Skip to main content

Subway sandwich restaurant

Republican politicians around the country are howling that raising the minimum wage is an outrage and horrible for businesses. But the CEO of Subway, which has more locations than any other restaurant chain, thinks a minimum wage increase isn't such a big deal. "I'm not concerned," CEO Fred DeLuca told CNBC, though "I know our stores owners are concerned."
When I started in the business, the minimum wage was $1.25. I've seen an enormous number of wage increases. Basically it applies evenly to everyone in the business. This increase would impact Subway plus every other competitor so it would not put any brand at a particular disadvantage. It might have a slight impact on consumers because what's going to happen is a wage increase will happen and all the restaurant owners will have to recoup that somehow, usually through a price increase. It might make eating out at restaurants have a little bit less competitive advantage compared to supermarkets.

Over the years, I've seen so many of these wage increases. I think it's normal. It won't have a negative impact hopefully, and that's what I tell my workers. I always have whenever we come across these things.

Subway is not exactly a leader in good wages in the fast food industry, yet that's a far cry from the fearmongering we hear so often about businesses going under left and right, prices skyrocketing, and women and children weeping and wailing in the streets. And DeLuca's take is very much in line with the 57 percent of small business owners who say they want the minimum wage raised, and in particular, with the 35 percent who say it would help them by keeping competitors from undercutting them on wages.

What's more, DeLuca would like to see the minimum wage indexed to inflation, so that it rises gradually rather than in occasional larger jumps. "That way everybody knows what they can count on," he says. "It just seems much more sensible and fair to me."

Crazy talk, man.

(Via ThinkProgress)

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Thu May 08, 2014 at 08:09 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Subway restaurants are frachises. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nextstep, Sparhawk
    "I'm not concerned," CEO Fred DeLuca told CNBC, though "I know our stores owners are concerned."
    Of course he's not concerned, it's not really his problem.  Not unless Subway franchises as a whole are less competitive than other franchises.
    •  What about other countries ? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      myboo, rbird, diggerspop

      I'm curious about chains like McDonald's that have stores around the entire world. Is the minimum wage in European and Asian countries higher (relatively) than in the U. S.  My guess is in at least some cases, yes.  McDonald's is able to function and survive in those environments.  So the Subway CEO has a fair point on the macro level.

      'Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive' - VP Joe Biden

      by RobertInWisconsin on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:49:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Should be no competitive consequences for Subway (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ferg, otto, Farugia

      Unless Subway puts a lot more labor into their products than their competitors, the consequences of higher minimum wages will not affect his franchises' competitive position.  The costs per sandwich will be small, although I do not doubt some of those fast food shops will add far more than their costs and blame it on the increased wages.  

      •  Bigger competition for Subway is people deciding (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        salmo, mconvente, Catte Nappe, Pamelia HR

        to make their own sandwiches at home.

        McDonnalds has said many times that they see people preparing food at home as a major competitor.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:13:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yep, they're right (0+ / 0-)

          And indeed, that is what I do.  I also travel a bit, and I much prefer to use the RV in large part because I get to eat real food, not fast food.  I figure the health benefits alone warrant the few miles per gallon penalty hauling the trailer or carrying the truck camper imposes.

          The higher minimum wages will filter through the food supply chain too.  Those groceries will be more expensive.  If someone is making the decision to stop at a fast food joint, or pack a lunch, on the basis of price, I think they will come to essentially the same conclusion they do now.  

          I have little sympathy for fast food restaurants.  They are selling unhealthy products.  I read about wage theft with their brands in the forefront all too often.  In short, it's a business model I think we could do with less of.

    •  It really is his problem (0+ / 0-)

      If his franchisees fail, so does the whole business model, and the parent company along with it.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:16:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm a landlord. (10+ / 0-)

    Raising the minimum wage will make it more expensive for me to renovate houses. I will have to pay more for labor. And, some people will lose their jobs because the new minimum wage will price them out of the market.

    Sucks for them,  alas. Minimum wages always hurt the least-skilled.

    But it doesn't necessarily suck for me. As wages rise, more people can afford housing. Fewer tenants will miss rent payments. Some can finally afford the 3-bedroom instead of the 2-bedroom.

    We need to parse out what the effects of increasing the minimum wage will be. It affects different classes in different ways.

