Here’s How the Price of Your Favorite Fast Food Would Change With a $15 Minimum Wage

a reply to: LDragonFire

Thats comparing apples [minimum wage] to watermellon [taxes] and a way of life. Also Denmark has to pay double the taxes of the US in order to pay for those benefits.

This is the time of year when Americans love to complain about how "overtaxed" we are. But compared to Denmark, American taxes are nothing. The federal government collects about 22 percent of U.S. gross domestic product as taxes (including Social Security). Denmark, in contrast, takes nearly 56 percent of gross domestic product. This makes Denmark the eighth most-taxed nation.

Their happiness most likely has to do more with other things such as their way of life and priorities in life versus making a higher minimum wage.

In addition I believe they are not as open as the US in taking immigrants in to their country who could be considered a burden on the system.I'm not saying that all immigrants are a burden on the system, but I recall an article where an elderly person unable to work would have a better chance Getting into the US versus Denmark.

originally posted by: freedom12
My question would be-

WHY DO PEOPLE EAT FAST FOOD AT ALL, KNOWING HOW BAD IT IS ???

The most common fast food for me and my family to eat is subway and chick fil A every once a while, but I can see why many people eat it out of convience and the cost of it.

In addition , like smoking and drinking the effects are long term and not immediate which makes it easier to overlook it, squirrel.

I do appreciate with you looking these stats up btw, infact I'll go back and star you if I haven't. You're taking the wrong information away from it.

Now, that money does come from somewhere, I'll grant that. I'll even flat out state where it comes from. It comes from those at the top.

No, it does not, and I proved it, and your post even admits it.

Notice that the scale for how bad you're hurting starts at 0% right around the median wage and then scales up from there. Eventually it hits the 32.1% (I think, little loopy right now) additional COL. We can find that number easily. How about we start with one of my potential future jobs as a software engineer? We'll use a Unity Designer which is pretty average 90-110 going by experience. Looking on Australian job postings they were in the 100-120 range, around 10% higher. We can plug this into the same formula as before and have 1.1/1.32=83.33% so we can say a fairly average software design job is approximately 17% worse. It still seems worth it to me though, it's an income that's worth climbing the career ladder to achieve and it has immense societal benefit.

I tried to go higher with a Lawyer but in Las Vegas that's a lower paying job than a software engineer. Maybe I can give you more examples tomorrow when my head is clear.

The point however is that people above the minimum wage do get less money but that only makes up a portion of the middle class. The differences don't really start to become appreciable until you reach the upper middle class, or transition over into being the rich. The lower half of the middle class actually ends up better off for it. For what it's worth the wealthy still have power and money in Australia but they aren't becoming Feudal Lords like here in the states.

Yes, 5% of the country gets a huge jump in wages, which everyone else has to pay for with LOWER wages. (at least lower in terms of buying power which is the same thing)

Those wages are distributed throughout the income spectrum. Those at the very bottom get the massive boost, but those slightly above the bottom get some boost too. And so on up the income spectrum, if you're around 40k/year you're still around 10-15% better off. It's not until you transition past that break even point where a person ends up worse off, and the people that are worse off are still making so much money that they have quite comfortable lives. Someone who makes 110k instead only making 97k isn't suddenly in the poor house, in truth it's not even all that big a difference in terms of what sort of consumer they are. However the people on the bottom that get enabled and can actually participate in the economy, are able to fuel immense economic growth with that money.

What you see is a reduction in buying power for the educated. What you see is the average every day worker has MORE struggles, what you see is 90% of the country having a MORE difficult time so that the bottom 5% who have no goals and ambitions can stay burger flippers.

No thanks.

I see a poor and lower middle class that has an easier time of things while bettering themselves, and an upper middle class and wealthy which still have the tremendous advantages that go along with that money.

a reply to: interupt42 I have to disagree here. The estimated US taxes are about 40% right now. We have tax free day in what, june? When you add in sales tax, home tax, property tax, americans actually pay about 40 percent of their income as tax as well. And what do we get for it? No healthcare, no education, crumbling infrastructure, more wars. All this needs to be taken into account.

and nice edit there aazadan. for a minute there you were arguing with yourself!

a reply to: interupt42

Take a good look at the cucumbers next time you're at Subway. They don't even look real.

