The Fast Food Forward Movement

[Relic]

People who choose to forego education and its enormous benefits have only themselves to blame.

They still make people like you?

[ThinkerX]

There isn't a person with even an ounce of sense in this country, except for maybe a few deluded ultra liberals, that believe the minimum wage is intended to provide for people so they can live on their own and support all of their living expenses,

True once upon a time, maybe, in more prosperous days.

Cold hard totally unavoidable reality NOW though is that a large and rapidly expanding portion of the populace HAS NO CHOICE EXCEPT to get by on minimum wage, or part time work which works out to slightly better than minimum wage.

Original intent does not matter, current reality does.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

Res Ipsa,

Seriously, you do want the government to help people, and fix things that are not the governments fault. It's not the governments fault that the bare ground is shitty to drive on. It's not the governments fault that fording a river sucks. It's not the governments fault people steal.

Think your positions through, instead of parroting libertarian blogs. Private colleges are cheaper? Let's see some numbers on that.

And if jobs at McDonalds are for high school kids, college kids, and supplementary income, who the fuck works there during school and business hours?

And regulation stifling business as a rule is just ridiculous. Some hurts, some helps, and some is ineffectual. A blanket statement like that is bound to be bullshit.

So, would an increase in minimum wage put more burden on businesses? Yes. Would that burden outway the benefit of customers with more purchasing power? Not necessarily.

[Stag Country]

True once upon a time, maybe, in more prosperous days.

Cold hard totally unavoidable reality NOW though is that a large and rapidly expanding portion of the populace HAS NO CHOICE EXCEPT to get by on minimum wage, or part time work which works out to slightly better than minimum wage.

Original intent does not matter, current reality does.

"Original intent" is irrelevent and is not a point I am discussing. I am talking about what minimum wage is currently for.

And I'm curious where your sourcing this information from though, since the median annual wage for an individual in the US is $26,364 (at least since 2010). That's just under double the total of what a standard minimum wage annual FTE would be.

Seriously, you do want the government to help people, and fix things that are not the governments fault. It's not the governments fault that the bare ground is shitty to drive on. It's not the governments fault that fording a river sucks. It's not the governments fault people steal.

Um, we pay taxes for all of those things you are talking about. We pay taxes for the government to build roads. We pay taxes for the government to build bridges. We pay taxes for the government to provide police to catch people that steal.

We also pay a rather large amount of taxes toward public education. It's not the government's responsibility to step in when someone elects to drop out of high school or wants to enroll in college courses that have no prosects for gainful employment (re: sociology, english literature, music education, etc. etc. etc.).

And regulation stifling business as a rule is just ridiculous. Some hurts, some helps, and some is ineffectual. A blanket statement like that is bound to be bullshit.

And you make this comment as someone with experience in starting up a small business?

http://www.speaker.gov/general/small-business-owners-speak-out-against-job-stifling-government-regulations

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/06/AR2011020604189.html?sid=ST2011020700604

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/10/19/lift-the-regulatory-burden-on-small-businesses

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/business/stricter-banking-regulations-stifle-small-business/nLtzw/

Would that burden outway the benefit of customers with more purchasing power? Not necessarily.

And you base this comment on what?

[Howdyphillip]

I can not believe that I live in a country that has people in it that think that it is fair to pay someone $7.25 an hour. I keep wanting to come over here and post, but every time I see someone defend this practice, I just want to throw my computer monitor against the wall and scream at the top of my lungs that I live in a place that is filled with either extremely calloused people who hate others, or idiots who do not understand basic math and can not realize how unsustainable this is.

Minimum wage as it stands in this country is nothing more than corporate welfare.

[thecryptile]

The thing is, most people don't make minimum wage. Even McDonald's employees make more than minimum wage. Wal-Mart is the only place in my area I can think of that actually starts people off at $7.25 an hour. Most everywhere else you would start out making $0.75 more than minimum wage. I bet the McDonald's employees up in NYC who are wanting the $15 an hour minimum wage are making at least $10 an hour now.

The discussion could just as easily be: "The cost of living is too high!" as "The minimum wage is too low!"

