Skip to main content

View Diary: Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett's fast food socialism (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  McD's was happy with the lower quality (0+ / 0-)

    they had before. They had high school students before. No education, no job experience.

    Now they have 30 year olds with 10'years of job experience and a 4 year college education in an unmarketable area working a cash register .

    Right now they can pay the same base minimum and get whichever they think is best.

    If they did not have those subsidies, and one category became unacceptable, they would just move on to the other.

    In this current case they would just start employing high school students again.

    Right now due to the shitty economy, they can afford to have higher standards and get the more experienced individuals with an education, if we get things moving again, they will just move back to the lower tier of the uneducated high school students.

    "Every job should pay enough to support the human being doing it.   That basic premise is why we created a minimum wage.  "

    No that is not the premise. Throughout the history of American minimum wage we have made constant exceptions to the rule because we never believed that every job should pay a livable wage.

    Ill use the old fashioned paper boy as an example. No one ever figured that a 12 year old should be earning a living wage. As such they can legally be paid under minimum wage.  Those kinds of positions are stepping stones and place fillers until the worker "comes of age".

    In modern times the minimum wage has failed to keep pace with inflation, as such we have also failed to legally re-define which jobs fall into which category.  

    The paper boy example and others of its kind are both morally acceptable, and completely unreasonable to expect they pay a full wage.

    Fast food work is one of those training kinds of positions.

    Raising minimum wage to a truly livable position would be a great idea, however part of that processes would require that we have an adult conversation about  it means to have a true job, vs a paper boy job and what it means for the positions that lie some where in between.

    The end result of good discussion would imho lead to a wage increase in fast food, but it will not be a truly livable wage.

    the minimum wage for a construction worker should not be the minimum wage for a cashier at McDonalds.

    •  i don't quite understand if you are trying to get (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW

      kids back in the coal mines?

      a days worth of work, should always provide a living wage.
      otherwise the welfare state will need to step in to provide assistance for the working poor.

      I don't know about you, but i want a fast food worker to be paid well, they are handling food that we must ingest after-all.

      •  Paid well (0+ / 0-)

        does not equate to being paid enough to raise a family.

        Being paid well equtes to being paid a fair and reasonable percentage of what you truly produce in a day.

        "a days worth of work, should always provide a living wage.
        otherwise the welfare state will need to step in to provide assistance for the working poor."

        A welfare state will have to and there is nothing wrong with that.

        People have various levels of abilities. In modern times, there is an unfortunately large percent which do not have the basic skills needed to survive on their own.

        Its not that companies are making an unfair  profit off of the workers. For a large number of people its that the true total worth of their labor is just not enough for them to survive on.  

        Ill just a numbers example.

        Say it costs $25/hour to survive.

        Say Dave Smith's labor is only worth $15/hour

        1) We can have Dave be unemployed and get $25/hour from the government

        or

        2) Dave can get a job for $10/ hour. The company makes $5/hour off of Dave. But the government only has to give Dave $20/hour in subsidies.

        Option 2 is better for everyone.
        Dave gets $5/hour more.
        The company gets $5/hour more
        The government subsidizes Dave by $5/hour less

        The option some are pushing   would be to force the company to pay Dave $25. Thats just not possible. Either no one would higher Dave. Or the company would go bankrupt.

        What we CAN do is force the company to pay  Dave $12/hour

        or $13/hour

        in both those situations, everyone still makes a profit.

        But $25/hour. Is just off the table.

    •  Mc"ds settled for what they could get. They (0+ / 0-)

      prefer adults who don't need work permits, and who can work any hours including graveyards.

      That's why you rarely see a teen in a fast food join other than In-N-OUT or Rallies or certain other specialty joints that consider that part of their "image".  

      You seem to think there's an unlimited labor pool at any wage.  You're wrong.  

      There is a point at which the after school job just isn't worth it to the typical middle class high school kid.  At a low enough wage, they STILL can't afford the senior trip whether they have a job or not, so why work?

      The other HUGE element your ignorance about poverty is leading you to miss is that thanks to "Welfare to work", millions of people are required to clock in 20 hours a week at some job - however shitty or low paying - to keep getting benefits.

      That's the biggest subsidy of all.

      You keep talking about an old dead model as if were some glorious era we should seek to return too.  I can't begin to fathom why.

      Once upon a time, picking the cotton lint out of the gears when you were 8 was "an entry level position".

      I'm always amazed by the contortion some people will go through when they fear the price of a low-quality hamburger might rise 37 cents.

      "But the traitors will pretend / that it's gettin' near the end / when it's beginning" P. Ochs

      by JesseCW on Thu Oct 24, 2013 at 08:59:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  not a career. (0+ / 0-)

        "You seem to think there's an unlimited labor pool at any wage."

        No there is a virtually unlimited supply of labor at the low end right now.

        Which is why McDonalds pays only the bare minimum wage. If there was any kind of shortage McDs would not get away with it. As is right now the labor market on the low end is flooded.

        There is in fact a desperately short supply of labor at the high end.

        "At a low enough wage, they STILL can't afford the senior trip whether they have a job or not, so why work?"

        Yes I agree. In areas where the economy has not been as crappy you can still find a job a McD's paying $10+ an hour.  This is because the adults are employed and in order to motivate the kids, they have to pay a little extra.

        "Welfare to work" is by no means a subsidy to McD's I can see the argument for social assistance helping them, although I disagree, but its got its merits.  The individuals for the most part, on these programs would be working at these bellow entry level position with or without those programs.

        Its not an old deal model. It still exists in areas which were not trashed by the down turn.  It itself is evidence of a stronger economy.

        working at McD's should be a kids first position in a functioning economy, it should NOT be an adult's, and it is entirely reasonable not to pay a kid enough to raise a family of 4.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site