Seeking Alpha

Low wages at fast-food chains in focus

  • A major storm is brewing over the low wages paid to fast-food workers and the cost to U.S. taxpayers of the group's reliance on public safety nets as it lives off the sub-$10 per hour wages.
  • The National Employment Law Project estimates it costs the public close to $7B to sustain the families of fast-food workers through initiatives such as food stamps, the Children's Health Insurance Program and the Earned Income Tax Credit.
  • It's a cost that at some point the American public may demand be shared by the major players in the restaurant sector.
  • Fast-food chains in focus: McDonald's (MCD), Burger King (BKW), Wendy's (WEN), Taco Bell (YUM), Dunkin' Donuts (DNKN), Subway.
From other sites
Comments (117)
  • Ted Bear
    , contributor
    Comments (607) | Send Message
     
    The Walmart model?
    18 Oct 2013, 08:26 AM Reply Like
  • buffett222
    , contributor
    Comments (940) | Send Message
     
    Fully automated restaurants coming: Game Over.
    18 Oct 2013, 10:55 AM Reply Like
  • buffett222
    , contributor
    Comments (940) | Send Message
     
    Liberals, feel free to put your money where your mouth is and write a personal check.
    18 Oct 2013, 11:27 AM Reply Like
  • sbeardsley702
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    To whom? The restaurants fixing their books through public programs, or the workers being low-balled by their corporate indentures?
    18 Oct 2013, 11:58 AM Reply Like
  • buffett222
    , contributor
    Comments (940) | Send Message
     
    This is the typical dimwit argument - that workers deserve a bigger slice of the buggywhip industry pie.

     

    A smarter argument would be for education reform - better and cheaper schools, universities that train people to add value, eg a free online university system for US citizens. But that would threaten your failing teachers and their unions, wouldnt it?

     

    Online education is coming anyway.
    18 Oct 2013, 12:53 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5423) | Send Message
     
    The solution is very simple: raise the minimum wage to where EIC and food stamps aren't needed and don't apply. That will increase the amounts collected on Social Security and Medicare taxes to where those programs will be viable.

     

    Too bad that doesn't fit with the right wing ideology of getting rich by impoverishing the poor.

     

    They don't get it. They don't get it at all. The thing is, even if you doubled wages to those who work in fast food and Walmart type places they would still have to spend it all. So GDP would go up, and the wealthy would have more, just by letting the people at the bottom of the heap have enough to live on.
    18 Oct 2013, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • racewalker
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    I tend to agree with you Tom, my only concern what would that do to inflation???
    18 Oct 2013, 09:00 AM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (831) | Send Message
     
    We could use a little inflation
    18 Oct 2013, 09:01 AM Reply Like
  • peace4
    , contributor
    Comments (350) | Send Message
     
    I totally agree with you, Tom Armistead!
    A decent minimum wage would be enough for a person to live on without welfare supplements. In many stores only one person out of 20 or more is working full time with benefits. That is just wrong. I am old now but I remember when the middle class was the mainstay of this country.
    Peace
    18 Oct 2013, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5423) | Send Message
     
    racewalker,

     

    You would have to do it gradually. I think a quarter a quarter would do it, ie raise it 25 cents every three months. Maybe every once in a while go with 50 cents for a quarter or two.

     

    or maybe 20/10/10...that would be, raise it 20% for openers and then 10% per year therafter until it would be the same as in the 50's when adjusted for inflation.
    18 Oct 2013, 09:14 AM Reply Like
  • JeffreyLangBoyd
    , contributor
    Comments (663) | Send Message
     
    Know you know the arguments against it Tom but it would put a number of people out of work and increase prices. I'd be completely o.k. with the increase in prices but oh I would hate to put a marginal worker out of work. I also prefer explicit subsidies rather than hidden ones so at least we know what things cost.

     

    Something you may not have been thinking about is Obamacare's impact on the poor and business models. Now a bright person with a family can actually think about leaving a nice corporate job and start a business because they can actually afford insurance. Perhaps more important and not really talked about is how a worker at McDonalds can afford real insurance. It might have the effect of actually disincentivizing people from trying to move up on the economic ladder and benefit those paying low wages. I'm actually completely o.k. with that too but it isn't a perspective I hear in the press.
    18 Oct 2013, 09:32 AM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5423) | Send Message
     
    Jeff,

     

    Every other developed nation has national healthcare and they all have lower costs than we have.

     

    Obamacare will work, for the simple reason it will eliminate adverse selection.

     

    As far as putting everybody on part-time, we're already there, in the industries involved.
    18 Oct 2013, 09:38 AM Reply Like
  • hey buddy
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    A bit of inflation helps the poor pay back their debts with inflated money but it hurts the rich by hurting their savings a bit
    18 Oct 2013, 09:50 AM Reply Like
  • hey buddy
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    You are right. This happened when the unions forced the rich to pay more the result was the creation of the middle class. The money that the middle class spent made the rich even more rich
    18 Oct 2013, 09:50 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3535) | Send Message
     
    " I am old now but I remember when the middle class was the mainstay of this country."

     

    You probably don't remember when happened when people in China decided to start competing with unskilled "middle class" workers here
    18 Oct 2013, 10:27 AM Reply Like
  • walike
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Other countries with socialized medicine have Tort Reform which is a major reason (and low physician wages) they spend less per cap on medical care than we do. Also, they don't develop new drugs or equipment as the USA does.
    18 Oct 2013, 11:04 AM Reply Like
  • rayfrechette
    , contributor
    Comments (22) | Send Message
     
    This sounds great until you realize (learn) that many contracts are written where labor (pay) rates are set at a multitude of minimum wage thus those would immediately go up (fueling inflation), and shortly thereafter the rest of working group would want more in way of wages, and then investors would demand a larger return on their investment so again minimum wage earners would be in same predicament. The simple fact that many forget is that wages, or returns on investment, be this hours spent laboring or money invested is based on percentage of total return. There has always been and will always be only 100 pieces in the total return pie and minimum wage earners will always get minimum percentage amount. The only way to get more in way of wages is to produce more, or have a job requiring more skills and attention. Anything else is just a fantasy.
    18 Oct 2013, 05:41 PM Reply Like
  • rayfrechette
    , contributor
    Comments (22) | Send Message
     
    Inflation is what robs those of us who were prudent enough to save some of our income. The dollar I saved 5, 10, 20 etc years ago is worth a lot less than it was then. This is a cruel way to rob the elderlies of what they struggleed to put aside for their retirement. This is also how government robs us of our due.
    18 Oct 2013, 05:44 PM Reply Like
  • JohnnyJack
    , contributor
    Comments (52) | Send Message
     
    Hi! It is nice to hear from someone who remembers when minimum wage employees did not have to live under a bridge.

