Fast Food workers declare minimum wage "unlivable"

As I said before... you aren't accounting for higher business taxes, unemployment and now the Obamacare tax that businesses have to pay.

Adjusting for inflation ignores all that.

Force a wage hike on business, in today's business climate, and you will lose some of them.



That said, I don't know how anyone lives on that kind of money so it seems an increase would be nice.... but forcing it on businesses is wrong.

 

Well, you framed it in the context of 'welfare recipients".....

So..... that's what I responded to in showing you that 14 out of the 15 states receiving the most welfare per capita are in fact blue states.
Now if you'd like to re-define 'welfare' to include 'corporate welfare' then by all means link to, and define for us 'corporate' welfare and show us the data you're relying upon.

 

All of that is accounted for in the higher price of the product. In 1965 a cheeseburger at McD was 20 cents, today it's 99 cents. McDonalds has obviously raised their prices to meet their rising costs. The ONLY cost that hasn't been adjusted correctly is labor.

As I posted yesterday, raising the minimum wage to $9.27 an hour would cost the average McDonalds $70K a year when the average store does $2.2M in sales a year. No McDonalds is going to close the doors over that , I assure you.

Oh and frankly, business costs have NEVER been part of the minimum wage formula. Why would they be? If they were you would certainly have to have a different wage for different industries, because their costs are different. Oh and of course for different areas of the country .

Nope, the minimum wage is based solely on wage versus cost of living for the employee, not for the employer.

 

Most red states get more money back from the government than they put in while complaining about government spending. Red States do laws and policies so the Federal Government has to pay their bills. It has nothing to do with small populations. It has all to do with sucking from the tit of the Federal Government.

The blues states PAY more to those who need welfare. Not the Federal Government but the state itself. We care about people.

 

Yes comparatively the cost of living back then was more comparable to the wages/salaries the average person received. Most people back then didn't get minimum wage either. You got minimum for a few weeks and then you either got a raise or got fired. But here is the real kicker, costs were based on what the average person made not what they could get out of the government. That is where we have gotten lost. The cost of living is no way realistic/comparable to what the average worker makes these days.

40-50 years ago the average family had only one family member as the primary provider. The average cost of housing (including utilities) took up no more than 1/3rd of the total income of that single person providing for their family.

The cost of college tuition was extremely low, city college tuition were under a hundred dollars per semester in most places, so if a maid, gas station attendant, or the stocker at the local market wanted their child to to go to college, or they wanted to better their own educational prospects, a little money each week in a savings account could and did go a long way to making that a reality.

Back then the country still lived by the code of an honest days wages for an honest days work. Most people didn't go to college because quite frankly, if you 'worked', you could make good or better wages than an office worker, a teacher, or store clerk (who were also paid on commission where they could earn so much they could own their own home which were realistically priced on what the average consumer could afford as well).


Groceries were cheap and plentiful because most cities had a local source for their food. Butchers, who butchered and sold their own livestock was a norm back then, and farmers were everywhere in those days. Now the bulk of all food sold is isolated to small sections of the country and Mexico where our food supply is grown in sewer water.

People who worked as farmers, and/or domestic help, usually received a wage, plus room and board, which is almost unheard of these days.

Today the corporations know they do not have to pay fair wages because there are so many people unemployed, and not enough jobs to go around. IOW they have the advantage when offering wages. They also know that the government will pick up the slack to supplement the insufficient wages they offer. They also encourage their underpaid employees to seek out and obtain all the federal assistance they are eligible for because of their insufficient wages. Many of these corporate entities work out special deals for their employees, clinics, day care, etc... and even provide their under paid employees with the forms and documentation needed to obtain such government handouts. And if that does keep their profit margin to an acceptable level they can always hire illegal aliens, help them get fake documentation on a regular basis so they can steal from the government as well.

And it isn't just the corporations who jump on the government gravy train, slum lords make a killing too with the government housing supplemental programs available. It's the reason some folks on welfare can get a 3 bedroom condo in places like Vegas and other locations, with a garage and a fireplace, considered section 8 housing when other alternatives are not available. Now just exactly whom is benefiting the most from welfare programs again?

If those examples do not convince you that welfare for the poor is simply another corporate welfare scam, how about food stamps? They don;t even try to hide the fact that food stamps are funded by the Dept of Agriculture, (well they have lately) but even if they take it out of that dept, over 90% of the subsidies provided by the best government corporate money can buy, goes to 5 of the richest corporate food suppliers in the world.