None of the veggies are organic and the tomatoes are artificially ripened enroute.

Chick-o-Filet is all processed food and bad for you.


Though I would concede it's hard to make a sandwich for $5 and the time involved in baking your own bread for an individual, a family of 4 would mitigate the cost.

Bottom line, Americans are fat and lazy.

originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

good for you but we are talking about your claim that things will get too tight if we stop exploiting the poor.

Desiring being a burger flipper all your life is not being exploited.

Fact: less than 5% of the country have min wage jobs
Fact: 80% of min wage jobs are held by people in the middle class, not the poor.

So what you are suggesting is most of the middle class should struggle so that the 1% of the country that chooses to do nothing with their lives can do so comfortably.

I will pass.

www.heritage.org...

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: interupt42 I have to disagree here. The estimated US taxes are about 40% right now. We have tax free day in what, june? When you add in sales tax, home tax, property tax, americans actually pay about 40 percent of their income as tax as well. And what do we get for it? No healthcare, no education, crumbling infrastructure, more wars. All this needs to be taken into account.

Don't worry I think we agree and that is perhaps Why Denmark is happier because their gov't may tax them more but they get something back? Note those numbers were from
daily finance and they didn't take into consideration any of those additional taxes for Denmark either.

www.dailyfinance.com...


However, the topic was about minimum wage and not taxes which would pay for those benefits. The point is that buying power is based on deltas and the more money the general public has the less value the dollar has. Therefore , in the end the prices will adjust to compensate for the rate increase and the buying power will be quickly resset to what it was. The only differenc is you will have more money but it will also take more money to buy the same goods and services as before.

In the end when minimum wage is increased:
1. Those making minimum wage who get an increase will at best maintain the same buying power as before.
2. Those slightly above minimum age and the middle class will most likely lose buying power because their increase in pay will not likely match the ratio of what the minimum rate hike was.

a reply to: Aazadan

I will await your info.

I would be very happy to be wrong. From everything I have seen almost none of the poor would be helped, as most of them do not have min. wage jobs, and the middle class would take a significant hit.

I know people who have lives in Aus. and the USA and the middle class of Aus. talk about how much better prices were and how much further their wages went in the USA.

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: OccamsRazor04 um, no and no. Where I live (not sure where you live, but if nurses start at 25 there its definitely not lowest in country), baton rouge, capital of Louisiana, nurses start at 19 an hour, 18.50 at our largest hospital (lady of the lake). Im an ultrasound tech, and my first job here was 18 an hour....even though in most places ultrasound techs make more than nurses. Just FYI starting pay is lower for medical than it was 5 years ago. And sadly, you have to switch hospitals now every two years to get your appropriate pay increase. further, we are talking raising minimum wage to 15 an hour....im sure that vastly more than 5% of our population makes less than 15/hour. That is 30000 a year, and our median per capita is 27000 a year (13.50/hour), which means that about 50% of our population makes that or under. So it would increase the standard of living for 50% of our population.

So I ran the numbers using average nursing salaries, and they make about 12% less. Then I looked at cost of living adjustment and at 12% less income nurses in Baton Rouge, LA have more buying power for their salary than the nurses where I live, cost of living is 20% higher where I live.

Still does not change what I said, nurse salary in most of the country is quite a bit higher than where I live. We have had nurses from Ohio, Florida, New England, and a few other places that were shocked at how little they got paid here and several of them moved back home.

a reply to: freedom12

Like I said we seldomly eat fast food but when we travel its convenient .

Americans are fat and lazy.

I'm sure some are and possibly the majority but I can assure you that its not as simple or clear cut as you make it out to be.