     

    I appreciate your concerns but the "marginal worker" theory doesn't hold water. Both Walmart and McDonald's actually favor a hike in the minimum wage because they want the pie to get bigger as their employees become better clients. However, they both recognize that they can't pay more than competitors so they want the minimum wage to go up. Any inflation will be minimal as the costs of the higher wages will be offset by the amortization of fixed costs over higher sales. By the way, the total cost to the economy will probably be negative as food stamps, unpaid bills, crime, etc. drop.

     

    Again, there is no foreign competition for these jobs so the "competitiveness" argument doesn't hold water. Arguing for "training" is great, but training could be in addition to a minimum wage hike.
    19 Oct 2013, 01:44 AM Reply Like
  • JohnnyJack
    , contributor
    Comments (52) | Send Message
     
    Sorry, that argument doesn't hold water as these industries have no foreign competition. If Chinese companies want to open up fast food outlets in the US, they will have to pay our minimum wage.
    19 Oct 2013, 01:45 AM Reply Like
  • JohnnyJack
    , contributor
    Comments (52) | Send Message
     
    We elderly lived in a world with a decent minimum wage and strong unions that allowed us to save. While in college, I worked in a union supermarket getting $7.00 per hour (in 1975) and so graduated debt free. What option do kids have today?
    19 Oct 2013, 01:50 AM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4203) | Send Message
     
    Surprise, surprise, Tom. We appear to see the issue of fast food restaurant wages quite differently. There are several areas in the country where fast food restaurants find it necessary to pay above minimum wage rates to attract employees.

     

    Your perspective appears to implicitly assume that profits of all fast food restaurants are high enough to fund the higher payroll costs you propose. May be true for some but highly improbable for most. Ability of restaurants to raise wages depends on many factors, not least of which is ability of the restaurant operators to pass through the added costs to their customers by raising product prices or by eliminating services/bundled product components.

     

    Change in minimum wage laws is a change in-kind taxes (unfunded mandates) assessed on employers who MUST cover costs of operation to remain in business. Prices of goods and services offered will be affected. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order effects of legally mandating higher wages would occur. Estimating those effects is far from simple and quite dependent on income and price elasticities of demand for products and services.

     

    If one's objective is to increase social security and medicare tax collections, it would be far more effective to include employer paid employee benefit contributions in taxable wages, including contributions to employee medical insurance costs. This would be a significant step toward making income taxation more equitable, but would raise tax burdens and prompt a plethora of changes in demand for goods and services. Some of those changes would be positive and some negative, but the aggregate effect on GDP would be negative.
    19 Oct 2013, 10:55 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5423) | Send Message
     
    D-Inv, the poor spend everything they make, of necessity. So allowing them to have more money to spend increases GDP.

     

    Government deficits increase corporate profits. Government spending is part of GDP, so there is no reason to see it as subtracting from the economy.

     

    Wealth, after conspicuous consumption needs are met, typically finds an outlet in trying to increase itself ad infinitum. That means bidding up asset prices such as food and fuel, financial speculation and gaming the system, such as CDS and market manipulation.

     

    Life is kind of like a poker game. If one player has a pile of chips that is bigger than the others to a sufficint degree he can easily clean everyone else out.

     

    Good social and economic policy prevents the above situations. And 99% of us will be better off if we make it happen.
    20 Oct 2013, 05:59 AM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4203) | Send Message
     
    "D-Inv, the poor spend everything they make, of necessity. So allowing them to have more money to spend increases GDP. "

     

    Some unstated assumptions there, Tom. Increasing incomes of the poor MAY lead to increases in GDP and it MAY NOT. How those incomes are increased matters.

     

    A homily from my bible belt upbringing contains a kernel of wisdom one would do well to consider, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". A purely secular expression of similar sentiment is, "Let no good deed go unpunished."

     

    Raising the minimum wage WILL increase the monetary income of workers receiving the higher wage, but GDP can only increase if the total wage bill paid to minimum wage workers increases as well AND output of the economy rises. If employers of minimum wage workers reduce the number of such workers employed the minimum wage increase has redistributed incomes among the low wage group and may OR MAY NOT be consistent with GDP growth. Workers no longer employed have less income to spend. Where employers of minimum wage workers raise prices of their products, the in-kind tax levied on them is passed on to their customers who will choose to 1) continue buying their products as before and either reduce consumption of other goods and services or reduce savings, 2) reduce their consumption of the minimum wage product and either spend more on other products or increase saving. Sellers of goods and services to minimum wage workers may also react to news of higher wages for their clientele and raise prices those minimum wage earners must pay for their purchases and constrain any potential increase in REAL consumption.

     

    There is nothing simple about raising statutory minimum wage rates. The incidence of burden of in-kind tax levied by that unfunded mandate to pay higher wages falls on consumers served by firms employing minimum wage workers, many of whom are low wage workers themselves with limited or no savings.
    20 Oct 2013, 11:25 AM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (831) | Send Message
     
    How the rich screw the middle class continued....
    18 Oct 2013, 08:41 AM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (867) | Send Message
     
    American wages have fallen over a decade as conservative companies demand American workers work for less and less and apply for food stamps-public housing, to help offset the costs.
    Wealthy 5% become ultra wealthy as 10's millions live off government food.
    18 Oct 2013, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • tom_t
    , contributor
    Comments (273) | Send Message
     
    I thought that the GOP mantra was that profitable corporations will create jobs? And all you need to do is to work harder, or acquire new skills, to better oneself. Yes -- more and more people chasing fewer good jobs, and everyone else gets a McJob. Decent blue-collar jobs? We've lost millions of them.

     

    This country is slowly collapsing, but I guess as long as Wall Street makes money, then our leaders don't care.
    18 Oct 2013, 09:29 AM Reply Like
  • AnAvgJoe
    , contributor
    Comments (330) | Send Message
     
    Was doing some filing of pay stubs and decided to look back at the past several years. Between wage freezes, increases in health care and taxes, and a raise (yay!) that got eaten up immediately by the SS tax withholding reversion (boo), my take-home pay was higher in 2008 than it's been in any year since. Pretty disheartening.
    18 Oct 2013, 09:46 AM Reply Like
  • rayfrechette
    , contributor
    Comments (22) | Send Message
     
    Is Wall Street really making that much more or is it the foreign companies that through "free trade" agreements that shipped those jobs, their wages, and their profits to foreign lands reaped the rewards that past administrations passed? How many of our automobiles are now made in Mexico vs Detroit? Does any of your clothing or appliances have a "MADE IN USA" label? Our leaders in Washington are shipping our jobs overseas faster than we can produce them! Also, is the profit generated by foreign owned companies such as Toyota, Nissan etc in USA reinvested in USA or are they shipped back home?
    18 Oct 2013, 05:51 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (5618) | Send Message
     
    I agree with Tom. If you give the poor cash, they will spend it. They are not investors, throwing the money in the stock market. And based on 1950 minimum wage and adjusting to inflation, minimum wage should be about $15/hour. Why it is half that, I don't know.