And college tuition, why is it so high again? Oh yea that the government too. Most every institution of higher learning gets the major majority of their money from grants, scholarships, and government guaranteed loans that are all handed out like candy to any eligible candidate. The sad thing is that out of all the people who sign up for college only about 1/2 will actually graduate, and of those that do graduate most will not find a job at their level of expertise even with the lambskin they paid literally up to and over $100,000 to obtain. all on credit that will most likely never get paid back, or at government expense for the most part.

Even those Obama phones were made possible by corporate welfare program started by a republican congress under Newt Gingrich's leadership, but hey why listen to facts or reality when it is so much easier just to hate poor people who never created a welfare program or had the power to do so even if they wanted too.

 

I'm not saying minimum wage has anything to do with the cost of business.
I'm saying if you force a business to raise it's minimum wage, it will add to the cost of business.
Layoffs? Less hours per employee? That would save a lot, because they could discontinue benefits (and boy watch them protestors rage over that!).

The cost of running a business is already going up with Obamacare and other things.
If you ALSO force them to raise their wages, it WILL affect them.
How much? Depends on the business.

You seem to think the only business is McDonald's.

 

Great post, fully agree.

People just don't seem to realize that we're killing ourselves so that a few can get richer. Are we seriously to believe that the McDonalds franchisee can't afford an extra $70K a year in wages so that we could lower our welfare payments?

Thnk about the math for a moment. There are 14,000 McDonalds in the US. Let's assume that wages went up on average $70K a year per store and a corresponding amount of welfare was saved every year. That's an astounding $980M saved in welfare PER year just by demanding that McDonalds pay a minimum wage that reflects inflation.

And that's just ONE corporation.

 

Frankly, who cares?

As I've amply illustrated, at minimum wage full time employees are eligible for welfare, are you seriously suggesting that employers shouldn't be required to pay a wage that keeps a full time employee off of the welfare rolls?

Do you truly not understand that raising the minimum wage to $9.27 an hour saves the American tax payer almost a billion dollars in welfare while costing a guy who is grossing on average $2.2M a year per store a mere $70K a year?

We're not going to cut of welfare, thinking that we will is stupid. No , it's more than stupid, its the sign of someone who just has no business discussing anything.

Since when is getting people off of welfare a bad thing?

 

Many things must be forced upon business. When money enters the picture, ethics and morals fly out the window. It it were up to businesses, folks would be chained to desks, wearing depends with food tubes at each station. If it were up to business our water and air would rival that of China. If it were up to business, they'd import slaves from other countries for their sweatshops.

Don't act as if business is all holy and light.

You also act as if business is the only "poor soul" suffering from taxes and regulations even though they are making RECORD profits. Inflation has increased prices across the board by 10% over the past 5 years. No pity for the minimum wage worker in all that? Some things are no longer on the table for low wage earners, things like coffee, transportation, a place to stay that is their own such as a studio apartment.

All you well off people that sneer down your nose at those less fortunate, need a big slice of humble pie.

 

Alaska - Federal land, and lots of it. Military bases. Fish and wildlife. Pipeline. Smaller population.
So of course there is more money coming in than taxes going out.
That's not a hard thing to understand.
Does that make it a "welfare state" ?

Louisiana - Katrina. Generally poor population.
The Dakotas & New Mexico - Indian land, protected/paid for by the Feds.

I think all but one of the states on his list is in the lower half based on population.
4 are near the bottom.

Again, this list has been around, it's been debated a lot.
And defeated always.


And small populations have always had "something to do" with "per capita" statistics.

 

Your list is BS, and its not even "corporate welfare" as others have noted. As you did not link it (what a shock !!!!), it appears to include all federal spending, not the least of which is military. As in military bases.

Your claim was shot down in a flaming 5-spiral crash. As noted, the welfare states are the blue states. And it ain't close.

 

Again, as noted, this is really lame. The states aren't "getting money". Military bases and other functions that are federal employees are now being cited by such as you as being equivalent to some parasite collecting food stamps, welfare, section 8, etc.

 

The companies... who happen have total control over who stays employed or not.

What part of "I don't see how they live on that, an increase would be nice" would make you even ask such a dumb question ?

I haven't bothered to check your numbers, so they mean nothing.
What I do know is that raising the cost of business, affects businesses... and in turn.... affects their employment decisions.

Ever heard of "pricing yourself right out of a job" ?

Why get so angry with the name calling and stuff ?
Sheesh.

Ask the left.

