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

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm not sure how you can get figures that are much fairer than coming directly from the source with no spin. 15% of the population (that's measurable) makes minimum wage.

Because you want to include people making 3-4x minimum wage. Since we can't prove what people making tips actually make, it's disingenuous to include them. The best way to include them would be when the employer pays higher than the minimum cash payment they are forced to make. Even that isn't fool proof though.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Because you want to include people making 3-4x minimum wage. Since we can't prove what people making tips actually make, it's disingenuous to include them. The best way to include them would be when the employer pays higher than the minimum cash payment they are forced to make. Even that isn't fool proof though.

That's not what I'm doing, I'm including the exact same people BLS included.

To once again quote their exact words

Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.0 million had wages below the federal minimum.2 Together, these 3.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 4.7 percent of all hourly paid workers

Tips were a guess on my part as that's all I could think of that would pay below the federal minimum. However I realize now that I was wrong on that. It's actually referring to people working in the 4 states that have a minimum wage below the federal rate. It's too late for me to do it tonight but I'll recompute those figures tomorrow. With the added population I imagine it will drop the minimum wage rate to about 11%. What I'm hoping to do in the meantime though is to find cities and counties within the states that use the federal wage, that actually pay a higher rate as a local ordinance.

a reply to: Aazadan

If it's not including people who earn tips I would accept the figures. I just think they are included, I haven't looked closely I could be off on that. Either way, almost all of them are not poor.

regardless, it still means that your original statement of it only helping 5% of the population is way off, we can agree to that at least. Also, having worked in places that have higher minimum wages (and unions), I can attest that wages across the board, up through middle income are all a great deal higher. Interestingly, here in the south where I live, where minimum wage is actually minimum wage and many jobs pay it, all wages across the board are lower as well. Hmmmm. At any rate, wait staff are not the only people making tips. There are many delivery drivers, barristas, etc, who are tipped personel, who make close to minimum as well. And remember, your original statement was about who would be benefited (your 5%), but this would directly benefit everyone making up to 15$

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o So what does fast food work warrant? Why do minimum wage workers "deserve" so little in you peoples eyes? Why was a fast food or other minimum wage workers sweat and work worth 4 gallons of gas in 1994, but they only deserve 2 now? Why was it worth 2 gallons of milk, but they can only get one now? Have they degraded as people, in that the same work they do should get them less goods? In another 10 years will we be having this discussion again, where you stand there and tell burger flippers et al that their labor is only worth the cost of the gas it takes to get them to work? All the while YOU are still footing the bill for their medicare and food stamps?

a reply to: pexx421

Well, it's pointless arguing. The UK and Aus which have high min. wages are VERY expensive places to live, and buying power is significantly lower. More people would be hurt than helped, I showed buying power comparisons.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04 I would venture to say that both the UK and Australia have vastly smaller poverty levels per capita than the us does, and that those in poverty have a much better situation than their counterparts in the us.

Um. Not including the aboriginals, of course. That's a Australia specific issue.

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: OccamsRazor04 I would venture to say that both the UK and Australia have vastly smaller poverty levels per capita than the us does, and that those in poverty have a much better situation than their counterparts in the us.

Um. Not including the aboriginals, of course. That's a Australia specific issue.

Percent in poverty
US: 15%
AUS: 12.5%
UK: 17% (not sure if it's same criteria)

So you do not appear to be correct.

ETA: most of the international poverty data I see is using poverty rate as 50% of that countries median income. IMO not the best way to do it, as someone in country A can be in "poverty" and someone in country B NOT be in poverty, and yet the person in country A is much better off.

This is what I was looking for. Look at quality of life for the bottom 10%. Bottom 10% has a better quality of life in the US than in UK. Only Aus, Sweden, Canada beat the US.

www.forbes.com...

a reply to: pexx421
$10/hr. It warrants $10/hr.
Everyone else is also dealing with the things you point out. The price of everything is going up for everyone.
Why should one, non-skilled sector of the job market get a 50% salary raise, while the rest of us don't?
Shouldn't it be up to the employer what they pay employees? How is this topic been able to have so much steam?

