Study: Low Fast Food Wages Cost Taxpayers $7 Billion Per Year
Options
Comments
-
Raising the minium wage may hurt business with less than 100 employees in the short term, but itll do wonders for business small and large in the long run. There will be more money circulating in the economy
And stop with the inflation argument. Whether we raise the minium wage or not theres goin to be an increase inflation. There are more important factors to consider. Not to mention the federal minimum wage would be 10.74 had it kept up with inflation over the past 40 years. instead, it’s $7.25.
and theres little suggest to suggest an increase in minium wage subsequently means an increase in inflation -
America is at a race to the bottom now, and inflation is one of the biggest reasons for this. We are now officially 17 trilly in debt, starting today. 17 TRILLION with a T. That's money we are **Kanye West voice*NEVER EVA EVA gona be able to pay back.
For every trillion we borrow every year, the dollar comes down in value. And the race to the bottom continues as it is. America is BEYOND ? in the long term. Most of those good paying jobs went overseas to Asia for slave wages, so no one honestly can help these low wage earners in fast food joints except for the govt via welfare and food stamps.
In a perfect world, I'd give all those fast food workers a better wage but with the cost of doing business in the dying American empire so high now, many places would rather just keep the wages low to compete with other franchises around the world. THose people will need govt assistance as long as they stay in those jobs and don't further their education. -
Well being Devil's advocate here, I doubt there is enough skilled work to accommodate all the grown people working fast food. On top of that, not everybody is built to work on that level. That's the problem with all but abandoning manufacturing and other similar labor jobs. You get rid of that kind of ? and you're left with highly skill fields, unskilled fields, and not much else.
-
@kingblaze
Raising the minium wage to $10 isnt going to ? the economy. Not to mention most minium wage jobs cant be outsourced
Inflation is a prob but not raising wages while the price of gas, housing, food, inc continues to rise isnt the answer either
-
desertrain10 wrote: »@kingblaze
Raising the minium wage to $10 isnt going to ? the economy. Not to mention most minium wage jobs cant be outsourced
Inflation is a prob but not raising wages while the price of gas, housing, food, inc continues to rise isnt the answer either
gas prices are temporarily decreasing at the moment. seen it on the newz this morning. -
High Revolutionary wrote: »People talking about paying people a "livable wage" whatever that means are basically like '? small businesses'.
McDonalds isn't exactly what I would call a small business.blakfyahking wrote: »Sneak Dissa wrote: »
So you're comfortable with paying the difference between what people make and what they need to live as opposed to their employer doing it?
you understand the basics of how a business works correct?
how do you propose forcing employers to pay this difference without actually having the govt come in and basically take over the firm?
It's called raising the minimum wage... it's a very simple concept and it's been done numerous times with no horrible capitalism-destroying, freedom-eroding side-effects. -
Shaolin_Style wrote: »High Revolutionary wrote: »It's like that saying: 'everybody wants to go to heaven but no one wants to die.' People want their cake and eat it too. They want their unskilled labor jobs and they want to be paid well but it doesn't work like that.
I say do away with the minimum wage so we can compete with China again. Something is better than nothing. This will boost the economy lower unemployment and ultimately crime.
So you're saying you want people to work slave labor jobs and be driven deeper into poverty?
You do realize that crime is also related to low wages, right?
Yeah, that plan makes perfect sense, bruh.
It doesn't matter what you pay people when inflation and the cost of living keep going up. That's what people should really be up in arms about; the government's dubious management of [tax]money.
And go ahead, raise minimum wage to $9, hell $15 and watch that increase in money be deferred to either the customer or employees via lay-offs.
But the worst of it is the new and small businesses that suffer. See, corporations have ways around minimum wage increases; they're good. They have the clout and the resources. It's the small business that suffer the most.