 

What does ANY of this crap have to do with this thread

 

What is "corporate welfare" can you give me the specific legislation that authorizes and funds corporate welfare? And not having some amount of money taxed is NOT welfare by definition.

 

No they don't, the government elects to provide for those who do not have it. The employer is under no obligation, at least not yet, to provide healthcare to employees and there is no reason they should be as a condition of employment. There is no intrinsic connection between employment and you health care.

 

The military industrial complex.

 

And let's not forget, if a business has to pay more to stay in business, some may close, but some will also raise the prices on their services or goods.

I honestly can't understand the argument from the left on this sometimes. On one hand they scream about big business and outsourcing labor to other countries because it's cheaper, but turn around in the same breath and demand double wages for unskilled jobs. It makes no sense.

On top of that, let's be realistic about exactly who is actually working for minimum wage. In 2012, 4.7% of ALL hourly waged workers worked for minimum wage or less according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm).

Also of note (it is important to note the bolded sections):

Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 21 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over. (See table 1 and table 7.)

In 2012, 6 percent of women paid hourly rates had wages at or below the prevailing federal minimum, compared with about 3 percent of men. (See table 1.)

About 5 percent of White, Black, and Hispanic or Latino hourly paid workers earned the federal minimum wage or less. Among Asian workers paid at hourly rates, about 3 percent earned the minimum wage or less. (See table 1.)

Among hourly paid workers age 16 and over, about 10 percent of those who had less than a high school diploma earned the federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 4 percent of those who had a high school diploma (with no college) and about 2 percent of college graduates. (See table 6.)

Never-married workers, who tend to be young, were more likely than married workers to earn the federal minimum wage or less (about 8 percent versus about 2 percent). (See table 8.)

About 11 percent of part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were paid the federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 2 percent of full-time workers. (See table 1 and table 9.)

By major occupational group, the highest proportion of hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage was in service occupations, at about 12 percent. About three-fifths of workers earning the minimum wage or less in 2012 were employed in service occupations, mostly in food preparation and serving related jobs. (See table 4.)

The industry with the highest proportion of workers with hourly wages at or below the federal minimum wage was leisure and hospitality (about 19 percent). About half of all workers paid at or below the federal minimum wage were employed in this industry, the vast majority in restaurants and other food services. For many of these workers, tips and commissions supplement the hourly wages received. (See table 5.)

The states with the highest proportions of hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage were Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, and Idaho (all between 7 and 8 percent). The states with the lowest percentages of hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage were Alaska, Oregon, California, Montana, and Washington (all under 2 percent). It should be noted that some states have minimum wage laws establishing standards that exceed the federal minimum wage. (See table 2 and table 3.)

The proportion of hourly paid workers earning the prevailing federal minimum wage or less declined from 5.2 percent in 2011 to 4.7 percent in 2012. This remains well below the figure of 13.4 percent in 1979, when data were first collected on a regular basis. (See table 10.)

 

I fully agree with this part. Employees can't have it all. They can't have a correctly adjusted minimum wage hike AND mandatory "perks"

At some point, a line must be drawn. At present it is too far in favor of the employer, but we surely must be careful not to move it too far the other way.

 

1972 had minimum wage of just over $3 an hour. Had two roomates to share expenses, cable was just coming out and we didn't have it. We also would get together with friends on weekends and have big cookouts where everyone brought something which cut cost. Carpooled to work too.

It can be done. What the left doesn't understand that if you have a minimum wage job and that's it don't start a family and start having kids. You can't afford it. Do what it takes to make your labor valuable enough to do so and then get a job doing it and THEN have your family.

 

Really??

 

Let's take your numbers as face value.

I think we recognize that while most hourly workers aren't making $7.25 an hour, we can certainly admit that there are MANY MANY more who are earning less than the $9.27 an hour figure that would represent an actual adjustment for inflation in the minimum wage.

That is why when I did my math earlier in the thread I counted ALL McDonalds hourly employees, rather than the 2 -5 most stores probably have who are actually earning minimum wage.

So yes, some employees would get the full bump, but most would not most would say go from $8.40 to $9.27 or something along those lines.

 

Thank you. Very informative.

Especially this...

All this complaining about something that affects such a small percentage. And a percentage that has been shrinking anyway.

 

If you are making minimum wage you are not in the middle class. But do tell me how much profit should a corporation make? And if the person's labor does not provide more than the $7.50 plus all the employment taxes which brings it up to around $10 an hour then they are not worth it. If you want to make more then increase the value of your labor and utilize it.