[Stag Country]

I can not believe that I live in a country that has people in it that think that it is fair to pay someone $7.25 an hour. I keep wanting to come over here and post, but every time I see someone defend this practice, I just want to throw my computer monitor against the wall and scream at the top of my lungs that I live in a place that is filled with either extremely calloused people who hate others, or idiots who do not understand basic math and can not realize how unsustainable this is.

Minimum wage as it stands in this country is nothing more than corporate welfare.

Yes, we are all either callous or idiots because we don't think flipping burgers or running a cash register is a job that someone should take with the expectation that it will be their career occupation. Pull the other one.

[Howdyphillip]

Yes, we are all either callous or idiots because we don't think flipping burgers or running a cash register is a job that someone should take with the expectation that it will be their career occupation. Pull the other one.

I don't care what kind of judgemental, bullshit ideas you have about any job. The point remains is that $7.25 an hour is so far below the level of sustainability of living in the US, it is a crime that people are allowed to pay others this wage.

I don't know what kind of "lessons" you are trying to teach people by telling them that a day of work is not worth keeping them alive, but it certainly doesn't seem to be working. What is happening is that we are all having to pay out of our taxes to supplement the income of minimum wage workers and that is doing nothing but giving money to companies like Walmart.

[Stag Country]

I don't care what kind of judgemental, bullshit ideas you have about any job. The point remains is that $7.25 an hour is so far below the level of sustainability of living in the US, it is a crime that people are allowed to pay others this wage.

I don't know what kind of "lessons" you are trying to teach people by telling them that a day of work is not worth keeping them alive, but it certainly doesn't seem to be working. What is happening is that we are all having to pay out of our taxes to supplement the income of minimum wage workers and that is doing nothing but giving money to companies like Walmart.

Minimum wage is not designed for an individual to sustain themselves on there own.

It has nothing to do with lessons or judgements. It has to do with the fact that some jobs are simply not supposed to be long term careers. They are purposefully designed to provide supplemental income (i.e. second jobs, part-time jobs, off-hour positions that people can take while studying). You complaints about corporations here are absurd. They aren't in a market that requires high paying jobs (at least at the ground level), why would the onus be on them to increase their costs and price themselves out of their own market?

[Lyanna Stark]

Yes, we are all either callous or idiots because we don't think flipping burgers or running a cash register is a job that someone should take with the expectation that it will be their career occupation. Pull the other one.

For people with no education, or during periods of high unemployment, these types of jobs may be all people can get. This is where, I suppose, you can either think "LOL it's ur own fault for being poor/sick/uneducated/fill in whatever else you want" or you can think "OK, this type of wage is not something people can live on, so we are creating a class of working poor, which is a bad thing for several reason".

You also realise, I suppose, that poverty, huge income disparity, lack of education, lack of opportunities, lack of access to health care (since it comes with having a decent job) leads to increased social stratification, crime, lower life expectancy, poorer health, instability and increased reliance on benefits paid.

So you have to ask yourself: are you ok with the latter? If not, then you should be on the side that the state should not subsidise companies who do not wish to pay out proper wages, cos this is what is happening, here and elsewhere. Through health care (Medicare and Medicaid in the US I believe, by NHS in the UK etc etc), social benefits and a host of other "damage control" exercises the state needs to do to support the poorest, while really, the companies should pay people a wage they can live on. If they cannot pay people what they should, then perhaps the company should look at what they are doing wrong, or whether they actually have a sound business model.

Minimum wage is not designed for an individual to sustain themselves on there own.

I had no idea the point of minimum wage was that it was set with the purpose of an individual not being able to actually sustain themselves on a job paying it. Where does it say that?

[DaarioKnowsBest]

When was McDonalds employment purposefully designed to be a supplemental income?

I'm not saying it isn't true but I've never heard the source of it?

Did Ray Kroc set it up from the beginning like that or did McDonald's take off so much that he was able to create a new type of job aimed at giving people a bit of money while they work toward real employment?

[Howdyphillip]

Minimum wage is not designed for an individual to sustain themselves on there own.