    Unskilled workers will lose. These guys are barely economical to hire at $8/hr. Businesses will fire five of them and hire two...

    ...Skilled workers. If I have to pay $15, I am going to demand better skills. They will need to know how to operate the machine that I used to replace those three unskilled guys. (This is why Unions always support minimum wages, even though all their members make more than minimum wages. Skilled union workers use the minimum wage to make their unskilled competition unaffordable).

    Business owners. Despite their whining and moaning, most will come up winners. Giving extra money to the lower-middle-class creates lots of disposable income. Henry Ford understood this.

    The 1%. They don't care. We are incorrect if we portray the minimum wage issue as a "rich vs. poor" issue. The Capital Gains Tax is a "rich vs. poor" issue. Minimum wages are a "middle vs. poor" issue.

    If we really want to fix economic equality, we need to stay focused on tax rates. The minimum wage is really just a sideshow.

    •  Would (11+ / 0-)

      not want to live in one of your places if you pay minimum wage to renovate apartments.  You get what you pay for and in construction paying minimum wage get you shit work.

      "In short, I was a racketeer for Capitalism" Marine Corp Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler

      by Kevskos on Thu May 08, 2014 at 09:00:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not true. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slowbutsure, Sparhawk

        I'm not talking about carpentry, plumbing, or electrical work. That work demands pros.

        I'm talking about cleanout, demolition, and painting.

        •  You think the (8+ / 0-)

          people risking their bodies doing demolition and their lungs doing the painting aren't worth more than 7 bucks an hour? That's pretty sad.

          If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything.

          by LieparDestin on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:53:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Less Cleanout, Demoltion and Painting? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kevskos, Dirtandiron

          So if you have to pay 30% more for cleanout, demolition and painting, you're going to do less of it, so some people will lose their jobs? But those tasks are necessary, both in law and in simple reality. How will you get away with doing less of it? And why would you, since those tasks are so infrequent that they're a tiny part of the operating cost, and a 30% increase is a tiny increase. Manhattan real estate is so profitable that you're just protecting more profit at the expense of both people's jobs and the living conditions of your buildings.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:11:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, he's going to buy a machine. (0+ / 0-)

            So instead of 3 unskilled workers, he'll lease a machine and hire one that can operate it.

            While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

            by GoGoGoEverton on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:19:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  If the work costs more... (0+ / 0-)

            ...I will do less of it.

            When I buy a house, I calculate how much the renovation will cost versus how much profit I'll make from it. If the number is greater than zero, I buy the house.

            If you raise the cost of the renovation too much, I won't buy the house. It will remain an empty blighted eyesore sucking the life out of the whole neighborhood.

            So yes, if the minimum wage goes up:
              1) Some houses will no longer be profitable to renovate.
              2) Some low-skill workers will be replaced by machines or high-skill workers.
              3) The salaries some of my tenants make will increase.
              4) Some of the rents I charge will increase.

            The only real losers are the low-skill workers. But they don't post to Daily Kos and they don't vote in Democratic Primaries. We don't have to worry about them, surely.

            •  Lots of assumptions here (3+ / 0-)

              "I won't buy the house." - You're not the only buyer out there.
              "This is why Unions always support minimum wages, even though all their members make more than minimum wages. Skilled union workers use the minimum wage to make their unskilled competition unaffordable)"

              Not all non-union workers are unskilled. The biggest difference is they're paid less. Someone working non-union today could be in the union next week.
              I was married to a carpenter in the 80's. Our lives improved drastically when he got into the union. I was at home, no skills at all and 2 babies, so this was huge. What I remember is, if there was a big job going on and there were sick people and unscheduled delays, the unions were better at getting the job done, just because of their size. They had people they could move around and new people looking to get called for jobs.
              A family company or any smaller company couldn't promise the same result. They really weren't all bad news to the people who hired them.

            •  Or... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              you could pay a higher wage, get healthier/happier workers and rest assured that Jesus would give you a big thumbs up.

              If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything.

              by LieparDestin on Fri May 09, 2014 at 04:11:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Value (0+ / 0-)

              An extra $3:h even for all of the minimum wage workers cleaning up an NYC house is going to cost less than a couple $thousand more. Which is a rounding error in a sale, and less than a month of rent. It hardly seems enough to tip your hand.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Fri May 09, 2014 at 09:20:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  These houses aren't in NYC. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I do my business in areas where the houses are much, much cheaper. A "couple thousand" is critical.