Most importantly the black community already has a lack of black owned businesses as it is, why raise the stakes against them even more? -
Being rich doesn't mean as much when everyone is rich
-
Sneak Dissa wrote: »
It's called raising the minimum wage... it's a very simple concept and it's been done numerous times with no horrible capitalism-destroying, freedom-eroding side-effects.
if it's that simple these please explain why pretty much anyone with a basic grasp of economics acknowledges that raising MW creates unemployment
please at least be a gentleman and click on the spoiler haha
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323392204579071011658749986.html
D.C. Mayor Vetoes 'Living Wage' Bill
Gray Calls Measure—Seen as Targeting Wal-Mart Stores—a 'Job-Killer'
WASHINGTON—Mayor Vincent Gray vetoed a City Council bill that would require large retailers in the city to pay higher wages, a measure that had drawn national attention.
Wal-Mart has tried unsuccessfully to establish stores in New York City, provoking protests from community groups, elected officials, and union workers. The retailer also sparked protests in Los Angeles when it began building a store in the Chinatown neighborhood in 2012. And in 2006, a bill similar to D.C.'s was passed by the Chicago City Council and subsequently rejected by then-Mayor Richard Daley. Wal-Mart now has multiple stores in the city.In an interview, Mr. Gray called the bill a "job-killer," saying it would result in the loss of thousands of jobs in Washington. The bill would benefit a select few, he said, and would have a "chilling impact" on prospective economic development in the city.
David Neumark, a University of California, Irvine, professor and specialist in the field said some job loss is bound to occur when a "living wage" is imposed.
Wal-Mart said it would now go ahead with the stores as planned. Steven Restivo, senior director of communications at Wal-Mart, praised the mayor for "choosing jobs, economic development and common sense over special interests."
regardless of how idealistic and pragmatic the idea is, you will never be able to force executives of a company to lower their own wages in order to pay higher wages to the workers
these organizations exist only to make money........business owners don't operate their firms focused on how many jobs they can provide workers -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Well being Devil's advocate here, I doubt there is enough skilled work to accommodate all the grown people working fast food. On top of that, not everybody is built to work on that level. That's the problem with all but abandoning manufacturing and other similar labor jobs. You get rid of that kind of ? and you're left with highly skill fields, unskilled fields, and not much else.
well what do you expect when people support policies that put strain on small businesses and ? entrepreneurship?
people are naive and don't understand that they are ultimately hurting the same workers they want to help
raising the MW just makes it harder for smaller firms to survive, which means more jobs are lost when these smaller businesses fold
plus the increased regulatory requirement makes it harder for a worker to use their own talent to come up since it will be more difficult to start a business of their own
cats are actually making it easier for the larger firms to survive without competition so conditions can be WORSE for the workers who are still lucky enough to have a job SMH -
I'm not sure... a lot of good manufacturing jobs are gone, and jobs keep disappearing. Increased mechanization of industry is also reducing the number of good jobs.
Entrepreneurial exploits may prove to be a good alternative but manufacturing and designing competitive goods is very costly; this is one of the defenses that big businesses use to avoid paying employees more. I just watched capitalism a love story and GM's president says essentially that exact thing to Michael Moore. That in mind, how can a small business possibly be expected to compete? Big bank beats little bank.
Service based businesses seem then to be a way better alternative but how many can we really have before we come into excess?
Of course being an entrepreneur is expensive, that's the inherent risk in becoming an entrepreneur.
The definition of "small business" is murky as hell. You can have hundreds of workers and a company worth millions and still claim to be a "small business". That whole thing is more or less a front by big businesses to protect themselves. It's easier to use "small business" as a shield than to admit you can pay that ? . It's how they have avoided paying taxes and depressing wages for decades.
Nonprofits have pretty much got service industries sowed up. If you are worried about excess it will be in that arena first I'd gather.
