paying that higher wage.  Likewise, if someplace like McD's doesn't really care much about the quality of their workers, they (should be able to) choose to pay less than what the current minimum wage is to match that sentiment.  If they find that the turnover rate is too high, or that their workers are so bad as to be consistently driving customers away, then they would choose to raise their offered wages to acquire better workers.  The market would naturally set the proper wage, and we wouldn't be losing jobs due to minimum wage causing too much supply and too little demand in the labor market.

[FirstAscent]

None of which still answers how they can sell good burgers, with good service, and pay high wages, while still selling burgers cheaper than the competition. Something somewhere simply doesn't add up. Maybe they have the same business plan as Los Pollos Hermanos?

lol... No. Well, probably not. Efficient workers mean efficient production. Efficient production means you can make more burgers, faster. More burgers, faster, means you can price them cheaper, and thus sell more. And the prices aren't exactly lower than the competition. A double-double (two meat, two cheese) is ~$3.00 (source). A Double (two meat, two cheese) from McDonalds is ~$1.29. I haven't tasted In-N-Out's burgers, but it's probably worth the extra $1.70.

EDIT: it's up to $3.15...http://www.ocregister.com/articles/prices-297781-costs-year.html

Oh, so, you mean higher wages DOES mean higher costs and thus higher prices? Well, that example just got busted

What are you talking about? Seriously. You can't buy a burger/sandwich at McDonald's, Carls Jr., Jack in the Box, or any other fast food establishment for less than about $3.50 that is as filling as any burger at In-n-Out, let alone their Double Double. I noticed that you tried comparing it to McDonalds' little toy cheeseburgers, which is silly. And we haven't even begun to discuss the freshness or dripping good taste of In-n-Out burgers.

Let's be clear: Most fast food establishments sell their better burgers for $3.50 and more. That's more than In-n-Out's most expensive burger on the menu. There isn't a single burger, no matter how large or expensive at McDonald's that compares with an In-n-Out burger. McDonalds' Quarter Pounder, which is comparatively dull and not that filling, and has no lettuce or tomatoes, probably costs about $3.69 and does not compare to any burger at In-n-Out.

[FirstAscent]

... and charges a premium on the improved quality of food and service.

Ummn, no. Read my post above this. There is no premium. Their burgers actually cost less.

[FirstAscent]

That they're competitive at all is a minor wonder, IMO.

Not to me.  They make damn good burgers.  Zero comparison to McD's or Burger King.  They're competitive for the same reason true "restaurant" burger joints are competitive.

So do Checkers and Hardee's. Their burgers are great. And they may pay higher than the minimum wage, too.

FirstAscent would argue that the reason is: Minimum wage laws, or something else, increases wages> Employees get paid higher wages > Employees are more competent and more satisfied > Employees make better burgers > Company makes more money due to sales, I guess?, because their burgers are as cheap as McD's

I'm saying that's somewhat ass-backwards, and it's actually Company differentiates itself by wanting to make better burgers > Company sets up quality standards for the burgers > Company pays for better ingredients and higher wages for better employees > Company sells better burgers, and charges a premium on the improved quality of food and service.

Minimum wage has nothing to do with it, and the burger quality improves from the top down (the company), not bottom up (employee's good intentions). And even these better burgers follow supply/demand/quantity/price: If there are not enough people willing to pay for the more expensive burgers, even if the burger chain makes a killing on profit margins, it is limited by how much it is able to sell and expand. That's probably why In-n-Out is still only on the west coast, while McDonalds is around the world.

Yes, I completely agree with you.  The fact that In-N-Out is in business and NOT paying minimum wage only further proves the argument.  The market had set a natural wage floor for burger-flippers at the "higher quality" fast food joints.  There's no requirement for In-N-Out to pay anyone extra wages - they CHOOSE to do it because they want the better workers that come along with paying that higher wage.  Likewise, if someplace like McD's doesn't really care much about the quality of their workers, they (should be able to) choose to pay less than what the current minimum wage is to match that sentiment.  If they find that the turnover rate is too high, or that their workers are so bad as to be consistently driving customers away, then they would choose to raise their offered wages to acquire better workers.  The market would naturally set the proper wage, and we wouldn't be losing jobs due to minimum wage causing too much supply and too little demand in the labor market.

But the real problem is dimwitted management and policy. In-n-Out burgers actually cost less than your typical McDonalds 'better' burgers. Such businesses should actually go out of business rather than fund their bad business making decisions with hiring below minimum wage employees.

