• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

McDonald's Tries to Help Its Minimum Wage Workers

When did you graduate?
 
GaDeac said:
$15 an hour, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year = $31,200. That is ridiculous to even consider for a fast trod worker, most of whom have no education beyond high school. Even at 30 hours a week it is $23,400, which is more than I made my first three years out of Wake. While it may bring into question the profession I chose, I was still in a job that required a Bachelors.
Click to expand...

PhDeac said:
When did you graduate?
Click to expand...

Got to be late 70s or early 80s. That is when the largest group of nutjob conservatives attended Wake.
 
GaDeac said:
$15 an hour, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year = $31,200. That is ridiculous to even consider for a fast trod worker, most of whom have no education beyond high school. Even at 30 hours a week it is $23,400, which is more than I made my first three years out of Wake. While it may bring into question the profession I chose, I was still in a job that required a Bachelors.
Click to expand...

In all seriousness, what is your justification or rationale for declaring that this proposed wage is ridiculous?
 
We he did walk up hill both ways to elementary school in 12' of snow even in May.
 
Deacon923 said:
In all seriousness, what is your justification or rationale for declaring that this proposed wage is ridiculous?
Click to expand...

MacDonalds 2009 FDD (the only one I could get find) states that the average MacDonalds store does $2.3M in annual revenue and has a bottom line of 10%. That means the average macDonalds net profit is about $230K.

I have no idea how many workers there are on a typical shift, but for the sake of disucussion, let's say five. I'm sure there are more during a lunch rush and fewer late at night. Most MacDonalds are open 18 hours per day, 6:00AM until midnight.
So 18 hours times five workers would mean that store owner is paying for 90 labor hours a day, 630 hours per week, 32,760 per year.

A wage of $15 per hour is an increase of roughly $7 per hour. That means labor costs for this average MacDonalds would increase by $229,320 on an annual basis, wiping out any profit.

Let's even say my assumptions are way off and cut the number of total hours in half. That still means that average MacDonalds that realized a net profit of $230 before the increase will now make roughly $115.

Welcome to the home of the $10 Happy Meal.
 
DeaconSig said:
Got to be late 70s or early 80s. That is when the largest group of nutjob conservatives attended Wake.
Click to expand...

Yeah, cuz a burger flipper totally deserves to make 31k/year.

FWIW, I graduated in 1994 and made less than 20k with my first job out of college. I made 18k, which is 28k now (and yes, that was shitty even back then, particularly for a WF grad, even one with a worthless history degree). I was stuck around that mark for a few years, actually. For the first half of 1997, I was still making only around 21k, if memory serves correctly. That amounts to almost 31k now, which is what $15/hour would be.
 
McDonald's CEO pay has nothing to do with what a franchiser is forced to pay his workers.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Yeah, cuz a burger flipper totally deserves to make 31k/year.

FWIW, I graduated in 1994 and made less than 20k with my first job out of college. I made 18k, which is 28k now (and yes, that was shitty even back then, particularly for a WF grad, even one with a worthless history degree). I was stuck around that mark for a few years, actually. For the first half of 1997, I was still making only around 21k, if memory serves correctly. That amounts to almost 31k now, which is what $15/hour would be.
Click to expand...
maybe you were one of those people who wasted money by going to college.
 
it would be horrible if fast food workers' salaries increased to the point where mcdonalds cost more than eating fresh prepared food from a grocery store and the workers actually had time and money to fix it for their children. THEY DIDN'T EVEN GO TO WAKE FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!


ETA: really strong
 
Shorty said:
MacDonalds 2009 FDD (the only one I could get find) states that the average MacDonalds store does $2.3M in annual revenue and has a bottom line of 10%. That means the average macDonalds net profit is about $230K.

I have no idea how many workers there are on a typical shift, but for the sake of disucussion, let's say five. I'm sure there are more during a lunch rush and fewer late at night. Most MacDonalds are open 18 hours per day, 6:00AM until midnight.
So 18 hours times five workers would mean that store owner is paying for 90 labor hours a day, 630 hours per week, 32,760 per year.