so ? small businesses huh? well at least you were honest enough to just finally admit it comrade LOL
so just ? giving those talented people who come from difficult circumstances an opportunity to experience some class mobility and maybe give others in their community a job haha
hating on entrepreneurship is almost equivalent to encouraging systematic racism and debt slavery
you should feel like a ? if you don't see the sense in supporting something that has been very instrumental in giving a black folks an opportunity to not have to live under some white man's thumb
what's ironic is the same faulty institutions cats say are the problem are the same institutions "victim-minded" cats are sitting around hoping will save them SMH
the definition of small business is not as murky as you think it is...............go to SBA.gov and look up NAICS codes
just cause a company is worth millions and has hundreds of workers doesn't mean anyone working there (including the leadership) is necessarily balling like those CEOs you see in the newspaper
it's not atypical to find a CEO with a company bringing $5M annually in revenue but yet he is only paying himself $90K and his workers $50K.......these are the cats you are ? on the most tho with your arguments
-
blakfyahking wrote: »I'm not sure... a lot of good manufacturing jobs are gone, and jobs keep disappearing. Increased mechanization of industry is also reducing the number of good jobs.
Entrepreneurial exploits may prove to be a good alternative but manufacturing and designing competitive goods is very costly; this is one of the defenses that big businesses use to avoid paying employees more. I just watched capitalism a love story and GM's president says essentially that exact thing to Michael Moore. That in mind, how can a small business possibly be expected to compete? Big bank beats little bank.
Service based businesses seem then to be a way better alternative but how many can we really have before we come into excess?
Of course being an entrepreneur is expensive, that's the inherent risk in becoming an entrepreneur.
The definition of "small business" is murky as hell. You can have hundreds of workers and a company worth millions and still claim to be a "small business". That whole thing is more or less a front by big businesses to protect themselves. It's easier to use "small business" as a shield than to admit you can pay that ? . It's how they have avoided paying taxes and depressing wages for decades.
Nonprofits have pretty much got service industries sowed up. If you are worried about excess it will be in that arena first I'd gather.
so ? small businesses huh? well at least you were honest enough to just finally admit it comrade LOL
so just ? giving those talented people who come from difficult circumstances an opportunity to experience some class mobility and maybe give others in their community a job haha
What good is a job that perpetuates poverty? I thought work was supposed to lift people from poverty...hmmmmhating on entrepreneurship is almost equivalent to encouraging systematic racism and debt slavery
Except what you are proposing creates both. Surely people who aren't being paid a decent wage will have problems paying bills right? And these people are far more likely to be black and Latino....soooooo...you should feel like a ? if you don't see the sense in supporting something that has been very instrumental in giving a black folks an opportunity to not have to live under some white man's thumb
? outta here ? . Wage slavery is slavery. You still have to go to a white owned bank or the government to get a loan. So all this "getting from under the white man'a thumb nonsense is rhetoric.what's ironic is the same faulty institutions cats say are the problem are the same institutions "victim-minded" cats are sitting around hoping will save them SMH
So you deny that institutional racism in for profit industries?the definition of small business is not as murky as you think it is...............go to SBA.gov and look up NAICS codes
I did that's why I said what I said and what I said is correct. The whole concept of "small business" has all kinds of exceptions depending on type number of workers, financial situation etc etc. all sorts of exemptions...just cause a company is worth millions and has hundreds of workers doesn't mean anyone working there (including the leadership) is necessarily balling like those CEOs you see in the newspaper
Don't matter if they balling all that matters are workers are paid fairly. Which is not happening.it's not atypical to find a CEO with a company bringing $5M annually in revenue but yet he is only paying himself $90K and his workers $50K.......these are the cats you are ? on the most tho with your arguments :
Yeah I'm sure. Yet your argument Is for people to pay the bulk of the taxes, work for a pittance and then still have to collect welfare and live in section 8 houses. -
@jono
you really think the only purpose of work is to lift someone from poverty? do you also think that people open businesses for the purpose of social benefits? haha.........basically it sounds like what you want is for all businesses to operate like non-profits
I think you miss the point of why businesses exist in the 1st place........your communist POV is better appreciated in places like North Korea.........is that what you would rather prefer for these workers?
as business owner it's not your responsibility to ensure your workers can pay their bills........don't the worker's have some sort of responsibility in managing their own finances? do you want business owners to be managers or parents?
what you are proposing is that an unskilled person doesn't even get to have a job at all........you don't think that creates poverty on an even larger scale?
and SMH @ you thinking the only place you can get a loan is at a "white man's" bank..... it appears that you would prefer that minorities are not given an alternative to institutional racism........currently that alternative is to create your own ? instead of having to deal with corporate racism, but you want it to be more difficult for us to do that
bottom line, just cause you slid out of your mom's ? while her feet were standing on American soil doesn't mean you were automatically entitled to a job that pays a "livable wage" from birth
you want a job with a "livable wage", then your options are to either 1) work your way up to one, or 2) create your own
no unskilled uneducated individual should be walking around mad cause they got to work a MW job temporarily.........if you decide to stay then who's fault is that?