     

    But on the flip side, after hearing the (MCD) worker who has worked their for 20 years on the news saying that minimum wage cannot feed his 4 children, I start to wonder, why did he even have 4 children? He worked their for 20 years, so if he had them before working at (MCD), he children would be adults by now. We need to teach people the cost of having a kid. If you can't afford it, don't have it.
    18 Oct 2013, 09:05 AM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5423) | Send Message
     
    Michael, maybe we should sterilize them, once we figure out who they are. Or at least give them sex education, so they know how babies are made.

     

    Or maybe we should just instruct them, as 4th class citizens they are limited to one child per couple. It worked in China.

     

    Or we could update Jonathon Swift's modest proposal. After all, the chicken and beef they serve at fast food places is so tough what with all the growth hormones and antibiotics, we could use a change.
    18 Oct 2013, 09:20 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3535) | Send Message
     
    "We need to teach people the cost of having a kid. If you can't afford it, don't have it."

     

    Unfortunately, that doesn't fit with the western european entitlement mentality that seems to be gripping this country.
    18 Oct 2013, 10:26 AM Reply Like
  • sbeardsley702
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    Tommy Arms is crushing it today! Preach!
    18 Oct 2013, 11:59 AM Reply Like
  • mobyss
    , contributor
    Comments (2044) | Send Message
     
    If you work at McDonalds for 20 years and never utilize that work history to get a better job, you probably have the IQ of Forrest Gump.
    18 Oct 2013, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • reinaam
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    All I know is when I was a kid, McDonald's hired high school and college kids part time for them to make some spending money. Then retirees started to work there part time to supplement Social Security. When did it become a job to feed a family? Instead of blasting the fast food industry, maybe we should start looking at all the companies that ship living wage jobs overseas!
    18 Oct 2013, 09:21 AM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (560) | Send Message
     
    What? No, you're supposed to be able to support a family of 4 on a burger flipper/box stacking job at walmart.
    18 Oct 2013, 11:13 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (5618) | Send Message
     
    "Free trade" killed jobs and shipped them overseas. We may not be having a problem if Chinese products were banned.
    31 Dec 2013, 04:15 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3535) | Send Message
     
    ""Free trade" killed jobs and shipped them overseas. We may not be having a problem if Chinese products were banned."

     

    Yeah, but we would have one of the worst trade wars on the planet. Any idea what happened during the great depression with that?
    1 Jan, 02:39 AM Reply Like
  • Mattster
    , contributor
    Comments (162) | Send Message
     
    Conservatives bemoan the socialization of this country and then fight against minimum wage increase. If conservatives actually read books they would see that the way to avoid socialization and revolution is make sure people of all types make enough money to participate in the consumer society
    18 Oct 2013, 09:28 AM Reply Like
  • peace4
    , contributor
    Comments (350) | Send Message
     
    MCD shares are in lots of people's retirement plans including mine. We all must save for our retirements and inflation is low so most folks who save, invest for their futures. A living wage would be about double what today's minimum wage is and I would like to see that and an increase of 10 % per year above inflation will get us caught up without too much disruption. When a child grows up watching a working parent still need welfare, it makes the world of work look unappealing. We cannot afford to have that kind of wounded pride and depressed ambition in our youngsters because they are society's future.
    Peace
    18 Oct 2013, 09:30 AM Reply Like
  • Neil Whitman
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    You you consider the world an appealing place?
    18 Oct 2013, 11:03 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (5618) | Send Message
     
    It is easy to say "save for retirement and invest." But not everybody can. After food bill, house bill, car payment, insurance................ may be nothing left to invest.
    31 Dec 2013, 04:19 PM Reply Like
  • peace4
    , contributor
    Comments (350) | Send Message
     
    I did save even when on a tight budget eligible for welfare but too proud to take it. I saved and I did invest. I did not save much, but the investment was in proportion and it was a good help for me. I have always saved no matter what. It is just something I do. Peace
    1 Jan, 07:01 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (5618) | Send Message
     
    You should write a book how you did it.
    1 Jan, 11:28 PM Reply Like
  • rayfrechette
    , contributor
    Comments (22) | Send Message
     
    Minimum wage will always be just that, MINIMUM and will never support a family. These jobs are for part time supplemental income. Don't blame the companies for providing supplemental jobs, blame those who take them thinking they provide a living wage. Bring up the minimum wage and you bring up all wages and PRICES so we are just handling bigger numbers on our cash, but not really getting any more. At same time you rob those who have been frugal and put money in bank by taking away saving's value. This is how government is constantly robbing us of our assets with inflation. Think of the future vlaue of any money you save today in the future.
    18 Oct 2013, 09:33 AM Reply Like
  • chillen22
    , contributor
    Comments (43) | Send Message
     
    When did flipping burgers at MCD become a career. These are supposed to be entry level jobs not careers. This is what has happened to this country schools teach to the bottom half of the class not the top half. ( and we wonder why educationally we are falling so far behind) People wanting to make a career out of working at MCD, Walmart or any other entry level job. That is why it is called the "American dream" not the "American reality". Owning a home,car, taking vacations, having a big screen TV are not rights You have to work hard start a career build up some wealth, save for retirement, not whine about not making a living wage from a job that isn't designed or created for that purpose. It always baffles me when people want to make something I do on the weekends for friends a career. If you make being lazy and incompetent too easy they will never move up in life.

     

    sorry if that seems mean but life is hard if you dont like it get a helmet.
    18 Oct 2013, 09:40 AM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5423) | Send Message
     
    In 20 years the machines will make everything with very little human intervention. It will be very hard to be relevant, except in a diminishing number of jobs robots can't yet do.

     

    So it will be about finding a way to get enough money to people so they can buy the stuff the machines keep making.

     

    Probably some form of universal welfare with a lot of lotteries would make it work OK.
    18 Oct 2013, 09:46 AM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (1049) | Send Message
     
    I always wondered who in the Federation did the actual productive work for those guys who ran around in the Enterprise. Slaves or Machines?
    18 Oct 2013, 09:53 AM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5423) | Send Message
     
    Lakeaffect,

     

    It's a good question, now you mention it.
    18 Oct 2013, 09:56 AM Reply Like
  • tom_t
    , contributor
    Comments (273) | Send Message
     
    Tell that to the college graduates who studied hard and can't find jobs. Do we want a society where for every 100 graduates, there are 10 decent jobs? Yeah, I guess if you're one of the ones who can get the decent job, then great. There are plenty of people who believe that this country should be "survival of the fittest". Just make sure you put electrified fences around your mansion, because the torches and pitchforks are going to show up one day.
    18 Oct 2013, 10:12 AM Reply Like
  • chillen22
    , contributor
    Comments (43) | Send Message
     
    Yea i love the hundred graduates but only ten jobs debate. what were their degrees in (under water basket weaving) you get a worthless degree you get a worthless job. You cant get a degree and think i automatically get a job. You have to make yourself relevant.

     

    I have a buddy two degrees cant find a job. He always complains i have two degrees but no one will hire him. BTW his degrees are in religious studies and sociology. he never worked in college has no work experience. but when he goes and applies he wants the top job wont work at an entry level one. His thought is he has two degrees and he can sit at home get welfare and food stamps and still get by why work at an entry level position. when he gets paid to sit at home.

