The short answer is: the restaurant raises prices. In effect, customers bear the expense directly.
One of the stupidest ideas some people believe is the notion that giving more money to one group of people causes that group to spend more money in ways that grow the economy, eventually benefiting all groups. Here we have the perfect refutation. Giving more money to restaurant workers causes restaurant patrons to endure an exactly equal loss of money. On balance there is no gain anywhere to anyone.
Call it the Happy Meal fallacy, or: There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
The reality is that when McDonalds or Walmart does not pay “living wages” then the rest of us make up the difference with a dog’s breakfast of subsidy and support programs. Maybe the people who use the services provided should be the one’s who pay the cost? If that means higher prices, so be it.
But here is a better idea. Get rid of the minimum wage. Get rid of all that dog’s breakfast of support programs. Replace them with Universal Basic Income sufficient to provide food and shelter. Then, let market forces decide on wage rates.
LikeLiked by 3 people
UBI can never work, because it severs the linkage between production and consumption. There is, in consequence, no way to “pay” for it.
LikeLike
Uh, we already have de facto UBI. We just administer it very inefficiently.
As for paying for it? Easy. We already are paying for it but if we need more then raise taxes on those who can pay and stop spending on things that we do not need.
You seem to be interested in new ideas, even counter-intuitive ideas. I suggest you learn more about UBI and not reject it out of hand.
LikeLike
RE: “Uh, we already have de facto UBI. We just administer it very inefficiently.”
That should tell you something. Policy reform won’t change the basic economics of social welfare spending.
Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek both discussed this topic at length. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with their work.
LikeLike
“That should tell you something?”
It does. It tells me that we can afford UBI and that it needs to be administered more efficiently.
Milton Friedman advocated a negative income tax as far back as 1962 (“Capitalism and Freedom”). He repeated his advocacy in 1980 (“Free to Choose”). While not exactly the same as UBI, a negative income tax is very, very similar.
Frederick Hayek advocated for a guaranteed minimum income in his 1944 book “The Road to Serfdom” and again in “Law, Legislation and Liberty” Once again, some differences, but in essence the same idea as UBI.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “It tells me that we can afford UBI and that it needs to be administered more efficiently.”
It should tell you that efficient administration is unlikely.
As for your glosses on Friedman and Hayek, neither supported UBI-type schemes based on economics. Both regarded social welfare spending by governments as undesirable, but probably unavoidable in light of uneducated public opinion.
LikeLike
Please clarify to everyone what a “living wage” is? Does it include the latest cell phone and service? Nights at the omni? Eating out every day and/or delivery? How about a vacation or two? Breast implants? Every person’s idea of it would be vastly different. You socialists just have no clue, do you?
LikeLike
Of course people have different ideas about what a “living wage” should be. It is not clear cut. And everyone has different needs. Think of it as the level of income such that a family does not need handouts from the government to survive in our economy as it is today. “Survival” is a pretty low threshold. One that we already provide for through a dog’s breakfast of subsidies and handouts.
By the way, the fact that you label everyone to the left of Attila the Hun as a “socialist” says a lot more about you than it does about them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s simple, raise the cost of an employee enough to cover amortizing a machine, and bingo, another unemployed Democrat thinking that corporate America is out to get him.
LikeLike
…” another unemployed Democrat thinking that corporate America is out to get him.”
Yeah. Like there are no Republicans or Libertarians unemployed that think the same damned thing. You were doing just fine until your last little, anti-safety net line.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, you’re saying that the food service workers who lose their job to a machine correctly identify the market interventions by Democrats as the cause?
If so, why are they Democrats?
LikeLike
That is NOT what I said. I called you out for saying only those who are losing their jobs to automation are Democrats.
Quite unreasonable statement by you. AGAIN.
LikeLike
Republicans, and especially Libertarians, recognize the link between an artificially high minimum wage and job losses.
Only Democrats think you can pass a law against gravity and then be able to fly.
LikeLike
Republicans and Libertarians have sold their soul to some “private citizen” in Palm Beach County, FL. It is now time to doubt, seriously, their reasoning on anything.
And your blind hatred for anything progressive continues to dull any sheen of rational thought you may have had. You accuse many here of basing their opinions strictly on hatred of T****. Back atcha, Dr. Tabor.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In a rational economic system the machine – if its OVERALL cost is less than a person – SHOULD do the work and sooner rather than later, they will. And THAT is exactly why we need UBI. Vast categories of work are going to be disappearing in very short order and we need a solution for the massive economic displacement that is inevitable. And this is not just – or even mainly – a problem at the bottom end. Knowledge workers – typically middle-class – are even more at risk from technological advances.
LikeLiked by 2 people
FWIW I completely agree with your perspective on this issue and see it as inevitable (assuming we can hold this Republic together…).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, we could always legalize prostitution and create millions of new jobs.
🙂
LikeLike
As we should, drugs as well.
There are a plethora of untapped non-machine (yet) jobs to be leveraged…
LikeLiked by 2 people
I won’t tell your missus about that. And her with a bum knee and all. 😉
LikeLike
Just trying to think of jobs people who can’t see the connection between a $15 minimum wage and unemployment can handle.
LikeLike
Is that what Mrs. T is gonna hear form you?
LikeLike
RE: “Vast categories of work are going to be disappearing in very short order and we need a solution for the massive economic displacement that is inevitable.”
Economists call that the “Luddite Fallacy.”
Vast categories of work are always disappearing.
LikeLike
The “fallacy” does tend to hold true.
It is a matter of timing/training and really not at the heart of point he’s making…
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “It is a matter of timing/training and really not at the heart of point he’s making…”
His point is that we need UBI because automation will eliminate jobs. His rationale for UBI is a well-known fallacy.
LikeLike
Well, in the short run it will eliminate jobs, perhaps many and for a considerable amount of time.
A reasonable UBI would allow painless transition as retraining/industry realignment occurs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is hardly a fallacy. It is happening now. And the pace of it happening is only going to increase. It is not just that people will be working more efficiently and thus putting other people out of work. It is that people will not be working at all. We are only just now scratching the surface of what robotics and AI can do.
Luddites oppose technical progress. I do not. I welcome it. But we have to change how we think about things or it will be a disaster.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even when first presented the “fallacy” did not mathematically (Econ wonk stuff) account for the slope of the line creasing at an increasing rate. At this point both the pace and depth of change make predictions a crap shoot. IMO.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You are what you eat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My wife has called me an “Impossible Whopper” in the past.
LikeLike