-
Yeah I'm sure. Yet your argument Is for people to pay the bulk of the taxes, work for a pittance and then still have to collect welfare and live in section 8 houses.
and comments like this are what tell me that you drinking the political party juice haha
you really think cats on govt assistance are paying the bulk of the taxes?
majority if not all of these workers have AGIs so low that they get refunds
or they don't even need to necessarily file tax returns
you need to learn how to separate rhetoric/propaganda from reality -
blakfyahking wrote: »@jono
you really think the only purpose of work is to lift someone from poverty? do you also think that people open businesses for the purpose of social benefits? haha.........basically it sounds like what you want is for all businesses to operate like non-profits
What other purpose is there? I guess people want to work for free?
YawwwwnI think you miss the point of why businesses exist in the 1st place........your communist POV is better appreciated in places like North Korea.........is that what you would rather prefer for these workers?
If they were being paid fairly then maybe they could.as business owner it's not your responsibility to ensure your workers can pay their bills........don't the worker's have some sort of responsibility in managing their own finances? do you want business owners to be managers or parents?
I didn't say that...but whatever.what you are proposing is that an unskilled person doesn't even get to have a job at all........you don't think that creates poverty on an even larger scale?
Bottom line is people have to work. This concept that everyone is going to open a business is faulty because who is going to work there?and SMH @ you thinking the only place you can get a loan is at a "white man's" bank..... it appears that you would prefer that minorities are not given an alternative to institutional racism........currently that alternative is to create your own ? instead of having to deal with corporate racism, but you want it to be more difficult for us to do thatbottom line, just cause you slid out of your mom's ? while she her feet were standing on American soil doesn't mean you were automatically entitled to a job that pays a "livable wage" from birth
Well let's just bring back slavery then...okay maybe that was hyperbole...share cropping then? Would that be better?
Ohhhh nevermind. Just realiE you don't have a right to own a business either. You don't have a right to profits or anything else.you want a job with a "livable wage", then your options are to either 1) work your way up to one, or 2) create your own
Or 3) demand a livable wage from all employers.
This argument is quite tired. You keep saying these people don't have skills but you can't just waltz into Burger King and start making fries and ? can you? There's no position in this country that you don't have to be trained to do, of course it makes you feel better to say "unskilled" and "uneducated" but time and time again that's been proven wrong.no unskilled uneducated individual should be walking around mad cause they got to work a MW job temporarily.........if you decide to stay then who's fault is that?
At the end of the day somebody has to do it, these jobs don't expire, therefore it will always need to be done and those people who do it should be able to work and not need government assistance.
Your condescending attitude about this really crippled your faux-soul brother/ black power rhetoric mainly because it's mostly blacks that are in these positions and who need these jobs. The hood is filled with people who damn near live hand to mouth, one missed paycheck from being in the street. Honestly, This is the majority of Americans period!
So save me the rhetoric and remember that MLK said "all work has dignity" (paraphrased) and your main focus is to strip this dignity from people who barely have any to begin with. -
What other purpose is there? I guess people want to work for free?
there are more purposes to work than just getting money
for instance, what is the purpose of an internship?
If they were being paid fairly then maybe they could.
but who's responsibility is it to determine whether or not they are being paid fairly?
are you inferring that we all have the same bills?
if the worker determines what bills they have, why is it the manager's fault that the worker created their own difficult situation..............remember the worker came to the manager for a job, not the other way around
I didn't say that...but whatever.
yeah ok technically you proposing something that would result in less jobs
that means there would be less people able to stay out of poverty.....this is what you want?