     

    You give the stupid and lazy a crutch then they never learn to walk on their own.
    18 Oct 2013, 10:46 AM Reply Like
  • mhanley
    , contributor
    Comments (43) | Send Message
     
    Then the answer is that you get educated to learn how to make those machines, then you will have a job. Geez, no one OWES you a living. People are where they are because of life choices. Rich people get rich because they keep doing the thing that made them rich. Poor people get poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor. I taught my kids personal responsibility, and to get a good education with a major that was marketable. One oldest majored in finance, the second in nuclear engineering, and the third in mechanical engineering. All had several job offers right out of school and have never been unemployed. Before you lash out against me about how "lucky" I was or they were for being "fortunate" enough to send my kids to good schools, I will tell you about my next door neighbor, who make a ton more than me. His two kids graduated from college several years ago and have never been employed and live in his basement. Their majors. One majored in history and the other in social justice.
    18 Oct 2013, 11:03 AM Reply Like
  • easyrob
    , contributor
    Comments (299) | Send Message
     
    yeah Tom
    ... and "Running Man" / "Hungry Games" contests
    18 Oct 2013, 01:10 PM Reply Like
  • taxman100
    , contributor
    Comments (301) | Send Message
     
    Labor capital equation. Make labor more expensive, and capital becomes more preferred; i.e., automation and ways to complete tasks with less labor input. In addition, restaurant food is already expensive and lower quality than even 20-30 years ago. McDonalds blows compared to when I worked there in the early 80's.

     

    One can argue which government policy works, and doesn't work, but the simple fact is as government became larger and more intrusive, it became more and more beholden to the wealthy and business. They could pay to play, and so the decisions are made that benefit them. That can only change by reducing the influence of government, so that they go back to representing the interests of U.S. citizens.

     

    Globalization and a one world government is the goals of our federal government. Until that changes, our standard of living for the majority of Americans will go down, especially when taxes are taken into account.
    18 Oct 2013, 10:03 AM Reply Like
  • mhanley
    , contributor
    Comments (43) | Send Message
     
    "Labor capital equation. Make labor more expensive, and capital becomes more preferred; i.e., automation and ways to complete tasks with less labor input." Bingo. Same reason they don't put farms in the middle of big cities. Land is too expensive.
    18 Oct 2013, 11:03 AM Reply Like
  • mobyss
    , contributor
    Comments (2044) | Send Message
     
    Whenever I eat at a fast-food place (not often), I always cringe when I see the workers behind the counter making my burger, and I hope to god that they have washed their hands in the last hour or two.

     

    Someday, when the entire food-assembling process is done completely by machines, we won't have to worry about $8 per hour McD's workers using welfare. There won't be any $8 per hour workers. Maybe a couple of $10 workers who vaguely know that 20 is bigger than 10 after they've pushed the pictures on the register, and the machine tells them how much bigger it is.
    18 Oct 2013, 12:19 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3535) | Send Message
     
    Welcome to your new fast food worker:

     

    http://bit.ly/15OpAMj

     

    Honestly, all of these left-wing arguments miss a very important point which can be summarized by the following paragraph:

     

    http://bit.ly/15OpAMl

     

    "“Taxpayers do have a choice,” the research director at the Employment Policies Institute said in a statement responding to the NELP report. “They can either provide partial support to less-skilled employees who have difficulty finding employment at higher wage rates, or they can provide a 100 percent subsidy when these employees lose their jobs due to an unrealistic wage mandate.”
    18 Oct 2013, 10:24 AM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5423) | Send Message
     
    chopchop0

     

    These right wing think tanks have a lot of answers. That's what they're paid to provide: answers that fit ideology.
    18 Oct 2013, 10:29 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3535) | Send Message
     
    "These left wing think tanks have a lot of answers. That's what they're paid to provide: answers that fit ideology."

     

    See, two can play this game.

     

    Honestly, there are arguments for and against this. I believe the arguments against this are better. There should be stigma in having to take handouts and the idea that if you want to better yourself, get some skills that will pay the bills. These jobs exist for a reason.... so that retirees and high school kids can get extra money, not for someone to go ahead and have 4 kids and try to raise them.
    18 Oct 2013, 10:34 AM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (560) | Send Message
     
    CHop, that first pic was exactly what I thought of when this 15/hr bs came about. The restaurants will just up efficiency, increase automation, and sub contract work when the cost of employees rises. There are literally two kitchen people working at my local papa johns during dinner. Ordering has been shifting to online vs. phone, so one less person needed there. Reality differs greatly from would could should land in its reaction to things like this.
    18 Oct 2013, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • Hubert Biagi
    , contributor
    Comments (703) | Send Message
     
    The son of an emigrant parents, I started with nothing, earned multiple degrees, mastered mechanical engineering and electrical engineering, volunteered as a child advocate for many years, raised two families, and handsomely supported two ex-wives (lol). Through it all, I still managed to create more than enough personal wealth for a rainy day. Never took any unemployment or welfare, nor will I ever. I'm getting really tired of the endless dribble, the endless excuses and rationalization. I see a modern culture where hard work, ethics, and achievement are continually marginalized, in order that the uninspired masses can better rationalize their own lack of fortitude. A culture where individual success is penalized, in order that the government subsidize failure in more and more people's lives. Where taking the easy path has become the "smart" play. To those who have never bothered with the hard things; actually raising your own kids, paying your debts, maintaining your independence, and striving for a higher standard in life, I say, take your whine somewhere else.
    18 Oct 2013, 10:49 AM Reply Like
  • SoCalNative
    , contributor
    Comments (496) | Send Message
     
    Amen to that, Hubert.
    18 Oct 2013, 11:12 AM Reply Like
  • financeminister
    , contributor
    Comments (826) | Send Message
     
    I'm not the son of an immigrant but I AM an immigrant. My first job paid me no salary and I took the offer so I could get the skills to become industry worthy... I considered it as a free education on the job and my break into the industry. I worked hard and slogged it out over there and after three months of the company becoming dependent on me for the functions I took over, they offerred me a stipend to stay there and after 5 months, they made me a full time employee. I've come a long (8 years go) way since then learning and improving my skills and experiences and now am in the top 75% as per WSJ salary percentile calculator. I started with 0$... never took a food stamp or a government benefit program. All it takes in America is hard work and dedication even if the odds are against you. You have to use common sense too.... the moment you become dependent on free money to fund your life style, you've lost and you become stagnent. Government benefits are only temporary crutches to keep you going till you get better and can walk on your own. But Americans today look at it as a retirement plan. Sorry, I don't have much sympathy for those who abuse the good will of the government or their employers and then complain because I started with nothing and most of my relatives also started with nothing but some of them are senior managers after 30 to 40 years of working, one of them is a CFO and recently another family friend who immigrated to the US 40 years ago with no language skills, no education and 8 dollars in his pocket retired after being the manager at a Chase bank. There are many valid cases but I've seen a lot of it and most of them are just people taking advantage of the system. The problem in the last 30 years is the general decline in work ethic... people with work ethic will look at external assistance as a last resort and in most cases, will even reject it because they feel they can work harder and make it. That virtue is starting to get rarer. So don't expect such work ethics to exist in the coming years.
    18 Oct 2013, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • 7iron10
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    " I started with 0$... never took a food stamp or a government benefit program."