                Also, NYC has tougher regulations and more demanding tenants. I would only use very skilled workers in NYC...and this is reflected in NYC rents.

      •  i don't think manhattanman's assessment of (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ManhattanMan, Dirtandiron, mconvente

        this situation is wrong - he is stating simple truths...

        he points out the downside AND the upside of this raise - so, perhaps rereading the post and not shooting the messenger is the answer here.

        yes, it will cost some their jobs - so it is up to the government to put in place real jobs programs that train with skills needed to work - not raising the minimum wage is not the answer nor is it what manhattanman was suggesting, by my read, anyway.

        EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

        by edrie on Thu May 08, 2014 at 12:40:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  One exception in regards to the 1% (5+ / 0-)

      I have found that those who have direct hired help, maids, gardeners etc., are very sensitive to the minimum wage. Because this affects their household budget directly, they take this very personally.

      It's not rational given their overall wealth, but also all too human.

      There was only one joker in L.A. sensitive enough to wear that scent...and I had to find out who he was!

      by virginislandsguy on Thu May 08, 2014 at 09:58:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How 'bout an actual study?? (6+ / 0-)

      I'm old enough to remember when the first minimum wage legislation was passed - and the dire predictions that it would lead to a huge increase in unemployment for unskilled and lower end skilled workers.

      Funny - didn't happen.  Every increase since has been heralded by the same claims.  So far, the few studies I've seen have showed the effects to be weak and ephemeral after the fact.  

      When wages are so low that cuts to SNAP cause a significant drop in freakin' Walmart revenues, it's pretty clear we're already paying some of the difference with our taxes - and cutting our own throats by keeping the Main Street economy bumping along the bottom.

      The story about Henry Ford paying his workers higher wages so they could buy cards is an urban legend.  He was smarter than that - paying higher wages got him a more reliable workforce and put more money in the pockets of local merchants - who DID buy his cars.

      •  It's always the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dirtandiron, underwriter505

        same argument and it never happens ever.

      •  Maybe the Henry Ford... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ...story is apocryphal. But huge numbers of economists agree that giving disposable income to working-class people is good for employment and the economy.

        Also I didn't say that raising the wage decreases total employment. It decreases employment among low-skilled workers.

        As for studies, they are all over the board. I have read some of them. Normally I respect science and research, but these are economists, not real scientists. And they are nowhere near unanimous. However, I have found none saying that it is good for low-skill workers.

        I do know from personal experience that a skilled union construction guy is worth three unskilled guys off the street. Three guys...but not four.

    •  So you'd rather see taxpayers (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      supporting those workers through SNAP programs and such?

      From Cornell Law:

      The national minimum wage was created by Congress under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938. Congress enacted this legislation under its Constitutional grant of authority to regulate interstate commerce. FLSA was a comprehensive federal scheme which provided for minimum wages, overtime pay, record keeping requirements, and child labor regulations. The purpose of the minimum wage was to stabilize the post-depression economy and protect the workers in the labor force. The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees. Others have argued that the primary purpose was to aid the lowest paid of the nation's working population, those who lacked sufficient bargaining power to secure for themselves a minimum subsistence wage. FLSA specifically provided for a minimum wage for full time and part time, public and private sector workers. Specifically, workers who are “engaged in” or “in the production of goods for” interstate (commerce between the states) and foreign commerce.
      (emphasis mine)

      It would make sense to raise the minimum wage in order to return it to its intended function, and to index it to inflation so that we don't have this issue in the future.

      As for the unskilled workers losing jobs, maybe we could combine this with some programs that would actually get those workers skills, along with programs in the schools to teach skills that those students who aren't all that interested in a four-year college degree could take and get a job to support themselves/their families. Of course, the Republicans are too busy complaining about Benghazi to do anything sensible like that...

      There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

      by Cali Scribe on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:05:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I'd rather see taxpayers do it. (0+ / 0-)

        If people lose their jobs because of the minimum wage, they will be right back on SNAP anyhow. What have we gained?

        There are some people who simply don't have the skills to generate "a minimum standard of living". I say let them do the best they can and let taxpayers help them the rest of the way.

        The alternative is to raise the minimum wage and price them out of the market entirely. Now instead of 30% of their needs, we must provide 100%!