Working at a fast food place should not get you 15/hr. I know actual cooks at restaurants that don't make 15/hr.
Does that seem fair?
Someone who does a harder version of the same job, that provides a better service getting paid less?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04 I somehow doubt those statistics. 15 of our country lives in poverty? According to the recent report by the bureau of labor statistics, as of august there are 100,000,000 americans of working age that do not even have a job. That is almost 1/3 of our population, and I would consider unemployed to be "poverty". I posted the link earlier in this thread. Also, I don't know what poverty is like in Europe, but here in the good old Nola, there are neighborhoods of people that don't work, don't have utilities, and eat every meal from dollar general or the corner gas station. Meanwhile, from what I understand, the European poor have much better safety nets.....but again, I have been through the projects here, never seen a European slum to compare them to.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o But everyone else does get a raise. In places where minimum wages are higher so are non minimum wages. At any rate, the people above 15/hr already can make some disposable income. Those at minimum wage cant. It was decided many many years ago that the minimum wage was the basic minimum a person could humanely be paid in order to get by. Has the level of food and services a human needs to get by decreased in this time? Cost of living indexes were created because people realize that pay NEEDS to go up with inflation....but through cooking the statistics they manage to keep this from happening. How is everyone ok with this? At any rate, you say its worth $10. Well, im sure a lot of minimum wage earners would love to be bumped up to that.

a reply to: TDawgRex
This is essentially a hoax created by someone with an agenda to push on behalf of the rich.
Don’t feel too bad, even Forbes got taken in by it and had to print a retraction.

Forbes: How much would a Big Mac cost if Mcdonalds workers were paid 15 per hour

(Update: Unfortunately, Morelix did not, as Forbes’ Morgan Brennan first pointed out after publication, factor the company’s franchisee model into his calculations. And that, as CJR.org’s Ryan Chittum rightly points out, makes a big difference–as do a number of other factors excluded by Morelix. What a Big Mac would cost if McDonald’s workers were paid $15 an hour remains an unanswered question, but it would almost certainly not be what Morelix says.)

(Update, 2: Forbes contributor Tim Worstall argues that the answer to the question is simple: The cost of a Big Mac–at least to consumers–probably wouldn’t go up at all. Why? In order to remain competitive with rivals on price, the company, as economist Adam Ozimek pointed out earlier this week, would probably find a way to keep overall labor costs in check, most likely by reducing the number of workers and introducing more automation–think ATMs in the banking industry.)

Believe me paying the employees of a Mcdonalds a livable salary of $30K/employee us not going to break the bank of a business that averages $2.6 million in profits per store. The people kicking and screaming about this are the owners who have to take a slight reduction in their millions in profits by not being allowed to exploit slave labor.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

Does it seem fair to you that a family who can't even afford the rent along with the heating bill let alone a trip to mcdonalds has to help foot the bill for the benefits of the workers so that the ceo's can make the big bucks???

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
Why should one, non-skilled sector of the job market get a 50% salary raise, while the rest of us don't?

It will drive the wages up for everyone because it will give skilled labor an option to leave their company and go work for a decent living doing unskilled labor. In other words it creates competition for the the employers to have to offer good incentives to retain skilled employees. Humorously the exact same excuse that businesses used to justify their big bonus packages for their CEO's during the 2008 bailouts.

So, for example, right now I am making somewhat better then this, but in order to retain my job I'm having to put in massive amounts of hours, many of which are on my own time, and doing essentially 3 peoples jobs, so my boss can make a tremendous profit off me. If minimum wage were to go up by this amount I could basically tell my employers “hey I can go work at McDonald's and actually make more per hour considering the amount of personal time I'm putting in here”, and I wouldn't be lying. That would put them in a position where they would have to either raise my salary or decrease my workload, and start being more fair as well.

So this is about the best thing that the government can do to create competition between employers to keep their skilled labor, and break their greedy stranglehold on peoples salaries that they are keeping artificially low ATM.

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
Shouldn't it be up to the employer what they pay employees?

They've been given the chance to treat people fairly over and over again by the government, and they have lied, cheated, and played every game in their arsenal to keep wages artificially low while making record profits. They've used the 2008 crash, and the subsequent mass layoffs as an excuse to force even skilled labor into slave labor conditions where many were still only making a minimum wage equivalent when compared to their workloads. People have only put up with it because the job markets have been so bad that most would rather keep their mouth shut, and work like a slave, then be unemployed. Now you give them a viable alternative to turn to and still make a livable wage, many will leave their fields and go to unskilled labor. The companies that have been exploiting them will have no other choice other then to make the positions more attractive to new candidates.

a reply to: defcon5
I don't know about that a crap job at mcdonalds would still be a crap job no matter how much it paid unless of course you enjoy that kind of work. I think that most of the skilled laborers would still be using their skills unless the pay was far below that of the unskilled. They'd find the unskilled job just too boring and unpleasant.

I see what you all saying. My views in retrospect seem a little one sided and I appreciate your opinions having the power to sway mine.
That being said, I feel like it's wishful thinking that this would have a positive ripple effect throughout the economy.
How would smaller companies attract employees when they can't offer what McDonalds can?

well, yes. But keep in mind that a crap job is still a crap job. There are jobs out there that pay minimum wage, or close to it, in certain areas (like CNA, or psych tech), that are not crp jobs....and that people should not be ashamed to try to make a life out of....except that we relegate them to low wage bracket. Or medical billing, secretary, painter, etc. Even janitor could be a fulfilling career. The difference is that when we do find ourselves in a crp job, we wouldn't feel stuck there by the desperation that there are few alternatives, as we can reasonably support ourselves with any of the other minimum wage jobs at the new higher rate. Right now, this desperation is a tool that businesses use to overburden and browbeat us into dealing with overwork and demeaning situations. If we truly had options it would be a much more equal and satisfactory workplace.

The problem with this economy are people who are ignorant of other workers. Other workers in different fields.

If you perceive a job as "notwithstanding to its pay grade" without experiencing, and perfecting that job yourself, then you only show yourself as pure ignorance.

Never say something negative without possessing the whole knowledge of it yourself.

a reply to: seeker1963

Raising minimum wage will help some, but only with tight regulations. A person who makes less than they need to survive will spend only what is necessary, use all public assistance and save the rest for luxuries/emergencies. A person who makes a little extra will feel comfortable and spend more on luxuries like new tvs, new cars, better food etc. This helps stimulate the economy. The problem isnt raising the wage, the problem is companies trying to protect a margin. IF they make 1billion dollars right now and that is 5% above what they spend then they should be happy doing more volume if it means making 2billion dollars more than they spend...even if its a lower %. If the govt. regulated prices so that there wasnt inflation and ensured that companies still turned a profit (by limiting the amount they can make and giving tax breaks when they lose money to bring them positive) then raising minimum wage would work.

I wholeheartedly agree that we need a better working class here. There are a ton of blue collar jobs out there but we are facing an education crisis. There are pver 300,000 welding jobs in the USA right now that we CANNOT fill because nobody is qualified. On top of that the average of age of a welder is somewhere around 55 or so. We NEED welders for bridges, medical gas in hopsitols, roadwork, buildings, ships, power plants, frialators for fast food, railings, aircraft etc. If we stopped putting college on a damn pedstle and helped people get a trade to keep the country running it might help a bit. Then bring all of our manufacturing back as well. We have the tools to make this country great again, we just need to use them.

#mikeroweforpresident2016 -- We are in a dirty situation and need someone who can do the dirty job.

a reply to: Divin3F3nrus

Education.......

I am going to college next year, but I am going for criminal justice to help my town with its huge law enforment officer problems, and ultimately become a detective.

But I saw your list and I have to tell you that..... our perception on some of those jobs is this: welding? A lot of people are fearful of it. Others think machines do a better job at everything so they fall into that false pretense of it not being worth it.

Aircraft carrier construction? I personally know a bit about this field because one of my uncles used to build united airliners. But again people have that false pretense of the air planes being built by a machine like cars do.

Most trades are viewed as unwanted, or ignored by most people. They live in this materialistic world where cars, phones, laptops, chairs, and even most furniture is all found at a store. They don't even have the slightest clue on how to even use any tool that isn't found in their car's maintenance baggy. Most people forgot shop class, or pursued other interests and never went anywhere with it.

The other half of the problem is companies NOT WILLING TO TRAIN PEOPLE. The x year minimum experience # these companies keep attaching to their stupid a bs pre requisite is putting people who want to try this job at a loss. Some people want to try it. They want to see what they can do and if they truly enjoy doing it. But because of that 2 year pre requisite COMPANIES CAN ONLY HIRE PEOPLE IN THEIR 50's because everyone else at a young age has 0 experience.