     

    That's impressive; just do tell how you managed to provide shelter, food and clothe yourself on $0 and no help...
    19 Oct 2013, 10:02 AM Reply Like
  • chillen22
    , contributor
    Comments (43) | Send Message
     
    The left has to buy their votes. IE welfare and subsidies and entitlement programs why do you think they wont put cutting those programs on he table for the debt debate. if they cut their programs they wont get their votes.

     

    The rights problems is they want people to better themselves work hard and not live on hand outs. And since this countries work ethic is dying. who do you think will win the votes.
    18 Oct 2013, 10:50 AM Reply Like
  • SoCalNative
    , contributor
    Comments (496) | Send Message
     
    How about working in a fast job as maybe your first job?

     

    Then, maybe you'll have some skills to move into something that pays better - combined with making good choices, you won't be in fast food making minimum wage to support your 4 kids.

     

    My first job was washing dishes at 15 and a half. If I was still at that job and had 4 kids I think its safe to say I'm one sandwich short of a picnic.
    18 Oct 2013, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • mcgeej88
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    This seems like a Republican Catch 22 issue. From an ideological standpoint they aren't for raising the minimum wage but want to get people off of welfare programs. If you raise the minimum wage you can then get some (not all) off the welfare programs.
    18 Oct 2013, 11:04 AM Reply Like
  • financeminister
    , contributor
    Comments (826) | Send Message
     
    It's not a catch 22..... this is the result of what happens when a country becomes a welfare state - no one wants to improve and instead get dependent on assistance. If people didn't get used to that life style, they would work on improving their skillsets and move out of that Mcdonald's job or move up the chain to get a better paying roll.

     

    I grew up in Saudi Arabia which was probably the epitomy of the welfare state... they had so much oil revenue and the goverment would buy their people's alligience by doling out cash and benefits. They never developed their educational institutions and incentivise their local populace to take up the new oil jobs and related growth but instead brought in expatriots from all over the world but mainly from third world countries who took up the jobs that were beneath the local populace. The consequences was that as saudi kids kept buying new American and European cars and crusing their American built highways, hardworking third world emmigrants and their kids were using the money they earned to move up the chain and get educated in various skills.

     

    In the late 90s and early 2000s when money started getting tight, the saudis realized their kids were totally uncompetitive, entitled and turning to radical elements to vent their frustration and offered stipends for their kids to even go to college. Foreigners were taking up the good jobs as they had a strong work ethic and also the skills needed. The welfare state will never succeed... it will destroy whatever work ethic is left in society. Once you get it in, it will only expand and have more people live on wellfare instead of looking at it as a temporary form of assistance. America is pretty much headed that way.
    18 Oct 2013, 12:38 PM Reply Like
  • JohnnyLingo62
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Fast Food workers used to be 16-20 years old (managers and supervisors aside) and this was not their CAREER taking orders, making change and flippin' burgers... they were going to get REAL jobs when they got out of school, got into a trade or technical or service job. The minimum wage was never intended to be a living-wage, or a wage to raise a family on. No one is forced to work at a fast food restaurant for minimum wage. Any motivated individual can find a better job if they put forth the effort. Don't drop out of school, have some ambition, learn a skill, be willing to start at the bottom and work your way up by not doing drugs, arriving on time, working 100% for your employer - THEY'LL NOTICE and give you more money to keep a good employee. Let teenagers back into the fast food market as workers and they'll earn money for school, cars, and gaining experience.
    18 Oct 2013, 11:15 AM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5423) | Send Message
     
    Well I really congratulate those who have been successful, worked hard for what they have, etc. The sad fact is, not everyone can succeed against the odds that are now in place in this country.

     

    Mother nature for whatever reason permits human beings to be born with very unequal abilities. Those who were born smart and energetic no doubt should be congratulated in their choice of parents, as should those who were born rich.

     

    But there's no need for them to wear out their arms, patting themselves on the back. And giving a working wage to those less fortunate won't bankrupt them. It will make them richer, as noted previously.
    18 Oct 2013, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • chillen22
    , contributor
    Comments (43) | Send Message
     
    no the successful, smart and ambitious should wear their arms out working to paying for the lazy, unambitious, and uneducated. I am sorry but others short comings should not be a penalty against others.

     

    I will even take it one step further. if you cant live off your social security does not mean it should be raised. i understand it is basically your money you are getting back but you should have saved in another way. I'm tired of this living pay check to pay check. then wanting the next generating to pay for you to retire. Plus kids see their parents live this way so they never learn any different.

     

    it is like the old saying your lack of planning does not constituent an emergency on my part.

     

    18 Oct 2013, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (1049) | Send Message
     
    This is supposed to be a financial website, where we discuss investments and economic trends. So here's my two cents on that:

     

    I really hope we try what you are saying, Tom. And we probably will, given that the left will buy many votes with such a strategy. In the meantime, I'm buying Rockwell Automation (ROK) and Smith and Wesson (SWHC) on pullbacks.
    18 Oct 2013, 11:45 AM Reply Like
  • sbeardsley702
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    Grow up.
    18 Oct 2013, 12:01 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5423) | Send Message
     
    Lakeaffect,

     

    Good luck with the SWHC. Sales of guns and ammo are in a bubble, which started with the severe recession of 2009. These people are sitting on more guns than they can shoot, and more ammunition than they will need to get a deer every year for the rest of their lives. They have more than they will need hunting feral hogs with AK-47s. There's a finite limit to how much they can keep in their basements.

     

    I predict that the bubble will burst following the next presidential election. The reason: Obama can't run for a third term.
    18 Oct 2013, 12:02 PM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (1049) | Send Message
     
    Tom, Beardsley. That was meant to lighten things up a little bit on this thread. Jeez. You two need to get a life!
    18 Oct 2013, 12:08 PM Reply Like
  • AnAvgJoe
    , contributor
    Comments (330) | Send Message
     
    I thought that was hilarious, Lake!
    18 Oct 2013, 12:14 PM Reply Like
  • mobyss
    , contributor
    Comments (2044) | Send Message
     
    Tom, the buying of guns and ammo has nothing to do with deer.

     

    And the "gun bubble" will only grow when Obama is replaced by Hillary. In fact, sales will probably double during her term(s).
    18 Oct 2013, 12:15 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5423) | Send Message
     
    Laker,

     

    As mentioned earlier, I'm bored today and I was trying to get an argument going, which I have succeeeded in doing, beyond anything I hoped for.

     

    And the crack about SWHC wasn't that funny. There is enough guns and stand your ground attitude out there to make the US a pretty frightening place.