        And the house they would have renovated remains vacant (and off the tax rolls).

        You are right that it is smarter to train the workers so they have better skills. But this is expensive, and we must win more elections before we can do it.

    •  Excellent points. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I am unimpressed that a man worth hundreds of millions of dollars isn't concerned how a minimum wage change will affect him or the meta of his company.

      The fact is that a 20-30% increase in labor costs will have an affect on how many of his franchises handle labor costs. Doing more with fewer people will happen.

      The subways at Camp Pendleton come to mind: You order your sandwich from one of four kiosks, and it's handed to you through a window off to the side. Cuts two-three workers out of the process while allowing four people to place orders simultaneously rather than just two.

      We will see more of this, and people will lose jobs as a result. Is that worth it so that everyone left can make a living wage? I'm not sure.

      •  I just love these justifications (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite, Dirtandiron

        for paying people pittance wages that haven't even kept pace with inflation. (Not.)

        You hire people to keep up with demand -- if people are waiting too long for their Subway sandwich, they're going to go elsewhere for lunch and demand will drop. I don't get how that system at Camp Pendleton cuts workers; I can see how it might pose a problem with custom orders though (I'm extremely allergic to raw tomatoes so I have to watch carefully to make sure they don't get on my sandwich).

        There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

        by Cali Scribe on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:19:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It sounds like the Camp Pendleton... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Neo Control, Dirtandiron

          ...Subway has replaced some workers by making some of the process "self service". Esp. the ordering part.

          That's inevitable, but an increase in labor costs will almost certainly accelerate its adoption somewhat thereby decreasing the employment level below what it would have been otherwise.

          Why, oh why, do we still have humans as the front counter of fast food joints taking orders? Why can't I just order on my phone and pay with a credit card online? It would save me time and improve my confidence the order is correct, it would save the restaurant money by reducing labor costs, and would allow me to get the same product more economically because I (indirectly) didn't have to pay for someone to transcribe my order more slowly than I could enter it myself.

          I'm sure some people would be uncomfortable without humans taking their orders. Fine, outlets in areas where the demographics demand it will leave that option available (and, perhaps, give a discount to those ordering at a kiosk or via smartphone).

        •  Open your eyes! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          When was the last time you went to a supermarket? Did you not notice the self checkout line?

          At Home Depot, they have one person supervising four machines, running more that half of the store's revenue through that ONE employee.

          This is not going to stop and jacking up the minimum wage only makes it happen faster.

          We need to focus on PROGRESSIVE TAXATION. Not minimum wages.

    •  Wow. paying people more will impoverish you. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, Dirtandiron


      Maybe you could just ask people to work for less.

      Maybe pay them in canned food or cheap booze?

      Legal means "good".
      [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

      by xxdr zombiexx on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:12:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe this will push Subway (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to make a more quality and craft-based product.  Not betting on it, but who knows?  

      Or else get robots to create their product.  I'm sure the big fast foods would love to bring in robots to create what is in essence already robot food.

      "You cannot win improv." Stephen Colbert ( at 16:24).

      by Publius2008 on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:12:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Craft based? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        When I want to grab a quick lunch I don't want a "craft based" ham sandwich with lettuce and tomatoes on it. I'm happy with a roll topped with ham, lettuce and tomatoes. In fact, a Subway sandwich is generally healthier and more interesting than one I would make at home, because there are assorted additional veggies that I can add.

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:58:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This will push Subway to automate more, (0+ / 0-)

        which will in turn push more unskilled workers out of the labor force all together.

        Good riddance, I say. Assembly line work isn't anything to aspire to. However, where will these workers go?

        There needs to a be a program in place to put these displaced workers back into the workforce, or else the "Corporate Welfare" costs we're trying to save will simply transition into individuals on welfare.

    •  Well, don't agree with you on everything here (4+ / 0-)

      But what I do agree is that all this focus on the minimum wage without any focus on middle-class wages is and has always been the wrong approach.

      I think the minimum wage should be a livable wage.  I agree with President Obama and many others who say "no one should work a full 40-hour week and still live in poverty."  So let's make the minimum wage $15/hour.

      Millions of workers will see vastly increased amounts of income, at least on a percentage basis.  This is a great thing.  But prices will also go up.  This wouldn't matter so much if the teacher making $50,000 a year suddenly makes $60,000 a year.