A wage of $15 per hour is an increase of roughly $7 per hour. That means labor costs for this average MacDonalds would increase by $229,320 on an annual basis, wiping out any profit.

Let's even say my assumptions are way off and cut the number of total hours in half. That still means that average MacDonalds that realized a net profit of $230 before the increase will now make roughly $115.

Welcome to the home of the $10 Happy Meal.
Click to expand...

OK, that is a well thought out and resourced rationale. No question. Basically, the market dictates that the product McDonald's sells, at the price point it currently uses, cannot support a living wage. I agree.

There's a follow up question, which is, does a person who is working full time (i.e., holding up his/her end of the "social compact") deserve to make enough money to support him/herself and raise children? If yes, then who is responsible for making up the difference between a McDonald's current wage and the wage necessary to accomplish that? McDonald's and its customers ($10 happy meal) or taxpayers at large (i.e., raising my taxes even though I avoid McDonald's like the plague) ?

If no - I guess that is a hard thing for me to understand. We say we want people to work, but when they actually do work, we (as a society) refuse to pay them enough to live and raise a family? Do we really expect 100% of the work force to get a college degree and work in an office tower making 100K a year?
 
not exactly the best place for this, but relevant: more than half of homeless people work, but their income doesn't cover the cost of housing. There were more affordable housing units available in the 70s than now. So, the McDonald's workers are facing a shortage of affordable places to live, which just compounds the question: who is responsible for providing full time workers enough income to live a decent life? http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/12/how-poor-are-squeezed-out-most-affordable-housing/7785/

ETA: in the 60s, minimum wage was enough to raise a family. Don't necessarily endorse the conclusions of the article, but an understanding of the facts is important. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/12/minimum-wage-was-once-enough-keep-family-3-out-poverty/7773/
 
Last edited:
odds people that are against raising the minimum wage also complain about service at fastfood restaurants?
 
Deacon923 said:
OK, that is a well thought out and resourced rationale. No question. Basically, the market dictates that the product McDonald's sells, at the price point it currently uses, cannot support a living wage. I agree.

There's a follow up question, which is, does a person who is working full time (i.e., holding up his/her end of the "social compact") deserve to make enough money to support him/herself and raise children? If yes, then who is responsible for making up the difference between a McDonald's current wage and the wage necessary to accomplish that? McDonald's and its customers ($10 happy meal) or taxpayers at large (i.e., raising my taxes even though I avoid McDonald's like the plague) ?

If no - I guess that is a hard thing for me to understand. We say we want people to work, but when they actually do work, we (as a society) refuse to pay them enough to live and raise a family? Do we really expect 100% of the work force to get a college degree and work in an office tower making 100K a year?
Click to expand...

Interesting question. Some things that I'm sure you've already considered:

1) Is full time, i.e. 40 hrs/wk., reasonable for people in this situation? I work 60 hours a week without thinking twice. As much as I'd love to work less, taking 2/3 the pay for 2/3 the work isn't an option for me. Is it reasonable to expect low-income workers to work more than 40 hours if it means the difference between a livable vs. non-livable wage?

2) "Raising a family" is pretty nebulous. Big difference between 1 kid and 5. If society assumes the burden of paying a livable wage to raise a family, to what degree does it get to determine the cost of that family as a function of size?

3) To what degree, if at all, do we factor in advancement? That is, do we calculate a livable wage based on the idea that the minimum wage is a dead-end? Or do we assume that minimum-wage jobs are temporary, and there is an expectation that an employee will eventually progress to higher paying positions?

I'm not trying to espouse a position; I don't feel informed enough to do so. I'm just intrigued by this question and hope to elicit responses.
 
The government should be able to bill Wal-Mart, McDonald's, etc., for the subsidies it's employees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top