     

    See the comment by mobyss... these nutcases are all over the place. And the guns don't have anything to do with deer. It's about self-appointed vigilantes and militias.

     

    I'm an old man and I don't own a gun, not even a bb gun. If and when these vigilantes and militias mobilize I will confront them armed only with the truth - not that they would listen.
    18 Oct 2013, 12:24 PM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (1049) | Send Message
     
    Tom, you are an old man all right. And a sad one if you're so bored all you have to do is sit around trying to piss off people on the financial boards. I'm glad you fessed up. Now I'll ignore your rants.

     

    BTW, I'm a senior also. Today I'm going hiking in the Superstition mountains with my wife. It is a beautiful day out here.

     

    Have a good one!
    18 Oct 2013, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5423) | Send Message
     
    LakeAffect,

     

    I spent two months hiking the Appalchian Trail this spring, and several weeks since. It wasn't boring and I blogged it at trailjournals.com, under the trail name of "swamp fox." If you get tired of my rants here you could read my hiking journal.

     

    I regularly hike the Mattabesset and Mennuncatuck trails here in CT and appreciate a beautiful day as much as anyone. A bad day on the trail is better than a good day at the stock market in NYC.
    18 Oct 2013, 01:47 PM Reply Like
  • buffett222
    , contributor
    Comments (940) | Send Message
     
    Also check out SWISSLOG. Similar to Amazon's KIVA SYSTEMS.
    18 Oct 2013, 02:01 PM Reply Like
  • mobyss
    , contributor
    Comments (2044) | Send Message
     
    "See the comment by mobyss... these nutcases are all over the place."

     

    Tom, are you calling me a nutcase? Your opinion that people are buying guns (mostly handguns) in record numbers even though they have enough ammunition to shoot deer is flat out stupid. You seem to believe that SWHC will fall dramatically after Obama's term so go ahead and short it. Since Hillary has already been essentially coronated, people WILL continue to buy guns at the same pace or more. Your goofy personal opinion and self-righteous attitude ("not even a BB gun"!) is not going to change that. Or maybe you think it will?

     

    Go enjoy your hike.
    18 Oct 2013, 02:07 PM Reply Like
  • wrkdiver
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    One more thought - seems like maybe you Libs never heard about the African - American lady who took a job at McD's sweeping the floors, had to be persuaded to move up to counter service because she was afraid she'd mess up, became a shift supervisor, then manager, and now OWNS three locations(which I understand the corporation helped her finance,)!
    In Oregon right now they are going to lose part of the pear harvest because they can't get enough people to pick them - but that's hard work! I understand you can make $200/day.
    20 Oct 2013, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • norjud
    , contributor
    Comments (228) | Send Message
     
    Really: Check the past of the retail/fast food. It has always been this way. Do you need a brick to fall on your head? As the saying goes: show me an avg, retail worker and I will show you SOMEONE you did not pay attention in High School...Ya Dig!
    18 Oct 2013, 12:11 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5423) | Send Message
     
    norjud,

     

    Not any more. There were a large number of people who lost real jobs in the last recession, and having a work ethic took what was out there, such as fast food and/or retail. Don't forget waiting on table. You have college grads doing this kind of work.
    18 Oct 2013, 12:14 PM Reply Like
  • tom_t
    , contributor
    Comments (273) | Send Message
     
    Last year, the Department of Labor reported that 53% of recent college graduates were jobless or underemployed. That was the highest level in 11 years. Let's stop pretending that all people need to do is to "pay attention" in school and "study harder."
    18 Oct 2013, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • norjud
    , contributor
    Comments (228) | Send Message
     
    We've always will get recessions...nothing new here!
    18 Oct 2013, 12:36 PM Reply Like
  • norjud
    , contributor
    Comments (228) | Send Message
     
    Sorry not buying it. Make sure when/if you go to college you get a degree that will actually get you a good paying job. Plus if your a college grad and work hard at a retail/fast food you can advance and get to the good paying jobs....time to get that "Chip" off your shoulder. Ya dig!
    18 Oct 2013, 12:38 PM Reply Like
  • financeminister
    , contributor
    Comments (826) | Send Message
     
    Life lesson 101: college degrees don't guarentee jobs
    18 Oct 2013, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5423) | Send Message
     
    tom_t,

     

    Good point. There are just too many un and underemployed, the number is staggering. In this country and in Europe, a whole generation wasted.

     

    Getting up on the soapbox and preaching hard work and self-reliance doesn't create jobs. Many of these people are hardworking and self-reliant, to no avail. To no avail at all.

     

    As far as the heroic individual who worked for free for three months in order to land a job, good luck with that. Not too long ago an unpaid intern died from overwork. The donate your time and work hard tactic didn't work too well for him. And don't tell me he was shiftless and lazy.
    18 Oct 2013, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • chillen22
    , contributor
    Comments (43) | Send Message
     
    the more relevant statistic would be how many are unemployed with what degrees. Is the college graduate with an art history degree underemployed that is waiting tables, NO. You cannot get a degree that offers no real world benefit. I mean there are only so many museums that need curators. So i would have to say that is a misleading statistic.
    18 Oct 2013, 12:46 PM Reply Like
  • tom_t
    , contributor
    Comments (273) | Send Message
     
    The number of degrees that provide a "good paying job" are shrinking. And guess what would happen if everyone did get those degrees? There couldn't possibly be enough jobs for them!

     

    I don't have a chip on my shoulder. I've been working for 30 years and I have a good job. But there's no way anyone can say that conditions today are the same as they were 30 or 40 years ago. Most experienced people working today are quite complacent about their careers, but the fact is that many people are one downsizing away from discovering just how "valuable" they are in the employment market.
    18 Oct 2013, 12:51 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5423) | Send Message
     
    chillen22,

     

    You have a kind of an anti-intellectual bias. Too much focus on job related education isn't as good an idea as you think it is.

     

    I worked with a man once who had a degree in textile engineering. Noting the mills that dotted the countryside at the time, he and those who advised him felt that was the skill he needed to be a success. He wound up working in the insurance industry, as an underwriter and later a manager.

     

    I don't know what today's equivalent is, but there are people earning perfectly utilitarian degrees who won't be able to get work in their field. It's called off-resume work and there is a lot of it.

     

    During the Depression in the US, there were a lot of hard-working, self-reliant people who were unemployed - millions of them. It took decades to get them all back to work. That's what happens when fiscal policy is too conservative and there is no safety net provided by society as a whole.

     

    Of course that's the prescription for nirvana that the tea party advocates, ably supported by the Kock brothers.
    18 Oct 2013, 12:57 PM Reply Like
  • mhanley
    , contributor
    Comments (43) | Send Message
     
    You are wrong Tom_T. Don't know if you were around 30 to 40 years ago, but I was. Things are better now than they were 30-40 years ago. The 70s were much worse economically. Look it up in every major stat--unemployment, inflation, everything. When I got out of graduate school in 1980, it was even worse than when my son graduated college in Finance during the depths of the financial crisis in 2009. However, we both got jobs because we both had employable majors.
    18 Oct 2013, 02:02 PM Reply Like
  • chillen22
    , contributor
    Comments (43) | Send Message
     
    No, i just know that everyone touts these statistics but anyone can skew them to their point of view.

