Discussion
  • Read More
    JohnMcClanesSmirkHamilton Nolan
    10/15/13 1:23pm

    Where this gets messy is on the franchise level. 90% of McDonalds and virtually all of Subways, for example, are not owned by corporate but rather small and mid-size business owners (many first generation immigrants) who are already getting squeezed by the very same corporate assholes the workers hate. If big chains are forced to pay higher wages then the labor cost will simply be squeezed out of the franchise owners' already razor thin margins, leaving the corporate bottom line unchanged.

    Which is why I think the most effective means of lifting fast food-workers out of poverty without totally pissing off/screwing the small business community is to force, through some means, the corporations to pay the labor cost difference in the event of a raise in the minimum wage (like many cities are already proposing.) Not sure what mechanism could be wielded to achieve this but even if New York City rose the wage for service industry workers to $12 / hour tomorrow, I doubt any of that would come out of the pocket of any of the above corporations. Which, you know, sort of defeats the purpose of populist anger.

    The shit will still roll down hill, it will just roll in another direction.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      keeplosingburnersJohnMcClanesSmirk
      10/15/13 1:34pm

      Fair point, but if the franchisees end up getting completely screwed, won't they just close down? And I mean, that would really suck for them. But I assume corporate needs them around, right? So if they want to keep their ridiculous number of stores open, wouldn't they have to make some concessions, at least to keep the more potentially lucrative locations from closing their doors?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      stacyinbeanJohnMcClanesSmirk
      10/15/13 1:34pm

      Wouldn't that disincentivize (Christ, is that a word?!) people from opening the franchises in the first place though, forcing corporate to take accountability for the change in wages?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    WideStanceHamilton Nolan
    10/15/13 1:15pm

    Cue the parade of selfish, self-righteous right-wing lunatics blaming the workers for being poor, rather than the greedy corporate bastards exploiting them.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      The secret ingredient is phoneWideStance
      10/15/13 1:16pm

      I felt that this XKCD was timely and apropos:

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      flyonthewallWideStance
      10/15/13 1:16pm

      They choose that job, I believe is the standard straw man.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ralistiHamilton Nolan
    10/15/13 1:21pm

    I think this is more a reflection of how society is forced to take care of the voluntarily uneducated. I have a feeling that if we quit feeding the stupid, lazy, and indifferent, you would be amazed how many would improve their education and/or find better employment.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      KumquatRodeoralisti
      10/15/13 1:35pm

      And you base this upon what data? The social safety net is much stronger in much of Europe for example, yet their productivity is catching up with ours, and they now have a larger economy. This would seem to be counter to your argument.

      The decline in the American middle-class is well documented. Most feel it is not because of laziness, lack of education, stupidity, and indifference, but rather to a dramatic redistribution of wealth over the past few decades. I haven't seem much evidence that this redistribution is due to laziness, etc., but rather it's due to changes in government policies (which is one reason other industrial and post-industrial countries are not seeing the same drift towards 3rd world stratification.)

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      pockyordieralisti
      10/15/13 1:42pm

      Maybe the right should stop devaluing education then. Maybe they should stop calling educated people and scholars trying to get education for other people snobs and elitists. Maybe they should stop making it seem like getting an education is a liberal thing that is unsavory. I don't think the problem is as clear cut as you seem to think considering that highest percentage of welfare recipients are white slobbering rednecks listening to Glen Beck while they yell at their black neighbors for being on social assistance. (Because somehow when you're white, your social assistance isn't the same thing)

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    conanthecontrarianHamilton Nolan
    10/15/13 1:16pm

    So either the taxpayers pay for it on the front end when they pay more for their happy meal, or they pay for it on the back end with their taxes. Something tells me taxpayers prefer to pay less up front for their happy meal. That, and if that $7 billion didn't go to fast food workers, that money would be absorbed into the defense budget.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      fueltothefire6conanthecontrarian
      10/15/13 1:19pm

      because everyone eats fast food?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ARP2conanthecontrarian
      10/15/13 1:21pm

      No, there are numerous studies that show that a dollar increase in minimum wages doesn't equal a proportional increase in prices. It also fails to account for having more persons with more money to buy stuff (as opposed to investment).

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    antoinettemarieHamilton Nolan
    10/15/13 1:16pm

    It would be nice to see what they cost us per year compared to their profits for the year. I think that would be quite telling.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ARP2antoinettemarie
      10/15/13 1:23pm

      McDonalds profits (not revenue) was $5.5B. If they gave every wage worker a dollar raise, they'd still turn a tidy profit.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      apogee17ARP2
      10/15/13 1:26pm

      BUT MAH PROFFEETS!