It has nothing to do with lessons or judgements. It has to do with the fact that some jobs are simply not supposed to be long term careers. They are purposefully designed to provide supplemental income (i.e. second jobs, part-time jobs, off-hour positions that people can take while studying). You complaints about corporations here are absurd. They aren't in a market that requires high paying jobs (at least at the ground level), why would the onus be on them to increase their costs and price themselves out of their own market?

It is statements like this that makes me realize that you live in a severe disconnect to the rest of the world around you. Almost all people who take jobs do so to have the ability to do little things like eat, and pay for a place to live. I don't think that you live in this little place called reality. If a person has a job, what purpose is that job for if not to sustain themselves on? So you are telling me that Walmart and McDonalds are just trying to help people out while they study?

As far as "pricing themselves out of the market", I can only say that it is a good thing that companies that rely on a business practice that force people into extreme poverty shut down. I somehow don't believe that would be the case though with the companies that make this a routine practice. I think that they could more than sustain themselves if they started treating people fairly.

[Stag Country]

When was McDonalds employment purposefully designed to be a supplemental income?

I'm not saying it isn't true but I've never heard the source of it?

Did Ray Kroc set it up from the beginning like that or did McDonald's take off so much that he was able to create a new type of job aimed at giving people a bit of money while they work toward real employment?

Their own financial planning guide (at least the one that has been making rounds on left-wing blogs like motherjones) insinuates that you would have a second job. Aside from that the simple observation that the job involves flipping burgers, should be sufficient indication that the job is not designed to be a career.

For people with no education, or during periods of high unemployment, these types of jobs may be all people can get. This is where, I suppose, you can either think "LOL it's ur own fault for being poor/sick/uneducated/fill in whatever else you want" or you can think "OK, this type of wage is not something people can live on, so we are creating a class of working poor, which is a bad thing for several reason".

You also realise, I suppose, that poverty, huge income disparity, lack of education, lack of opportunities, lack of access to health care (since it comes with having a decent job) leads to increased social stratification, crime, lower life expectancy, poorer health, instability and increased reliance on benefits paid.

So you have to ask yourself: are you ok with the latter? If not, then you should be on the side that the state should not subsidise companies who do not wish to pay out proper wages, cos this is what is happening, here and elsewhere. Through health care (Medicare and Medicaid in the US I believe, by NHS in the UK etc etc), social benefits and a host of other "damage control" exercises the state needs to do to support the poorest, while really, the companies should pay people a wage they can live on. If they cannot pay people what they should, then perhaps the company should look at what they are doing wrong, or whether they actually have a sound business model.

I had no idea the point of minimum wage was that it was set with the purpose of an individual not being able to actually sustain themselves on a job paying it. Where does it say that?

Minimum wage, at least at the federal level (in the US), was initially set up by the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, it was designed specifically to combat sweatshop-type pay conditions. The goal was to bring people out of poverty that was it. People are attempting to utilize it in this discussion as a minimum rate of compensation that will allow a person to sustain themselves on a solitary basis (at least that was the comment I originally responded to anyway), that's simply not realistic and not what it's intended to do.

A couple things regarding the rest of your comment:

For people who have no educational background.: Whose "fault" is it in your view, since you seem to write-off the notion that I would hold them accountable for their predictament? High School education is "free". College is rather expensive, but loans are made available for those that want them and plan for them. It seems like people on this board bend over backward to remove all liability from a person.

As far as the effects on society, I don't disagree (even though I will note that crime statistics across the board have been going down inspite of the slowed economy). I just don't get why you look to the minimum wage as the answer. A far more beneficial route would be increases the earned income tax credit. It's more "bang for the buck" and it doesn't have the unintended consequence of effectively raising the CPI and decreasing job growth.

And your last point there, I don't follow. You say companies can't "pay people what they should". It seems quite clear they ARE paying people what they should since people are taking the jobs. This is capitalist country, in spite of what the tea party would have you believe, companies will reimburse you at a rate the market demands or they will find that they will not have the labor to conduct their business.

[Stag Country]

It is statements like this that makes me realize that you live in a severe disconnect to the rest of the world around you. Almost all people who take jobs do so to have the ability to do little things like eat, and pay for a place to live. I don't think that you live in this little place called reality. If a person has a job, what purpose is that job for if not to sustain themselves on? So you are telling me that Walmart and McDonalds are just trying to help people out while they study?