     

    Also i have a degree in accounting. which is a degree that should get you a good job and secure future. I worked in that field for a few years and was bored out of my mind. So i quit and went to work in the fabrication industry. started out working in the shop. worked may 70 to 80 hour plus weeks. now i sit behind a desk doing structural drawings and designing packages. the thing that go me in the door here at my current job was i had a degree that wasnt worthless and the fact that i worked hard and had some common sense.

     

    degrees does not guarantee a job also you dont have to always get a degree learn a trade. there is nothing wrong with being a good mechanic, carpenter, electrician, or nay other trade you can think of. You really just have to work hard, have some common sense and want to work not live off the liberal vote buying programs

     

    now i can refute all your points and scream till i am blue in the face but some will think living off the government hand out will be ok. The real problem is you get way more of the one and too few of the other. That is why we have the divide we do. the few working are tired of being told you must pay for the other. The everyone is equal cannot be true if the diversity is what makes everything better. Its wanting your cake and eating too conundrum. Everyone will never be equal. Some will always be smarter. some will be better at one thing then others. nothing wrong with that. everyone is equal in that they have the right to be free and live their life as they wish as long as it does not endanger or infringe on others. but stop saying that because i work hard and make the right choices and do the right thing that i must support the other half.
    18 Oct 2013, 02:11 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5423) | Send Message
     
    Mhanley,

     

    I graduated in 1969 with a degree in English Lit. I got work in the insurance field and later picked up the CPCU designation which is an educational credential in the field.

     

    I made a career change in my mid forties, by doing some night school and getting a credential in accounting. I found work before I finished taking my courses and got as far as the Peter principle permitted.

     

    I'm sorry, but it's not that easy anymore. Things are different. I am glad I don't have to put up with today's conditions. By the way, 8 hrs in those days was 9 to 5.
    18 Oct 2013, 02:16 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3535) | Send Message
     
    "During the Depression in the US, there were a lot of hard-working, self-reliant people who were unemployed - millions of them. It took decades to get them all back to work. That's what happens when fiscal policy is too conservative and there is no safety net provided by society as a whole.

     

    Of course that's the prescription for nirvana that the tea party advocates, ably supported by the Kock brothers."

     

    I guess that's why Spain, Italy and Greece are dealing with 25%+ youth unemployment and working class anger? Are you saying they don't have enough of a safety net in those countries? Is their fiscal policy too conservative?
    18 Oct 2013, 02:53 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5423) | Send Message
     
    No. Their fiscal policy featured a degree of pork and graft that puts ours to shame. And their social benefits exceeded what anyone was willing to pay for.

     

    So they all did the natural thing, evaded taxes and collected.

     

    In this country we have to agree on what government should be doing for us and who should pay for it. And then we have to collect whatever taxes are due, from everybody.

     

    Obviously if we provide social benefits for the masses, preferential tax treatment for the wealthy, subsidies for big agriculture, and wars for the military/industrial/en... complex, the whole thing exceeds our ability to pay for it and we'll wind up with systematic tax evasion on a par with Greece and Italy.

     

    Our social benefits, once Obamacare is in place, will be adequate but not excessive. It's questionable if we'll ever go to war on a pretext like what Bush created for Iraq ever again. If we simply took taxes back to what they were before the Bush tax cuts and stopped doling out the pork the whole thing would add up very nicely.

     

    As pointed out previously, if we paid a living wage as a minimum in this country, we wouldn't be paying out EIC and food stamps anywhere near what we are now, plus social security tax collections would be higher.

     

    The point is, there is still a modicum of social cohesiveness in this country, and we are having honest disagreements about how much and who pays. In Greece and Italy, the agreement was, we'll all take out and none of us will put in, the devil take the hindmost.
    18 Oct 2013, 03:18 PM Reply Like
  • mobyss
    , contributor
    Comments (2044) | Send Message
     
    The fast-food companies should hire on a contract basis. One-year terms. That way, they never have to deal with "career" workers who think that their skill set in putting lettuce on hamburgers or ice in cups has become more valuable over time.

     

    High school and college kids are all that should ever be hired to assemble fast food. I worked at Burger King for 6 weeks when I was 16 for $3.50 an hour. Then I became a crew-chief on a corn farm for $9 an hour in the same summer. How did I get the second job? By proving that I would actually show up to work for 6 weeks straight at the BK job. Among some "workers" even that is asking too much.
    18 Oct 2013, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5423) | Send Message
     
    mobyss,

     

    Most employment in the US is "at will." You can quit or be fired at any time.

     

    You need to be better informed before you start prescribing policy.
    18 Oct 2013, 12:44 PM Reply Like
  • mobyss
    , contributor
    Comments (2044) | Send Message
     
    I'm saying that the fast-food companies have to rethink their staffing strategy to prevent having to deal with this "living wage" stuff.

     

    Not actual contracts, just a policy that any low-skill worker has one year at the place and then they need to move on. Most move on on their own after a few months or less. Anyone who wants to spend a decade at McDonalds (and not moving up the management chain) is going to be a problem. The guy who dumps the french fries out of the basket can be replaced in about 2 hours, after the new employee is trained on how not to put their hand in the boiling oil.
    18 Oct 2013, 02:13 PM Reply Like
  • jrutz
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    Exactly. Other posters want to equate these part time jobs to middle class jobs. These jobs are the next step up the rung from babysitting and paper routes. The business models for these businesses were never intended to support families and neither will the product price sensitivity. Whether by contract or otherwise, employers should let the kids know that they won't be employed past 18 or 19 unless a manager and not past 28 unless an equity partner.
    18 Oct 2013, 02:37 PM Reply Like
  • norjud
    , contributor
    Comments (228) | Send Message
     
    When I was in high school, I did not find one student you "wanted" a job in retail/fast food for life. I always wondered why the so called cool kids in high school thought that would get them a good job. NOT!
    18 Oct 2013, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • mark304
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    I think some people need to try to understand that these are entry level jobs and aren't intended to be life long careers that you can live off of. Also, wasn't the organization behind this study and these statistics Fast Food Forward? If so I makes me question the findings.
    18 Oct 2013, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • norjud
    , contributor
    Comments (228) | Send Message
     
    you are 100% correct. Wonder how many of these fast food employees have a expensive "Smart Phone" Ya Dig!
    18 Oct 2013, 07:31 PM Reply Like
  • peace4
    , contributor
    Comments (350) | Send Message
     