      On a serious note, some people like to spout on and on about the welfare population of America, like our poor welfare recipients are somehow worse than the corporate welfare recipients.

      At least the poor welfare recipients are honest with us and themselves.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    serendous sHamilton Nolan
    10/15/13 1:18pm

    But all people have to do to get off of welfare is go flip burgers!
    There's always one person who busts out with this whenever there's a discussion about public assistance and lazy, welfare queens getting in their Lexuses who should just get a fucking job. So yes, they could go flip burgers or stock shelves at WalMart. And they would still earn so little that they qualify for public assistance including means tested assistance. But at least they have the emotional satisfaction of knowing that, everyday, they have a job to go to so that they can keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. Except they don't, at least not without some help.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Hannibal the Cannibalserendous s
      10/15/13 1:51pm

      But at least they have the emotional satisfaction of knowing that, everyday, they have a job to go to so that they can keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

      Ah, but the satisfaction of laboring for our betters should be more than sufficient to keep us completely fulfilled. Didn't you know that shareholder value is edible?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    SlickWillieHamilton Nolan
    10/15/13 1:39pm

    Can't help but notice that the generation that worked in the 60's who were once pro-Union, pro-middle class, and who preferred to pay for quality, as long as the profit was fairly distributed among the work force are now the opposite of all those things, and the curve bent at around the same rates as dementia setting in.

    I'm more puzzled though, by the amount of people in the current working generation that seem to think paying less and less for ever cheapening shit, made by people who have little to nothing, is sustainable, and isn't going to eventually soak in to their own mediocre livelihoods.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      caseHamilton Nolan
      10/15/13 1:19pm

      I would want to know the tax consequences of each. Meaning, if we are looking at it from the government's perspective and the tax side of things, how much would the tax difference be of McD's paying their employees more (more expense, less income, less income tax), the employees earning more but probably still not paying taxes due to the low income (they are receiving less government assistance but paying no tax)?

      I am not arguing against paying fast food employes more, it is evident that they should be paid more, the point of argument would be how much is the "right" amount to pay fast food employees (A living wage is a damn hard calculation to determine considering the huge differences in living costs in different cities around the US).

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        benjaminallovercase
        10/15/13 1:38pm

        It's such tricky math because also, if you paid minimum wage workers more, that money is basically injected directly back into the economy; poor people spend their money, as opposed to a rich person who may just save it. When wages went up at the steel mill in my town, suddenly everyone was flush, from the waitresses to the construction workers to the car dealerships. This has impact on tax revenue as well as the impact of many people no longer having to rely on government help.

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        casebenjaminallover
        10/15/13 3:23pm

        That is a good point and I didn't go that deep with my question. A very important part/point that I think a lot of people miss when considering this scenario of "higher wages" for fast food employees, what constitutes a fast food employee or are we asking just the major fast food chains to pay more? If we are talking about raising the minimum wage, the government can't just single out the major chains like McDs, Wendys or Taco Bell, they would have to raise minimum wage across the board which affects everyone, including any small town restaurant, single location owned franchisee, or a small business in a lot of industries.. We can easily look and say "yeah McDs makes millions/billions they can afford to pay their employees more" but unfortunately they are a for profit business and will not voluntarily raise their wages to $12-$15/hour. Again, I am not against McDs paying their employees more, I just wonder the overall affect of raising the government mandated minimum wage.

        Reply
        <
    • Read More
      rmric0.wedding.photographerHamilton Nolan
      10/15/13 1:21pm

      You know if they would just work three or four jobs, they could really do much better for themselves. After all, how much sleep or free time do you really need?

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        Eli Manning stars in: Omaha! Omaha! Omaha!Hamilton Nolan
        10/15/13 1:16pm

        Ugh, we end up having to pay for these people to barely survive either through our taxes or through higher prices. Why can't they just die?

        Reply
        <
        • Read More
          FghhyghhjjhgfEli Manning stars in: Omaha! Omaha! Omaha!
          10/15/13 1:18pm

          Why can't they just die?

          We're working on that!

          -Republican lawmakers

          Reply
          <
        • Read More
          MikeEli Manning stars in: Omaha! Omaha! Omaha!
          10/15/13 1:19pm

          That could backfire. If there are fewer workers, the lower supply could lead to higher wages anyway. Then my happy meal is expensive, and that's just bullshit.

          Reply
          <