      But that's not what will happen.

      Instead, we'll now have low-wage workers making 50-100% more without the comparative increase for the large majority of their customer base.  That is going to be a problem.

      I still enthusiastically and unequivocally want the minimum wage $15/hour.  But to pretty much the entire Daily Kos community who thinks that this will magically solve inequality, you need to get with reality.  Start fighting for a 50% increase in middle-class wages or else this will just be a temporary fix.

      The only way to truly solve inequality is to get all our money back from the 0.1%.  Other than aggressive tax policy that reinstates 70% and higher marginal rates, good luck getting any of it back save for some revolutionary action of literally seizing their bank accounts and distributing their billions.

      The corporations got us and they got us good...

      "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

      by mconvente on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:38:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  WalMart (8+ / 0-)

    They actively supported the last minimum wage increase. I'm rather surprised they haven't said something about this one - maybe waiting for more momentum. But it makes perfect sense for them  for many of the same reasons the Subway CEO cites. Your competitors have to meet the same minimum, so it's a level playing field on that score; and it puts more money in the pockets of your customers. Walmart is hurting right now because of low wages and food stamp cuts.

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Thu May 08, 2014 at 09:14:45 AM PDT

    •  Yes, they are leaning toward it (8+ / 0-)
      Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT), the largest private employer in the U.S., said it’s looking at supporting an increase in the federal minimum wage, breaking with business and industry groups that oppose such a measure.

      Wal-Mart is weighing the impact of additional payroll costs against possibly attracting more consumer dollars to its stores, David Tovar, a company spokesman,

      “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

      by Catte Nappe on Thu May 08, 2014 at 09:16:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  walmarts own employees will probably (6+ / 0-)

        Spend the increase in their own stores. I bet they make money off the increase. They should be for it. Plus it is great PR for them after all the negative press they get about how they treat their employees. But, it is still a positive for everyone if they get behind it.

        Today's problems are yesterday's solutions. Don Beck

        by Sherri in TX on Thu May 08, 2014 at 09:50:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure would love to see them out in front (0+ / 0-)

          of it and increase their minimum wage to $10.10 an hour (personally I think it should be about $15 considering the increases we've seen in goods in the last few years, which have skyrocketed).

          The GOP will destroy anything they can't own.

          by AnnieR on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:44:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The problem is if they raise prices (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AnnieR, a2nite, mconvente, Catte Nappe

            to cover the increased wages it'll be easier for competitors to undercut them, then they lose business to those cheaper stores. As Catte Nappe said above, raising the minimum wage overall keeps the level playing field.

            There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

            by Cali Scribe on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:51:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  If they get employee discounts (0+ / 0-)

          most certainly -- both to save money and also the convenience of taking care of the shopping right after work (if they're not on closing shift at least).

          There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

          by Cali Scribe on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:52:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  It would be a particular advantage... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe

      ...for Walmart actually. They are masters of eliminating labor and they have the scale to do so where smaller businesses can't. Thus, although the increased labor costs will increase Walmart's expenses, it will likely impact their smaller competitors more giving Walmart the ability to push a few more out of business.

  •  raise the wage to 11 and index it to inflation (5+ / 0-)

    I make minimum wage at my job, and any extra money I'd get from the raise would be quickly spent on goods, stuff for my family etc.. If that means Pizza hut charges 10.25 for a large pizza instead of 10, so be it. if that extra quarter allows workers to be able to afford buying insurance, than that's good thing. Folks want their lasagna or sub made by a sick person after all.

  •  I generally support the minimum wage increase (0+ / 0-)

    But tying the minimum wage to inflation?

    Everything can't be tied to inflation. Government workers, Social Security, minimum wage... if all of these things are tied to inflation, before long not much of your economy isn't "tied to inflation".

    Since it is literally impossible to tie everything in the economy to inflation (by the very definition of the word), the more stuff that is tied to inflation the more weird and negative effects will occur and the worse "real" inflation will be.

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:00:53 AM PDT

    •  "weird and negative effects " (0+ / 0-)

      Please be specific and give examples

    •  tying it to inflation is something that should (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      been done years ago Spar. the minimum wage would be much higher now if it had been indexed in 1970. several states, like Washington and Oregon, already index theirs to inflation, so the rate goes up year to year. having the feds do the same, makes sense

    •  It's Tied (0+ / 0-)

      The entire point of raising the minimum wage is to accommodate inflation. The way we do it now causes all kinds of other problems, like the unpredictability the CEO referred to.