As far as "pricing themselves out of the market", I can only say that it is a good thing that companies that rely on a business practice that force people into extreme poverty shut down. I somehow don't believe that would be the case though with the companies that make this a routine practice. I think that they could more than sustain themselves if they started treating people fairly.

The only realization here is that you can't conduct a rational discussion on this issue without over dramaticizing it. No one is disconnected from reality. I've lived this life the same as everyone here, and I've worked these very jobs we are talking about.

Let me ask you: Have you ever worked for McDonald's? How about Wal-Mart? How about a supermarket? How about a factory? Or a movie theater? I have. Since you seem hellbent on making generalizations about me, I'll go ahead and make one about you. You write like someone that has never experienced work in ANY of these situations. I found every single one of them (except the factory) to be more than accommodating when working my way thru high school and college.

Further, I think you're in the wrong country. You seem to believe that companies should commit all of this investment to their enterprise for the express purpose of paying people more money. Corporations exist to make money, not to lose it. Paying their burger flipper $15 a hour while their competitor doesn't causes them to go out of business. Forcing both of them to pay $15 a hour just causes them to either cut back on employees or to raise the cost of their services to their customers. They will always pass on that cost. So either we support these individuals through our tax dollars or we make our own earnings worth less. You pick.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

Fifteen Dollars an hour isn't enough to live on in NYC.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

First it's a line of shit from you about how regulation doesn't stifle small business...

Now let's be fair. What he actually said was "[r]egulation has nothing to do with the startup costs of a business."

The trend these days is towards a vast increase of mimimum wage jobs, or higher paying part time jobs; neither offering mush in the way of improvement.

Okay. Why is that? There's been a minimum wage for a long time, yet we didn't see a vast increase in the number of minimum wage jobs, or higher paying part-time jobs. So why are we seeing that now? You're not saying that is because the minimum wage is too low, are you? Because that doesn't make any sense.

Fifteen Dollars an hour isn't enough to live on in NYC.

Then who is filling those jobs. Zombies?

[Atreides]

Well it's probably enough to live on if you have two jobs and/or welfare...

[DaarioKnowsBest]

Well it's probably enough to live on if you have two jobs and/or welfare...

Or if you are selling weed out of the drive thru window

[Howdyphillip]

The only realization here is that you can't conduct a rational discussion on this issue without over dramaticizing it. No one is disconnected from reality. I've lived this life the same as everyone here, and I've worked these very jobs we are talking about.

You may be correct here. I find it illogical, and preposterous that anyone, anywhere can advocate paying people a wage that doesn't begin to pay for half of a sustainable living. Speaking about it rationally proves itself to be quite difficult. Your position on this truly astounds me. We are talking about people here and a whole class of people being tread upon. I don't think extreme poverty in this country is over "dramatized".

Let me ask you: Have you ever worked for McDonald's? How about Wal-Mart? How about a supermarket? How about a factory? Or a movie theater? I have. Since you seem hellbent on making generalizations about me, I'll go ahead and make one about you. You write like someone that has never experienced work in ANY of these situations. I found every single one of them (except the factory) to be more than accommodating when working my way thru high school and college.

Not that this has anything to do at all with this conversation, but yes, I have worked at a vast majority of these places in my life.

Further, I think you're in the wrong country. You seem to believe that companies should commit all of this investment to their enterprise for the express purpose of paying people more money. Corporations exist to make money, not to lose it. Paying their burger flipper $15 a hour while their competitor doesn't causes them to go out of business. Forcing both of them to pay $15 a hour just causes them to either cut back on employees or to raise the cost of their services to their customers. They will always pass on that cost. So either we support these individuals through our tax dollars or we make our own earnings worth less. You pick.

So your theory is that we should step on the necks of the poor so our dollar will be worth more money... Not only does this not match up to reality, but even in the make believe universe where you live it is a shitty thing to do.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Or if you are selling weed out of the drive thru window

Perfect example of a type of small business that government regulation is stifling.