Just like ATM's replacing tellers - they forget about the software programmers!

Here in Oklahoma City, the average minimum wage is over $10/hr, driven not by Federal, State, or municipal mandate, but by the demand for labor. The economy is thriving here in OK, mainly because the "okies" learned from the oil bust of the '80s. Back then, one of every eight jobs was based on the oil industry, so everything depended on the price of oil. Today, only one of every 28 jobs in the state is based on the energy industry. The economy is diverse, and the state is business-friendly. When I try pointing all this out to a liberal, and suggest they investigate to see the pattern in other healthy state economies, it's like talking to a wall.

The *MINIMUM* wage is $0.00 AKA 'UNEMPLOYED' -- No amount of government intervention is going to change that when the Producers shrug.

The machines are already here! They're even in Chili's Restaurant ads. What do you bet it'll be the next protest topic, led by the minimum-wagers who lose their jobs to tablet ordering & payment systems?

The head of Burger King said it best: dollar menus would disappear. All their fare would take on the expense characteristic of swanky sit-down restaurants.

Working in the food service industry, I can tell you that this is already happening. Many restaurants are now moving to take orders and payments using a computer embedded in the table surface.

Time for entrepreneurs to make simple robot devices to take the place of the $15.hr workers who cant pay for themselves. Jobs that arent worth $15/hr will simply disappear. Robot technology is up to speed now. It just takes someone to make them intuitive and easy to use. They would do a better job than the front counter people taking orders, and they dont get workers comp, payroll taxes, unemployment, maternity leave, etc. Time to reduce employment !!

I hope that the government does put in a $15 minimum wage. That will push the fast food places to install robot kiosks at the counter and get rid of the people taking the orders once and for all. They dont listen to what you want, and cant remember more than a few words at a time. They arent really worth the current minimum wage, lete alone a higher one. I should develop a really intuitive robot kiosk and try to sell them to the fast food places in advance of minimum wage increases

absolutely, which is why it will come down to that before this socialism thing is finally over with. Venezuela is getting close to that

Actually I agree totally with your example. I was addressing what I thought was the main thrust of the article: a fast-food worker can't make enough to "make a living wage",support a family etc., while I was stating that in a free market they could.

There would certainly be many part-time and full-time jobs available that would pay below the "fast-food" wage, but would still be attractive to people who aren't supporting a family, e.g., as you say such as teenagers living at home simply trying to make some spending money, a single poor kid just starting out who only needs to supports himself, but needs to start at the bottom to gain the experience to get a better job, etc. The sad fact is that it is just these type of people who are most hurt by the minimum wage, and they are excluded by law from taking jobs they would be more than happy with, and would suit their current situations.

I agree with everything you say, but as you point out, the liberals arguments always have more to do with emotions and irrelevant observations than with a reasonable analysis. it is incredibly frustrating to deal with them, and many discussions I've had usually wind up with the liberal getting emotional in the face of fact and reasonable arguments, and they walk away.

There is no direct, logical connection between what the CEO earns, the profit margin of the company, the dividends they pay their shareholders etc...or anything else like that.

In offering a worker a specific wage for a specific job, there are only two considerations that are relevant as far as the trade between the employer and the worker: do you have the skills to do the job, and will you do it at the same or lower wage than some other, equally qualified worker? The wage being offered, as you point out, is only a part of the total cost of the employee to the employer, and those need to be factored in by the employer. And the offer by the employer comes down to: if you can do this particular job for this particular wage, I can make money, and your hired. All else is completely irrelevant.

These employees don't see the connection between their work and what the company earns [or doesn't]. They actually don't see much of anything except "ME, ME, ME". One ME is OK - after all, Objectivism. But if that's all you see, the company will not see you.

I'm not sure I agree. There are jobs that could be profitably done at a wage too low for someone to make a living at. But there are people who have their living assured, such as teenagers, who may just wish to make some money.

In a completely free market we might see teens hanging around the gas station making spending money once more.

lol.

This was a truly great article. Too bad the right people will never read it - and if they did, it would just go in one ear and out the other.

If we could just get directive 10-289 in place, we wouldn't have these issues anymore.

I agree and disagree, given context:

In the current regulated, slapped-down, not-even-close-to Capitalist economy, a "fast-food worker" most likely cannot earn a "living wage", whatever that means.

But nor do they "deserve to" earn whatever this wage might be, and no, a "minimum wage" is the worst solution. Their only choice, in this context, is to view it as an entry-level job, and strive on their own initiative for something better.

Having said that, in a proper, unregulated, free-market economy, with full implementation of an intelligent division of labor driven by capitalists who fully own and can fully manage at their will and direction the means of production, even the lowest "entry-level" level worker would always earn a living wage. And hope and strive for better in the future...or choose to live a decent life at that level.

I've debated the minimum wage issue on numerous liberal sites. The one thing that NEVER comes into consideration is that the work that the employee does must bring in enough money to pay them.

They focus on the profitability of the company, how much the CEO makes, how much the employee deserves, how hard it is to support a family of four on these wages.

The bottom line is that none of these things matter. Each employee must contribute enough to the bottom line to pay their salary, their employment taxes, mandated healthcare and other expenses of employing them. If they do not, then the business is better off without them -- and will do without them.