      You know what causes inflation? Giving unearned $TRILLIONS in credit to people who spend it on things that don't grow the economy's productivity. To bankers, to defense contractors, to buyers of $100M extra mansions and old paintings.

      Failing to protect the people from inflation who need protection, like retirees, the least skilled, and government workers is a huge drag on growth, because those consumers can't buy more than what they need to live (if that). Plus other problems, like increased crime both to compensate for low incomes and because poor families can't spend time working long hours and properly raising their kids.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:18:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe a compromise could be (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        instead of tying it to inflation as a whole, tie it to the Consumer Price Index for key items such as housing, food and energy costs, those being the three items needed for families to subsist. (Maybe toss in health care costs until we get Medicare for All system.)

        There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

        by Cali Scribe on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:30:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What it does is avoids these kind (0+ / 0-)

      of fights in the future. If you know that salaries are going to go up 1 or 2% a year due to inflation (to use a modest amount), you can increase your prices by that same amount to keep pace, and likely most of your customers won't notice that small increase or will chalk it up to inflation.

      As I quoted earlier:

      The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees.
      If the price of everything else is going up (energy, housing, food), then it makes sense that to maintain that minimum standard of living, the minimum wage would also have to increase. If we'd had moderate increases every year since the last increase (2009 -- and that's not as bad as the 10 year gap in increases between 1997 and 2007), it would be a lot easier for businesses to absorb.

      There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

      by Cali Scribe on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:25:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Everything is more expensive except for us; (0+ / 0-)

      we have very little buying power; it's time to fix it. Living needs to be better than working to death for shit & moldy crumbs


      Evil rich people have bid the price up in everything, except wages.

      I voted tuesday because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

      by a2nite on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:46:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I didn't know that Subway's CEO is a communist. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, otto, METAL TREK

    What's more amazing is that 57% of small business owers are communists. The Republicans should approve the minimum wage increase to drive these commies out of business.

    Republican Health Care Plan: marry a Canadian.

    by shoeless on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:01:08 AM PDT

  •  Here in Seattle (0+ / 0-)

    where is is a hot issue I find that many who oppose an increase are those who make $15 already.   Human nature I suppose.

  •  It's Acceptance (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The CEO is reassuring investors that the minimum wage increase won't adversely affect profits or the shares that are their property. Whatever he actually thinks about the increase, his public comments mean the raise is inevitable because an industry leader is saying it's no big deal.

    His comments getting ahead of the issue by asking for the minimum wage to be indexed to inflation are good leadership. However, the value of "inflation" is one of the more inaccurate measures published by the government. Along with "unemployment rate" and "poverty line", they're all so badly counted that they combine to leave millions of people working hard for customer benefit and shareholder profits, but requiring subsidy by the public and still living badly.

    That's not Subway's fault. But if Subway's going to lead for inflation-indexed minimum wage, it should insist on an accurate inflation index. Otherwise it's just another gamed  system continuing to socialize losses and privatize profits for capitalists, with labor the worked over medium.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:07:03 AM PDT

  •  Seattle (0+ / 0-)

    IN Seattle, many businesses also support the $15 minimum wage idea.

    (It just makes good business sense when you think about it really. Henry Ford talked about the benefits of good wages for his workers like 100 years ago..)

    "....No Compromise in the Defense of Mother Earth!"

    by Seattle Socialist on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:09:05 AM PDT

    •  Michael Moore on Henry Ford (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe, LieparDestin
      One hundred years ago this month Henry Ford began paying his workers a minimum of $15 an hour! (It was $5 for an eight hour day – which would be worth $116.48 now.) That's right – in a much poorer America, one without TV, radio, phones or House of Cards on demand, Ford could afford it. In fact, Ford later said, he couldn't afford not to: "The owner, the employees, and the buying public are all one and the same, and unless an industry can so manage itself as to keep wages high and prices low it destroys itself, for otherwise it limits the number of its customers. One’s own employees ought to be one’s own best customers."

      Tell THAT to anyone who says we can't afford a minimum wage of $15 here in 2014 – 100 years later, in a country about eight times as rich per person. The CEOs will scream and weep now just like they did then, and just like then they'll be wrong. Not only would it not destroy American businesses, it might be the only thing that can save them.

      "....No Compromise in the Defense of Mother Earth!"

      by Seattle Socialist on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:31:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Polling (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    My son took a phone call from some pollster yesterday. I heard bits of the conversation, and he feels that an improved minimum wage may hurt some people, but it would provide a net plus to the economy.

    I heard the phrase "Mom and Pop store" in his conversation.

    I'm relatively sure this was some group trying to influence the populace.

    "People should not be afraid of their government; governments should be afraid of their people." --V

    by MikeTheLiberal on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:09:23 AM PDT

  •  Min Wage was #1.75 or so in 1974 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seattle Socialist

    40 years later its $7.25/hr.

    that is just ridiculous and inexcusable.

    $10.10 is nice but will be insufficient as a "living wage" - unless you have 2 full-time gigs.

    Indexed to CEO pay would solve many things.

    Legal means "good".
    [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

    by xxdr zombiexx on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:11:05 AM PDT

    •  Whatever the intent (0+ / 0-)

      It's never been a living wage, exactly.
      That $1.75 in '74 is worth just over $8 today. Over the years the minimum wage has rarely gotten to, let alone exceeded, the proposed $10.10.

      “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

      by Catte Nappe on Thu May 08, 2014 at 12:07:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The thing that would stop (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    unscrupulous employers undercutting the decent ones is a really simple formula.

    We make a judgement about the hourly rate that corresponds to a "living wage". Currently I believe that is around $15 per year.

    We then fix the annual increase to the prices index we choose, and add "growth of the economy %age" to that figure.

    So if prices grow at 2%, and the economy grows at 2%, then the minimum wage would rise 4% that year. Years of negative growth could be accommodated not by reducing wages, but by reducing the rate of growth of the minimum over a few following years.

    Then we add in a factor to make all this work over the next five years to reduce any immediate "shock to the system".

    Within five years everyone would be entitled to a living wage, indexed so that it would not lose its buying power, and would share in any economic prosperity.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:22:17 AM PDT

  •  Hmm, I wonder if he's earning more now? (0+ / 0-)


    It sounds like he just wants to keep the increase in the profits between him and the shareholders.  Employees, bite me.


    by otto on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:51:06 AM PDT

  •  Class war? (0+ / 0-)

    Those who do not improve their skills commensurate with their raised income will lose out to those with advanced skills. Many of the latter are currently the long-term unemployed who have skills but are over-qualified and thus priced out of today's economy.  

    With such a drastic increase in the minimum wage, actual job numbers may move slightly one way or the other, but today's working poor with minimal skills will soon be replaced by today's very hungry, unemployed go-getters.

    It'll be like throwing chum into a piranha pool.

  •  Given that Subway was one of the lowest wage (0+ / 0-)

    payors, I am surprised. Has Papa 'oh noes the ACA gonna killa ma bizaness' John had anything to say? I bet he will and I bet I know what it'll be.

    While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Thu May 08, 2014 at 12:30:45 PM PDT

  •  mcdonalds in san jose have already raised (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    side pocket

    prices blaming the wage increase - a full YEAR of profits before it takes effect.

    i have stopped going to mcdonalds. period.

    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

    by edrie on Thu May 08, 2014 at 12:37:01 PM PDT

  •  So not only would a wage bump reduce poverty... (0+ / 0-)

    but it would also reduce how often Americans are going out for fastfood and thus cooking at home instead?

    Sounds like a double win to me.

  •  You don't think that Subway is doing this (0+ / 0-)

    because right now they need all the publicity they can get?  The Food Babe reporting on them using yoga mat chemicals in their bread really hurt them.  They are even advertising now that it's gone.

  •  Better wages=better economy (0+ / 0-)

    More money paid to workers=more money to spend =more money to spend means more money for companies and their owners and more jobs.  Republican and Tea party politicans what makes this logic so hard to understand? It has always made more sense than the trickle down economic policy all of you like.



  •  There are Aways a 'Few Good men' (0+ / 0-)

    Not all business people are bad. Many have a sincere concern for the well being of their worker. They are the ones that we need to seek out and encourage.

    You must befriend those you wish to develop a working dialog with to bring about positive change ...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site