Bottom line is people have to work. This concept that everyone is going to open a business is faulty because who is going to work there?
there are plenty of unemployed people available to work so I'm not sure what you are trying to say here
it 'd be one thing if the problem with the economy was that there were too many jobs and not enough workers
but we know realistically not everyone will choose to run their own ?
Or 3) demand a livable wage from all employers.
by your logic........we all should just be able to go to our favorite billion dollar company of our choice and just demand that we get paid a six-figure salary
if the corporation can afford it, then why not? haha
This argument is quite tired. You keep saying these people don't have skills but you can't just waltz into Burger King and start making fries and ? can you? There's no position in this country that you don't have to be trained to do, of course it makes you feel better to say "unskilled" and "uneducated" but time and time again that's been proven wrong.
so basically what you saying is that a 16yr old can come in and do the same job you are doing right now? why are we not paying 16yr olds six figures to work at Apple then? why do we even bother training folks at all? what is experience really worth?
basically what you are saying is that your boss is no more qualified than you
or it wouldn't matter if you hired a 16yr old as an electrician to work on the wiring in your home hahaAt the end of the day somebody has to do it, these jobs don't expire, therefore it will always need to be done and those people who do it should be able to work and not need government assistance.
this is untrue
we don't need McD's or majority of these other corporations selling us all this ?
we somehow managed to live without McD's and Walmarts and Targets before
the real reason these workers get cheap wages is because the product they create is cheap and only necessary cause consumers choose to buy it
Your condescending attitude about this really crippled your faux-soul brother/ black power rhetoric mainly because it's mostly blacks that are in these positions and who need these jobs. The hood is filled with people who damn near live hand to mouth, one missed paycheck from being in the street. Honestly, This is the majority of Americans period!
so basically it's better in your opinion to encourage black folks to work these jobs. they shouldn't aspire to work anywhere else because they should be able make a livable wage at McD's SMH
what's condescending about paying people what they are worth? you are basically advocating for everyone to have a corporate daddy
you would rather these same folks living hand to mouth be forced to deal with institutional racism instead of having the opportunity to make their own way
that is what really has the hood looking the way it does now..........majority of those folks are not given alternatives
So save me the rhetoric and remember that MLK said "all work has dignity" (paraphrased) and your main focus is to strip this dignity from people who barely have any to begin with.
who's stripping dignity by paying people honest pay for honest work?
what mechanism do you use to determine that someone should be paid more than another?
once again you are victimizing these workers which is actually more patronizing your part
I'm saying people have a choice by virtue of their ability
meanwhile you are basically saying that their only choice is continuing to work for soulless large corporations -
An internship is not work. That ? is disguised free labour.
-
An internship is not work. That ? is disguised free labour.
have you ever done an internship? trust that ? is work haha
the problem is that companies abuse it and end up exploiting interns
my only point using that example is work isn't solely about pay
-
Shaolin_Style wrote: »blakfyahking wrote: »Shaolin_Style wrote: »Point is, if you're not paying higher wages, you'll still have to come out of pocket through assistance and a safety net.
I'd rather those who own these franchises pay the ? up. They have the ability to do so.
explain how you would make that happen without govt control of these franchises
What?
exactly...........
you are obviously in over your head -
High Revolutionary wrote: »People talking about paying people a "livable wage" whatever that means are basically like '? small businesses'.
McDonalds is a small business? -
blakfyahking wrote: »
So interns can be exploited and not the common man who has "no skill, or education"
I read your ? sometimes and laugh to myself... ? interns. They are the very reason these companies have the audacity to do some of the things people complain about. ? you in college working for free just in hopes to land the big job after you graduate when someone who has no education and has been working for the company however many years, is way more qualified and does not get the job because said person does not have a degree. Guess who ends up training their new boss. That ? is stupid. I ended up managing a store after being trained by my CSR. Guess what, I was store manager and she was still a CSR.
on another note
Government passes bills all the time dealing with financial situations especially when its to help out government. Only in this case it would help out the citizens of the nation who abide by the laws of government and legally keep this economy afloat. It would not be far fetched to pass a bill requiring corporations that profit in the hundreds of millions/billions to institute some sort of structured wage earnings to it's employees that does not allow the top executives of any of the qualifying corporations to dwarf the general associates at the bottom of the company. It does not have to be direct numbers or figures it can easily be done by using percentages with criteria including the size of the company(number of employees), the companies profits (net gain after taxes), location of company assets (living cost given a certain area where the company is located) etc...
