McDonald's Literally Cannot Imagine How Its Workers Would Survive On Minimum Wage

[ashurbanipal]

I've harped on this before, so I suppose one more time wouldn't hurt: folks really need to read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Smith would think the economic decisions we've made in this country since the 1960's are very foolish. He pointed out that once all the land is owned, it's no longer possible for a person to "make themselves" economically speaking. A person can no longer go into the wilderness and make the land produce things of value, thereby converting their work into money in an arena of pure market economics, because there is no more wilderness. The very fact that all the land is owned means that market economics won't come about naturally; it's in the interest of land-owners (who are analogs now of company owners) to pay as little as possible, and they will always find ways to collude in order to do so. For Smith, a nation attains wealth by ensuring the highest possible wages for the working classes.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

This seems to be an unrealistically low figure...

Here it's entirely feasible :shrug:
Case and Point - there is no one single, working concept of a living wage.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Here it's entirely feasible
Case and Point - there is no one single, working concept of a living wage.

Well, where I grew up (Oklahoma City) and still have family, a flea-infested studio apartment in a shady part of town will run you $400 per month plus utilities. I'm not aware of too many places that are cheaper than OKC to live.

 

[VanceMack]

Apparently you missed the point. McDonalds doesn't want to pay its employees a living wage, so the rest of us have to do it via welfare and food stamps.

No...we dont HAVE to...

Hey...what happened to all my liberal 'science' based folk? What about that whole evolution thing...survival of the fittest, etc. Maybe we need to cut off ALL aid and assistance and cause people to have to actual make responsible choices or perish. Isnt that the preferred scientific response?

 

[CalGun]

Why is it every employers responsibility to provide living wages? Why can't an employer seek out only students, retirees and individuals that just want supplement their income or time? I don't get the lefts fascination with high school kids needing to make "living wages" are they that desperate for the kids income?

 

[Erod]

I don't know of any teenager who'd want to work TWO jobs to make that kind of money. Cuts into their party and other leisure time. LOL

Geez, that used to be as common as the day is long. I did it. My friends did it.

This nation has lost its work ethic.

 

[Middleground]

Yes, I know that the majority aren't teens. But they should be.

Who do you expect to work during school hours and late night? :doh

 

[ashurbanipal]

No...we dont HAVE to...

Hey...what happened to all my liberal 'science' based folk? What about that whole evolution thing...survival of the fittest, etc. Maybe we need to cut off ALL aid and assistance and cause people to have to actual make responsible choices or perish. Isnt that the preferred scientific response?

No. This is social darwinism, which was discredited in the 1930's. Human beings have the power to manipulate genetic traits through selective social policies, but this has nothing to do with survival of the fittest (which isn't even a phrase Darwin ever used). More to the point, evolution ranges over populations, not individuals.

Anyway, here's the bottom line, for me, anyway: there is a social contract. It's unspoken, but it's there. People engage in a society and an economy because their chances are better than when they're on their own. But when that contract breaks down far enough, and it no longer becomes advantageous, people start to pull out, and anyone who studies history will see a lot of blood, death, and chaos hiding behind that phrase. For those who want elaboration, read Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. Otherwise, my suggestion to those who oppose the idea of requiring companies to pay a living wage is to keep pushing policies that demand, on the one hand, obedience to laws, and on the other, no way for at least some individuals to make a decent living within those laws, and see what you get.

 

[Erod]

And is that the arrangement which people want in the end? I think that is a question we need to talk about as a society.

When workers at McDonald's and Wal Mart and other places work hard for a living but still need things like food stamps and other forms of public assistance, two things are happening

1- government is subsidizing those companies and allowing them to pay low wages knowing that the slack is picked up elsewhere
2- citizen taxpayers ultimately pick up the bill since it is our money going to government - both state and federal.

So that cheap toilet paper... that cheap burger .... that bottomless Coke ...... the cheap patio furniture ...... is not as cheap as you would have otherwise believed it was. You have to add into it the cost of Americans for welfare and food stamps and everything else that those poorly paid employees then get from government and the taxpayers.

That is not capitalism. That is not the free market. That is not competition determining the winners and losers.

And we subsidize those companies in so many other ways as well from infrastructure to sweetheart deals to get them to locate in a community and stay there.

Is that the system we want?

So apply oneself and get a better job.

Geez.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Well, that pretty much says it all. I'll take that as an acknowledgment that they aren't paying an adequate wage.

Are you prepared to pay $10 for a hamburger and $5 for some fries? If you want people to have a career that pays an "adequate wage" working at McDonalds or the equivalent, you better be prepared to pay the high cost of that adequate wage when you buy their products. Or would you just as soon see McDonalds close down and nobody there get any wage if they have to get a wage you consider insulting?

 

[Erod]

No. This is social darwinism, which was discredited in the 1930's. Human beings have the power to manipulate genetic traits through selective social policies, but this has nothing to do with survival of the fittest (which isn't even a phrase Darwin ever used). More to the point, evolution ranges over populations, not individuals.