In-n-Out proves that $10+ an hour wages does not result in higher menu prices, despite using fresher ingredients.

I was in an In-n-Out today. I saw no empty tables. I saw four workers at four registers, one worker calling out numbers, one worker cleaning tables, nine people working in the kitchen, and I suspect there might have been at least one worker in some back room. I saw about ten customers at the beverage bar, and about ten more standing and waiting for their orders to go.

In-n-Out demonstrates how a business can and should work. They train their employees properly. The other guys seem like a ghost town in comparison - their bad policies and bad food are what require them to pay less wages.

[Anon136]

That they're competitive at all is a minor wonder, IMO.

Not to me.  They make damn good burgers.  Zero comparison to McD's or Burger King.  They're competitive for the same reason true "restaurant" burger joints are competitive.

So do Checkers and Hardee's. Their burgers are great. And they may pay higher than the minimum wage, too.

FirstAscent would argue that the reason is: Minimum wage laws, or something else, increases wages> Employees get paid higher wages > Employees are more competent and more satisfied > Employees make better burgers > Company makes more money due to sales, I guess?, because their burgers are as cheap as McD's

I'm saying that's somewhat ass-backwards, and it's actually Company differentiates itself by wanting to make better burgers > Company sets up quality standards for the burgers > Company pays for better ingredients and higher wages for better employees > Company sells better burgers, and charges a premium on the improved quality of food and service.

Minimum wage has nothing to do with it, and the burger quality improves from the top down (the company), not bottom up (employee's good intentions). And even these better burgers follow supply/demand/quantity/price: If there are not enough people willing to pay for the more expensive burgers, even if the burger chain makes a killing on profit margins, it is limited by how much it is able to sell and expand. That's probably why In-n-Out is still only on the west coast, while McDonalds is around the world.

Yes, I completely agree with you.  The fact that In-N-Out is in business and NOT paying minimum wage only further proves the argument.  The market had set a natural wage floor for burger-flippers at the "higher quality" fast food joints.  There's no requirement for In-N-Out to pay anyone extra wages - they CHOOSE to do it because they want the better workers that come along with paying that higher wage.  Likewise, if someplace like McD's doesn't really care much about the quality of their workers, they (should be able to) choose to pay less than what the current minimum wage is to match that sentiment.  If they find that the turnover rate is too high, or that their workers are so bad as to be consistently driving customers away, then they would choose to raise their offered wages to acquire better workers.  The market would naturally set the proper wage, and we wouldn't be losing jobs due to minimum wage causing too much supply and too little demand in the labor market.

But the real problem is dimwitted management and policy. In-n-Out burgers actually cost less than your typical McDonalds 'better' burgers. Such businesses should actually go out of business rather than fund their bad business making decisions with hiring below minimum wage employees.

In-n-Out proves that $10+ an hour wages does not result in higher menu prices, despite using fresher ingredients.

I was in an In-n-Out today. I saw no empty tables. I saw four workers at four registers, one worker calling out numbers, one worker cleaning tables, nine people working in the kitchen, and I suspect there might have been at least one worker in some back room. I saw about ten customers at the beverage bar, and about ten more standing and waiting for their orders to go.

In-n-Out demonstrates how a business can and should work. They train their employees properly. The other guys seem like a ghost town in comparison - their bad policies and bad food are what require them to pay less wages.

"In-n-Out proves that $10+ an hour wages does not result in higher menu prices" One data point does not empirically "prove" anything, cmon guy i know you are smarter than this.

[myrkul]

"In-n-Out proves that $10+ an hour wages does not result in higher menu prices" One data point does not empirically "prove" anything, cmon guy i know you are smarter than this.

No, he's really not... He's too focused on ecology to understand economics.

As he told me once, he really should stick to what he knows.

[FirstAscent]

As he told me once, he really should stick to what he knows.

I'm curious, myrkul. What exactly do you know?

[Rassah]

To be honest, comparing In-n-Out to McD's isn't that straightforward, because McD's prices vary drastically based on location. Around here, I can get a Angus Deluxe (One of McD's premium burgers with fresh vegies that does compare to In-n-Out burgers) for about $3.50. Down in Orlando near Disney World (Downtown Disney shopping strip), a Big Mac meal goes for about $7. Last time I was in Switzerland 10 years ago, that same meal went for $12 when converted to USD.
So FirstAscent may be looking at skewed prices for his McD's. For example, a Quarter Pounder here costs about $1.50 to $2.00, not $3.50.