This would not exactly be raising MW as @Blakfyahking has been stating it would cause inflation.
Its a simple fix or a solution that would keep the people at the top from exploiting the workers at the bottom. This would not cause inflation or hurt small business at all. It would in fact increase competition and allow small business to compete with larger corporations. It would also allow workers at the bottom of larger corps to gather enough knowledge and money and skill to create competing businesses of their own. It would also keep workers at the bottom of multi million/billion dollar corporations from being on GOVT assistance which is just ? .
Now, show me the flaws in this solution... Dont give me no government should not control businesses because you and I both know they already do and vice versa. For example when Bill Gates was banking hard and got brought up on monopoly charges and they made him split his ? up.
-
Sneak Dissa wrote: »
McDonalds isn't exactly what I would call a small business.Stopitfive wrote: »
McDonalds is a small business?
Raising the minimum wage will cause all businesses large or small to have to pay that wage is what I mean.
-
blakfyahking wrote: »
My cousin just finished one. I know it's work in terms of interns doing a lot of things
but they get taken advantage of if you ask me. Doing stuff free ain't work that's being someone's ?
sucks so many grads are getting roped into it too. Diddy's been to court for that ? -
Why you got to find an internship that's paid (rare)...and if it isnt only do that ? on a part time basis.
-
perspective@100 wrote: »
Government passes bills all the time dealing with financial situations especially when its to help out government. Only in this case it would help out the citizens of the nation who abide by the laws of government and legally keep this economy afloat. It would not be far fetched to pass a bill requiring corporations that profit in the hundreds of millions/billions to institute some sort of structured wage earnings to it's employees that does not allow the top executives of any of the qualifying corporations to dwarf the general associates at the bottom of the company. It does not have to be direct numbers or figures it can easily be done by using percentages with criteria including the size of the company(number of employees), the companies profits (net gain after taxes), location of company assets (living cost given a certain area where the company is located) etc...
This would not exactly be raising MW as @Blakfyahking has been stating it would cause inflation.
Its a simple fix or a solution that would keep the people at the top from exploiting the workers at the bottom. This would not cause inflation or hurt small business at all. It would in fact increase competition and allow small business to compete with larger corporations. It would also allow workers at the bottom of larger corps to gather enough knowledge and money and skill to create competing businesses of their own. It would also keep workers at the bottom of multi million/billion dollar corporations from being on GOVT assistance which is just ? .
Now, show me the flaws in this solution... Dont give me no government should not control businesses because you and I both know they already do and vice versa. For example when Bill Gates was banking hard and got brought up on monopoly charges and they made him split his ? up.
basically what you are advocating at the bolded is for the govt to put a cap on executive wages
you are wading into some serious gray area when you say the govt should be dictating payscales at the top (or even bottom for that matter)
the bolded underlined is a fantasy because businesses already plan operations of their firm based on margins
cats seriously underestimate how difficult it is to balance paying a wage to someone with no discernible skills past what an able bodied 11th grader can offer
obviously nobody wants to encourage wage slavery, but how far do you go in raising wages and eliminating more jobs?
plus if the govt pass a law dictating percentages (which they already do thru taxes and benefits that have to be paid to employees) why would someone take on all that risk?
especially in industries where MW jobs are designed to be temporary? how do you minimize the expense of employee turnover?
are people serious advocating for cats to make careers out of working at places like McD's?blakfyahking wrote: »
if you pay a livable wage today and then prices rise (inflation) to where that livable wage is basically equivalent to what minimum wage is today.........then what do you do next to fix the problem? SMH
someone in favor of a livable wage please answer this question