Anyway, here's the bottom line, for me, anyway: there is a social contract. It's unspoken, but it's there. People engage in a society and an economy because their chances are better than when they're on their own. But when that contract breaks down far enough, and it no longer becomes advantageous, people start to pull out, and anyone who studies history will see a lot of blood, death, and chaos hiding behind that phrase. For those who want elaboration, read Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. Otherwise, my suggestion to those who oppose the idea of requiring companies to pay a living wage is to keep pushing policies that demand, on the one hand, obedience to laws, and on the other, no way for at least some individuals to make a decent living within those laws, and see what you get.

It is not against the law to get a better job. Or get another job. Or move somewhere.

If you're 35 and working as a cashier at McDonalds, I'm thinking your issues are self-inflicted. It simply isn't that hard to get somewhere in this country if you apply yourself and give an honest day's effort at your job. You'll get promoted. Or recruited. I promise.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Geez, that used to be as common as the day is long. I did it. My friends did it.

This nation has lost its work ethic.

You and your friends went to school full time and worked two full-time jobs? If my math skills serve me, that means you worked or went to school (not counting homework) 120 hours per week. This left you about 6.5 hours per day to eat, shower, do homework, chores and errands, travel to and from job-sites and school, and sleep. I worked that kind of schedule myself for a few years (it was one job, but it was 100+ hours per week, every week, no time off). I don't think it's a sustainable schedule for most people.

More to the point, I'm not sure I understand why people should work that much, or have to work that much. I think it's psychologically deleterious. If everyone worked like that, we wouldn't have a society, and probably not an economy. When in the world would someone spend their money on anything other than the bare necessities? No time to go eat at restaurants or see a movie or buy toys for the kids, let alone even have kids; and if you do have children with that kind of schedule, when do you have time to be a parent?

 

[VanceMack]

McDonald's Literally Cannot Imagine How Its Workers Would Survive On Minimum Wa

Who do you expect to work during school hours and late night? :doh

Back when I worked fast food it was moms and kids on work release from the schools or people that had just graduated, still lived at home, and didnt know what they wanted to do with their lives during the day shift and mostly teens right up until closing (or adults with second jobs for graveyard shifts and they usually got paid slightly better)

 

[ocean515]

And is that the arrangement which people want in the end? I think that is a question we need to talk about as a society.

When workers at McDonald's and Wal Mart and other places work hard for a living but still need things like food stamps and other forms of public assistance, two things are happening

1- government is subsidizing those companies and allowing them to pay low wages knowing that the slack is picked up elsewhere
2- citizen taxpayers ultimately pick up the bill since it is our money going to government - both state and federal.

So that cheap toilet paper... that cheap burger .... that bottomless Coke ...... the cheap patio furniture ...... is not as cheap as you would have otherwise believed it was. You have to add into it the cost of Americans for welfare and food stamps and everything else that those poorly paid employees then get from government and the taxpayers.

That is not capitalism. That is not the free market. That is not competition determining the winners and losers.

And we subsidize those companies in so many other ways as well from infrastructure to sweetheart deals to get them to locate in a community and stay there.

Is that the system we want?

It's facinating to view the new liberal/progressive meme about the Fed subsidizing business because they aren't paying a high enough wage.

Equally facinating is watching how these talking points are being spread by the ProgLib minions.

Imagine what it would be like without the Internet.

As was detailed in a previous post, the number of people receiving minimum wage is a very small percentage of the work force.

Think about it. The smart workers who applied themselves and got raises and promotions are being told they are no better than someone with no experience.

I'm thinking they are not going to like the way ProgLibs plan to treat them.

 

[Lukas105]

They are missing a lot of bills. Where is the food, gas, other stuff. Once you factor that in, I'm sure you would be in the negative. . .

Well, that pretty much says it all. I'll take that as an acknowledgment that they aren't paying an adequate wage.

 

[ashurbanipal]

It is not against the law to get a better job. Or get another job. Or move somewhere.

If you're 35 and working as a cashier at McDonalds, I'm thinking your issues are self-inflicted. It simply isn't that hard to get somewhere in this country if you apply yourself and give an honest day's effort at your job. You'll get promoted. Or recruited. I promise.

I disagree with the last bit. I think the common experience of people these days is that even with hard work, it's becoming very difficult to make ends meet. Many who would like full-time employment are unable to find it. You seem to have faith otherwise, but that's exactly what it seems to be: faith in a by-gone image that no longer reflects reality. The "land of opportunity" is a rapidly shrinking area, and our choices are either to face that and adapt, or whistle past the graveyard.

 

[VanceMack]

McDonald's Literally Cannot Imagine How Its Workers Would Survive On Minimum Wa

No. This is social darwinism, which was discredited in the 1930's. Human beings have the power to manipulate genetic traits through selective social policies, but this has nothing to do with survival of the fittest (which isn't even a phrase Darwin ever used). More to the point, evolution ranges over populations, not individuals.