[myrkul]

As he told me once, he really should stick to what he knows.

I'm curious, myrkul. What exactly do you know?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFbYM2EDz40

I know that when the minimum wage went up, so did the menu prices at McDonalds and most other fast food places. Minimum wage increases don't effect In-N-Out's prices because they don't pay minimum wage. If they did, they could sell their burgers more cheaply. Of course, they would likely lose some of that fine service, perhaps even some of the quality of the burger, thus selling fewer.

I know that you can't point to In-N-Out and say, "See, that's how all burger joints should be run." It's a business model that works, yes, but it wouldn't work for all fast food restaurants. You said you went to In-N-Out yesterday. Did you ask them the questions I gave you? What were the answers?

I know that smarter men than I, men who get paid for doing this sort of thinking, have determined that minimum wage laws are a detriment to an economy, and remove the bottom rungs on the ladder, creating unemployment.

I know you're full of shit.

[FirstAscent]

Around here, I can get a Angus Deluxe (One of McD's premium burgers with fresh vegies that does compare to In-n-Out burgers) for about $3.50.

Please render your opinion again once you've visited an In-n-Out.

[johnyj]

What is the minimum wage of a cat? I think she get a good social welfare system and do not need to work

Similarly, rich people having too much production power, they could afford to have some people walking around in the city without doing anything, just like pets. Or more positively, they want a pleasant social environment that everyone has a good living standard, so that they enjoy seeing everyone walking on the street have smile 

[firefop]

What is the minimum wage of a cat? I think she get a good social welfare system and do not need to work

Similarly, rich people having too much production power, they could afford to have some people walking around in the city without doing anything, just like pets. Or more positively, they want a pleasant social environment that everyone has a good living standard, so that they enjoy seeing everyone walking on the street have smile 

Interesting idea.

On the other hand, my cat pulls his own weight around the place. He keeps my outbuildings free of rodents (which he eats - mostly) and keeps stray cats away from the house. Sometimes he warms my lap when I sit on the porch and makes very relaxing sounds when I scratch him under his chin. In exchange for these benefits, I feed him once in awhile (mostly left over chicken parts that I'd just throw away anyway - or the last bit of milk or cream that's in the process of turning) and a handful of cat chow whenever I feel happen to feel like it (mostly on really cold or rainy days).

I'd call it more of a barter arrangement...

Now if you could convince some welfare recipient to keep people from asking me for spare change or cigarettes every time I walk around downtown... in exchange for the heels of my loaf of bread, the left over bits of vegetables that I've cut off my food before I cook it and the occasional day old donut, dollar burger or left over burrito AND be willing to sing/hum a catchy tune whenever I they were around...

Then yes, I suppose that idea might work.

[Topazan]

You really like In-N-Out, don't you FirstAscent?  

They have a really limited menu.  Your choices are basically hamburger (with or without cheese), fries, and drink.  That probably saves them a lot of time and money.  They probably have a grill, a fryer, shake machine, and soda fountain.  At the McDonald's where I worked, we had all that plus multiple grills for different meats, an extra set of fryers for chicken products, a steamer, a cafe setup, a microwave for the cinnamon melts, a device for marinating the McRibs, a counterside fridge for salads, and probably more things I don't even remember.  Buying and maintaining all these things must cost quite a bit.

I'm not really sure what this has to do with minimum wage though.  Raising the minimum wage isn't necessarily going to cause more places to adopt In-N-Out's business plan.

[firefop]

You really like In-N-Out, don't you FirstAscent?  

They have a really limited menu.  Your choices are basically hamburger (with or without cheese), fries, and drink.  That probably saves them a lot of time and money.  They probably have a grill, a fryer, shake machine, and soda fountain.  At the McDonald's where I worked, we had all that plus multiple grills for different meats, an extra set of fryers for chicken products, a steamer, a cafe setup, a microwave for the cinnamon melts, a device for marinating the McRibs, a counterside fridge for salads, and probably more things I don't even remember.  Buying and maintaining all these things must cost quite a bit.

I'm not really sure what this has to do with minimum wage though.  Raising the minimum wage isn't necessarily going to cause more places to adopt In-N-Out's business plan.

On the "limited menu"

You have to try stuff out to find out what's it called - they'll make anything (I'm big on animal style)... But here's a starter link http://daviswiki.org/in-n-out_secret_menu