There plenty of single parents out there who work multiple jobs without any support from a family unit that have a hard enough time to be at home let alone cook or plan for 3 meals a day. My wife had a friend whos husband left the picture and she had to work multiple jobs to get by. For a while we had her and her kids living with us till she got on her feet. I can assure you that she was and is no lazy person but under certain circumstances eating fast food was better than not being able to eat at all.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04 Hm. ok, housing cost in Baton rouge is a little lower. I do, however, move between here and new Orleans, and I must say that the "statistics" don't really describe the situation there, where cost of living is high but salaries are low. plus we have the highest taxes in the country (9%) and it includes everything, whereas other places I lived (Atlanta, phoenix) didn't tax what are considered necessities such as food or clothes. At any rate, that doesn't address what I pointed out.....ie: you stated it would only affect the 5% of our people that were actually on "minimum wage", whereas we are talking about increasing minimum wage to 15$ an hour which would, I believe, actually encompass the wages of almost half the country.

by the way....I must say "thank you" to everyone on here, including Occam. This debate has both been highly enjoyable and highly educational. I appreciate all the input and research that everyone has put into this. It is, indeed, both a highly interesting topic and an important one.

a reply to: pexx421

And once their buying power decreases by 30% how many are better off? It's a whole lot more worse off than better off.

Higher wages are needed. Your quick fix won't do it. Much like you can't just print money to make everyone a millionaire, there are consequences.

a reply to: pexx421

I just want to say w have the same goals. I just think the solution is a whole lot more difficult.

but, but.....right now we are giving money to the rich (subsidies), and taking money from the poor (declining minimum wage per inflation and COLA). So how is THAT rational, or constructive???? as it is, our buying power has decreased some 80% since 1970. What we are seeking here is just a readjustment, not even back to that level but to some little bit, not even close.

a reply to: pexx421

Yes. What you are seeking and what you would get are two very different things. We have shipped jobs oversees, the dollar itself has been severely deflated, the economy sucks. It took decades to create the situation. It can not be fixed overnight through legislation. It will take decades to fix.

I am not a fan of corporate tax breaks. In Mass., when I was in college working part time, I paid more in taxes than the entirety of Walmart in Mass. paid.

ETA: Unfortunately I think we are screwed and we are past the point of no return. I think the best hope for Americans is to automate EVERY job we possibly can and move to a new system where almost everyone no longer works. I really see no hope other than that. Global economy always meant destruction for America.

Want to know why America's economy sucks? Here's why.
Obama Administration Requires Magician To Submit A 32 Page “Disaster Plan” For His Rabbit

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I didn't know Obama was the USDA, or that he had been President since 1970. If you go to a non-biased news source, you will learn that its the USDA that require the disaster plan, and you will find they require it due to a law regulating performing animals, passed in 1970, originally intended to protect circus animals.

Yes, they are being rather heavy handed, but they are reviewing his case, ad Obama has zero to do with it.

As for minimum wage. I don't see a huge problem, here in the UK, we've had minimum wage for quite a while. When it was introduced, employers made the same claims, that it will cause a huge price increase to offset the wage rise. We went ahead regardless.

The price rise and job losses and other dire consequences never really happened.

originally posted by: BMorris
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I didn't know Obama was the USDA, or that he had been President since 1970. If you go to a non-biased news source, you will learn that its the USDA that require the disaster plan, and you will find they require it due to a law regulating performing animals, passed in 1970, originally intended to protect circus animals.

Yes, they are being rather heavy handed, but they are reviewing his case, ad Obama has zero to do with it.

As for minimum wage. I don't see a huge problem, here in the UK, we've had minimum wage for quite a while. When it was introduced, employers made the same claims, that it will cause a huge price increase to offset the wage rise. We went ahead regardless.

The price rise and job losses and other dire consequences never really happened.

Where did I blame Obama? That websites slant on what happened is not my slant. And the fact they are reviewing the case is also part of the problem. That should not reviewed. Whatever moronic red tape that caused the problem to begin with should be done away with.
ETA: I checked the article, the license part is old, the 32 page disaster plan is a NEW regulation put in place under the Obama administration. That is the part that is being railed against, so the website is correct, it IS the Obama administration. Although who did it doesn't matter.

What you are doing is taking the fact that website may have blamed Obama and using it as a red herring, who cares who did it, IT'S A PROBLEM. That is the kind of crap that has killed out economy for the past 40 years.

I will have to look into the UK .. but having been there, the UK is EXTREMELY expensive. I grew up in Essex County, Massachusetts, the most expensive county in the US.

www.forbes.com...

England was ridiculously expensive, many things were literally twice the cost I was used to.