Anyway, here's the bottom line, for me, anyway: there is a social contract. It's unspoken, but it's there. People engage in a society and an economy because their chances are better than when they're on their own. But when that contract breaks down far enough, and it no longer becomes advantageous, people start to pull out, and anyone who studies history will see a lot of blood, death, and chaos hiding behind that phrase. For those who want elaboration, read Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. Otherwise, my suggestion to those who oppose the idea of requiring companies to pay a living wage is to keep pushing policies that demand, on the one hand, obedience to laws, and on the other, no way for at least some individuals to make a decent living within those laws, and see what you get.

Part of that social contract should include preparing yourself for a future and not humping breeding like mice and having kids you can't afford and expect someone else to pay for you. Oh...and if you do put yourself in that situation be at least a LITTLE bit grateful to those that provide for your irresponsible actions. Maybe go wash a car or two or pick **** up from the sides of the road. You know. Something.

 

[Josie]

Who do you expect to work during school hours and late night? :doh

People who can live on minimum wage.

 

[mbig]

Are you prepared to pay $10 for a hamburger and $5 for some fries? If you want people to have a career that pays an "adequate wage" working at McDonalds or the equivalent, you better be prepared to pay the high cost of that adequate wage when you buy their products. Or would you just as soon see McDonalds close down and nobody there get any wage if they have to get a wage you consider insulting?

Ridiculous Floater.
Obama, ie, is looking to raise minimum wag to $9 from 7.25... 25%.
Since much/most of Burger cost isn't labor, we're probably talking a 10% Raise due to wages.
Even raising MW 50% ($11) would probably only raise Burgers 20%.
And you are the guys who call Global Warmers "alarmists".

 

[Middleground]

Re: McDonald's Literally Cannot Imagine How Its Workers Would Survive On Minimum Wa

Back when I worked fast food it was moms and kids on work release from the schools or people that had just graduated, still lived at home, and didnt know what they wanted to do with their lives during the day shift and mostly teens right up until closing (or adults with second jobs for graveyard shifts and they usually got paid slightly better)

Josie said a majority should be teens. That is not only not realistic, it's not feasibe. You know it.

 

[Middleground]

People who can live on minimum wage.

Like who?

 

[Josie]

Re: McDonald's Literally Cannot Imagine How Its Workers Would Survive On Minimum Wa

Back when I worked fast food it was moms and kids on work release from the schools or people that had just graduated, still lived at home, and didnt know what they wanted to do with their lives during the day shift and mostly teens right up until closing (or adults with second jobs for graveyard shifts and they usually got paid slightly better)

When I worked at DQ, it was almost all college kids and teenagers who closed up shop for the night. During the day was mostly the older adults who were, by and large, married with a spouse also bringing in a paycheck.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Ridiculous Floater.
Obama, ie, is looking to raise minimum wag to $9 from 7.25... 25%.
Since much/most of Burger cost isn't labor, we're probably talking a 10% Raise due to wages.
And you are the guys who call Global Warmers "alarmists".

You're a nut if you think that most of the cost of any product at McDonald's isn't the labor. Second would be the overhead and maintenance of the buildings.

 

[Josie]

Like who?

People who still live with their parents.
College kids whose living expenses are paid by school loan, grant or parents or a combination of all.
People who are married with a spouse who also brings in a paycheck.

 

[Middleground]

Re: McDonald's Literally Cannot Imagine How Its Workers Would Survive On Minimum Wa

When I worked at DQ, it was almost all college kids and teenagers who closed up shop for the night. During the day was mostly the older adults who were, by and large, married with a spouse also bringing in a paycheck.

If you had to guess, what would you say is the average age of a fast food employee in the United States?

18? 20? Older? Younger?

The answer? 29.5.

That's right - the average age of a fast food employee in the United States is 29 1/2 years.

This is up dramatically from 2000, when the average fast food worker in the US was 22 years old. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau)

The fast food industry has been in the spotlight over the past week thanks to a recent hiring blitz by McDonald's. The fast food giant had a "National Hiring Day" earlier this week in which they were looking to fill 50,000 job openings.

There was a crush of applicants nationwide. People arrived early and stayed late just to interview for a position. Many locations through the country had hundreds of people lined up to apply for a position.

People from all different walks of life applied for positions at McDonald's. People with families. Older folks. Teenagers. The mass of people that applied for a "McJob" just illustrated how poor the US job market is right now.

Many people think that fast food jobs are primarily occupied by teenagers, but that's no longer the case.

Over the past decade, the average age of a fast food worker in the United States has surged higher, mainly because many older workers are not able to find work elsewhere. Fast food positions don't pay well, but many people just aren't able to find work anywhere else.

The Average Age of a Fast Food Worker in the United States Is..