It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Fast food wages are so low it's workers are taking 7 billion per year in public assistance.
Fast-Food Wages Come With a $7 Billion Side of Public Assistance
McDonalds alone took 1.2 billion per year of that tab. I guess we prefer to have our taxpayers help pay the labor costs for McDonald's Corp rather than have the company pay it's own worker's compensation. WalMart does the same thing, pay it's workers an abysmal hourly rate and let the taxpayers pick up the slack.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: TDawgRex
I hear you Dawg.
I do however, have to answer a couple of points from your post.
You state, that you have an issue with a living wage being applied to part time workers. However, students at colleges and universities are often part timers, and students often need to be able to rely on a source of income in order to gain the skills and education which will allow them to be the next Steven Hawking, Motzart, the architects of the future! Preventing these people from earning a decent wage at the same time, promotes a situation where only those born to money are able to gain an education without having to sell a bodily organ! The introduction of a living wage, means that all of those people who work at places like McDonalds to help them get through college, will actually be able to do ONE job to achieve that goal, leaving the appropriate number of hours in the day for study, sleep, and keeping healthy, rather than having to be in the lab or the lecture theatre, or at work, all the hours of the day.
How many geniuses (bearing in mind that many people who are actually full on prodigious geniuses, have about as much patience for nonsense like functioning their petty mortal flesh existence, as I do for David Cameron) do you think have fallen by the wayside, their intellects for ever lost to society, because they had to work four jobs on top of trying to get a degree? I would say it is probably more than you think.
You also need to remember, that just as here in the UK, not everyone who has part time work, has it because they CHOOSE it. Many people in part time work, have part time work because there is not enough full time work available at the skill level that they happen to occupy, about which those individuals can usually do, precisely nothing. Is it fair that they should be penalised because the companies that are hiring new staff, are only hiring part time?
And as demonstrated by the death of a Dunkin Donuts employee recently, who was working at no less than FOUR individual franchises and still had to live in her CAR to make ends meet (although one could argue, that if one is living in ones car, the ends have utterly failed to conjoin), the idea that part time workers are not working as hard or as long as full timers, is patently false. They often are, but are forced to work multiple jobs (adding travel time to their working day, between each outlet for which they work).
Furthermore, when someone works for a company which offers them a decent, fair wage, a wage they can actually function a life out of, they do two very important things. First of all, they are motivated to keep that job, and that means knuckling under and making sure that they do a bang up job wherever possible. Now, that might not have solved your Chevy issue, because lets face it, if all that is in the lot, is red Chevys, then it is pretty hard to imagine what even the most determined rental employee would be able to do about it, short of going out the back and assembling one on the spot for you.
But I mentioned that a wage one can live on inspires people to do two very important things, and this is the second. Someone who is well paid enough, to rent a home, feed themselves, and save money as well, is not just an absorber of funds, but a spender of currency. Essentially, those who provide one type of goods or services, in order to receive payment for doing so, will go and acquire goods and services for themselves. Perhaps they will save up, and get a car. Perhaps they will save up and marry their significant other. Perhaps they will spread that wealth around local businesses in their communities, meaning that all of those businesses benefit from the proceeds of that individual, as well as the individual themselves living an improved lifestyle.
Perhaps by doing this, by increasing the minimum wage to the point where it functions an existence without augmentation, it will reduce the amount of government assistance that is handed out. The customer, as you quite rightly say, is always right. But the customers opinion is only important if the people who are employed to service their needs, are being correctly treated by the business for which they work, and society as a whole. I certainly would not expect stellar service from someone who was being paid less than the cost of their physical existence, per hour, to be there! I would expect a nervous breakdown, but not good customer service!
As for only idiots working at McD's (or any fast food place) - that is a bald-faced lie. Retirees and educated people who can't find work in their fields are reduced to working there now. Hell, I even applied at Taco Bell, and got no response - and I have decades of customer service and supervision behind me!!
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
So, now that there's a rumor (?) that Obama signed a reduction in food stamps - maybe the REAL COST of living and eating will be passed on to the Corporations, instead of to the taxpayer!!
The only ones that matter in this country is the CEO and Shareholders.
originally posted by: Lmistor
It is always somebody else's fault and not our, isn't it? I am perfect but everybody else is stupid... Give me a break....a reply to: theMediator
originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
As for only idiots working at McD's (or any fast food place) - that is a bald-faced lie. Retirees and educated people who can't find work in their fields are reduced to working there now. Hell, I even applied at Taco Bell, and got no response - and I have decades of customer service and supervision behind me!!
Absolutely, nearly everyone I see working in the local fast food joints are older, most are middle aged females but an alarming number of semi-retired males as well. Fast food work is no longer the provenance of the entry-level teens. We exported all our good jobs that the older workers once had so they are now working in the service sector, virtually our only remaining job sector in America.
originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: TDawgRex
Maybe if these restaurants are forced to pay $15 per hour, they'll insist on decent intelligent workers and not just hire any brain dead moron off the street. I'd gladly pay a couple extra bucks for my food. Might boost the quality of the whole fast food experience.
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: TDawgRex
People work these jobs for a variety of reasons, but to say that is the only job they can get is pure BS.
Wrong.
Next??!!!
originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: jacobe001
Have you ever thought that "We the People" are also shareholders?
Why would you hate somebody for investing in a business? Especially when there is a possible profitable return. It's gambling after all.
I've watched the markets and got out before the collapse back in 08-09 and have sat on it for a bit and since reinvested and have even more stock than before now.
Does that make me evil? (BTW...I'm still not a rich man, with the exception of my friends and family)
That's BS. I earned minimum wage and still managed to save AND invest.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: kdyam
I would suggest, that a living wage would be enough to rent a dwelling which is actually kept to code by its landlord, eat enough to be healthy, pay utility bills, and to be able to save enough money besides that, to be a worthwhile consumer. That amount WOULD be different one place to another, purely because of cost of living being different depending where one is. But that does not present a problem.
Lets get HYPOTHETICAL!!! WOO!
Let us say (and this will be hideously numerically inaccurate, but the principle will stand), that it costs chap a) One thousand dollars a month to live where he lives, and do all the things mentioned above, and that he saves one hundred further dollars a month (unrealistic, but hundreds and thousands are numbers I can visualise while being between episodes of Adventure Time. Yes, I know I am 29 years of age. Don't judge me! ), and that chap a) lives in one place.
Chap b) lives somewhere the hell else, but the cost of living is DOUBLE that of the city where chap a) lives. The answer, would be to ensure that chap b) gets a minimum of two thousand, two hundred dollars in pay. This would be fair, because the cost of living in a place is directly proportionate normally speaking, to a healthy market place for goods, services, property, and usually relates also to good public services, which need paying for also. So, although chap b) might look like he is getting the better deal for his hours of work, relative to what it costs him to eat, keep his home warm, and things like that, it really is not any different than the one thousand, one hundred dollars that chap a) got paid, because it goes the exact same distance in terms of what it gets him!
Seems pretty damned simple to me!