    I agree with a little of what all of you are saying. Helping can make some folks want more and more help when they really could do more for themselves. It is a tricky subject. But truth is that some people are less smart (really) than other people and getting that career is just not possible for them and they are not capable of finishing high school because a lot of them are simply not smart enough. A lot of the jobs that less bright folks did in the past are gone now. We have big commercial dishwashers, machines that wash and polish floors, garbage trucks that have mechanical arms that pick up and empty the trash cans so only the driver is needed, etc. So what happens to folks born less intelligent? They are not going to have a career. Either you shoot them, or pay them welfare, or they can get a job that allows them to live decently. I don't mean fancy style and raising a family with 4 kids, but decently in a small rented apartment.
    Long ago we did not have tv and not everybody had a telephone at home or access to a car. But working full time should at least get you a small apartment and enough to eat. There are not full time jobs for these less intelligent people and there are truly a lot of them. Going the welfare route or the starvation and live in the streets route is not the way I want to go.
    Lets pay more for the burger instead. Why should MCD sell burgers so cheap and then all the rest of us have to pay welfare to their low pay part time workers. Just paying more for the burger in the first place seems like a better way to go.
    I am long MCD.
    Peace
    18 Oct 2013, 10:01 PM Reply Like
  • norjud
    , contributor
    Comments (228) | Send Message
     
    If they don't have enough smarts, then they cannot drive a car or manage a apartment and bills. So, no I do not agree with you. Many young students don't do the right thing in school. Many teachers will help kids who need extra help, but many of the students just don't care. So really they get what they sewed....nothing. In the USA you basically get free K-12 grade education for free..heck the school bus will even take you to school for FREE...yet they still don't get it. I for one do NOT want to pay for them the rest of their do nothing lives.

     

    Ya dig!
    18 Oct 2013, 11:08 PM Reply Like
  • peace4
    , contributor
    Comments (350) | Send Message
     
    I am not talking about them doing nothing. I am talking about them working like everybody else and getting a wage they can live on. Sure, low skill work should pay less, but it should pay enough to live on.
    Peace
    19 Oct 2013, 08:24 AM Reply Like
  • commonsense*guy
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    I'm sure $10 per hour isn't a problem for McDonalds. I'm just curious how much you are willing to pay for that Big Mac. I'm sure you won't fret about, say $6.00 for the sandwich only,as opposed to the current $3.00, since this is what it will take to pay the unskilled workers the $10 per hour you suggest.
    19 Oct 2013, 10:06 AM Reply Like
  • norjud
    , contributor
    Comments (228) | Send Message
     
    No, because then that line...just like the medicaid line and food stamp line will get longer and longer. There are over 55,000,000 people on food stamps right now...doubled in the last 5 years.
    Fact of Life: The world right or wrong is survival of the fittest. It's always been than way and it will continue. We cannot help everyone as we are $17 Trillion in Debt. See it does not work by spending money. Bible says teach someone to fish and guess what....I let you fill in the blanks.
    19 Oct 2013, 11:35 AM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5423) | Send Message
     
    norjud, you must be reading a different Bible than me.

     

    I read Jesus saying who he will recognize in heaven:

     

    "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in."
    19 Oct 2013, 04:18 PM Reply Like
  • norjud
    , contributor
    Comments (228) | Send Message
     
    Yes you are correct....my brother is a preacher. But I think Jesus meant NOT for the rest of their life...when they can do it themselves.
    The low percentage that can't because of illness, etc. might be 10-15% of people now on handout roles...yes I would be glad to help but the ones gaming the system..NO!
    19 Oct 2013, 07:23 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5423) | Send Message
     
    If we had a somewhat more level playing field to where it was possible for the vast majority of adults to earn a living wage (probably something less than the two cars and a house, and kids through college) then charity and/or welfare could deal with the rest.

     

    From there you get to tough love, not my department. I give to those who ask me for money on the street, but seldom do I go where that is common.

     

    For the most part I give to charities that I think are capable of tough love. The Mormons provide a safety net for members but nobody seems to stay on it long.
    19 Oct 2013, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • norjud
    , contributor
    Comments (228) | Send Message
     
    Tom..let me back up a moment. Both my parents were raised on farms they did NOT own. My dad finally said I am going to make my life better. He did and ended VP of a big insurance company. He showed us it could be done. I'm in the medical field, and yes I see many people who need help. But the real needy are hard to come by. Maybe 15% of the people really need help. The rest are just LAZY. They had many places and times to learn this behavior. They either will not or won't change. I for one don't think we should continue this for the rest of their lives and their offspring. Were $17 Trillion in debt, and you see what giving out tons of money has done to our society/world!!! It's not good!
    19 Oct 2013, 08:15 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Armistead
    , contributor
    Comments (5423) | Send Message
     
    norjud, we (meaning the US as a nation) aren't doing that. Welfare was capped during the Clinton administration. I don't know why so many people insist on seeing welfare queens all over the place. They aren't there.

     

    Food stamps are part of the agricultural bill, and trivial compared to the subsidies given to agribusinesses that are worth millions if not billions. And food stamps were cut, while subsidies for agricultural businesses were left intact. Or increased, I forget.

     

    The US deficit is directly attributable to 1) war in Iraq 2) war in Afhanistan 3) the severe recession caused by lack of regulation in the financial sector. That's how the numbers add up and I can get you a link if you don't believe me.

     

    I frankly am not going to punish the needy for the Bush administration's failure to regulate the crooks on Wall Street, nor for Bush's fantasy WMD's in Iraq, or for our determination to get involved with a tar baby trying to teach the Muslims in Afghanistan who are wonderfully good at hatred how to overcome religious zealotry.

     

    They've done psychological studies, those who are most opposed to redistribution generally have high upper body strength. So something in the genes makes them resist redistribution. A lot of our thinking on these issues is hardwired, not really based on reason and logic.

     

    I had a long discussion one night while hiking on the Appalachian Trail, there were only two of us, myself age 66 and a gentleman of 70. Both of us had hiked many miles with a heavy pack. So we sat there and argued this stuff back and forth after supper, and again with breakfast. And nobody budged an inch. And he beleived in welfare queens, although he freely acknowledged the changes made during the Clinton Administration.

     

    The funny part was, he had issues in his family life (we talked a long time) that would have benefitted from tough love. Not his department any more than mine.
    19 Oct 2013, 09:27 PM Reply Like
  • peace4
    , contributor
    Comments (350) | Send Message
     
    Thank you, Tom. But even without the Bible, it is a question of how we want to live. Back in Dickens time (if norjud finished high school he might remember reading Dickens...?) they did have the survival of the fittest and poor folks suffered. In America we had child labor and poor houses, pest ridden tenements were even more common than now, and folks actually starved in the streets and it was quite common that infants died of cold and poor nutrition. That is not the kind of country I want to live in. That kind of society will certainly invite violent unrest eventually and it is unpleasant to even contemplate. All that suffering just for a cheap burger?
    Peace
    19 Oct 2013, 07:26 PM Reply Like
  • norjud
    , contributor
    Comments (228) | Send Message
     
    tom: you changed the subject. Just like many people I know..don't want to know the truth...just blame someone else...I Dig It!
    20 Oct 2013, 12:00 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector