There are such efficiencies to be have in restaurants. In Japan I went to a curry restauraunt that was run by 2 staff. Two people did the cooking, taking orders, collecting bills, serving food. The whole operation was two staff.

Back home I went to an equivalent size burger joint that had 6 people on staff that I could see.

With good design and prep a curry restaurant was able to serve the same amount of food with 1/3 the staff. They could double the wage of the staff and still have money left over with better prep and design.

Plenty of places drop down staff. Taco bell cuts down to a staff of 2 during the night shit. However, if there is any sort of rush on food, it all breaks down.

My point was that well designed and well run places can run during busy times with minimal staff.

Well, then you don't have a society and economy that can support both employment and decent wages.

In which case you should take a long hard look at what's wrong with it instead of using semi-employment under horrible wages as a band aid...

What makes the US unique that it needs to forego minimum wage? Unemployment isn't much different from most countries in Europe or other comparable economies.

Really? Really? Take a look at the unemployment in Spain or France and get back to me.

Also, not all countries in Europe have a minimum wage - there's no official minimum wage in Norway (although the de facto minimum wage is a lot higher than in the US).

>Really? Really? Take a look at the unemployment in Spain or France and get back to me.

Really? Really? You think the unemployment in Spain and France is because of the minimum wage? They had the minimum wage decades before they had high unemployment (and inversely for the US).

Not to mention unemployment rate doesn't say much, since in the US it includes all kinds of subsistence semi-jobs that would qualify more like colonial deals in other countries -- among other manipulations:

"The answer lies in the measurement of unemployment. If you have not looked for a job in the last four weeks, you are not counted as being unemployed, because you are not counted as being part of the work force. When there are no jobs to be found, job seekers become discouraged and cease looking for jobs. In other words, the 4.1 percent unemployment rate does not count discouraged workers who cannot find jobs. (...) The US Bureau of Labor Statistics has a second measure of unemployment that includes workers who have been discouraged and out of the labor force for less than one year. This rate of unemployment is 8.2 percent, double the 4.1 percent reported rate. (...) The US government no longer tracks unemployment among discouraged workers who have been out of the work force for more than one year. However, John Williams of shadowstats.com continues to estimate this rate and places it at 22 or 23 percent, a far cry from 4.1 percent. In other words, the 4.1 percent unemployment rate does not count the unemployed who do show up in the declining labor force participation rate." [1]

In any case, even with the given "unemployment rate" as the metric, the US is well below Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Guatemala, and other places, the same way it is, itself, ahead of France. Does that tell you much?

[1] https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2018/03/08/make-believe...

Funny, in France there's also the same kind of manipulation to reduce the official unemployment. And that for all people who stopped being considered unemployed, only a minority had actually found a job (I saw that figure a few years ago, so it might have changed, but I doubt it).

Unemployment in France is at a ten year low.

The relatively high unemployment rate in Spain is not related to the minimum wage, but has been linked to their economy being driven mainly by tourism and construction. In fact, the minimum wage in Spain is neither very high nor very low compared to other European countries.

Are you blaming the higher unemployment ratios in those countries on the minimum wage?

The UK has a minimum wage and low unemployment. At the time it was introduced we were warned it would lead to increased unemployment but that turned out to be wrong.

The UK also discriminates by age when it comes to minimum wage though.[0]

The minimum wages per hour in the UK are:

* Apprentices: £3.90

* Under 18: £4.35

* 18 to 20: £6.15

* 21 to 24: £7.70

* 25 and over: £8.21

This isn't exactly the same type of minimum wage most other countries use. This would probably be considered age discrimination in some countries.

[0] https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates

It's not perfect but there were still dissenting voices from businesses and politicians in opposition.