WFFaithful
Well-known member
The government should be able to bill Wal-Mart, McDonald's, etc., for the subsidies it's employees.
Instead, they enjoy tax breaks.
The government should be able to bill Wal-Mart, McDonald's, etc., for the subsidies it's employees.
odds people that are against raising the minimum wage also complain about service at fastfood restaurants?
$7.25 an hour, 60 hours a week, 52 weeks a year is only $22,620.
I would think, although I don't know for sure, that federal overtime laws apply to workers of fast food restaurants. If so, 60 hours per week equates to $26,364 including time and a half for the 20 hours each week over 40.
That is, of course, assuming the manager or owner allows a worker to go into overtime hours.
I would think, although I don't know for sure, that federal overtime laws apply to workers of fast food restaurants. If so, 60 hours per week equates to $26,364 including time and a half for the 20 hours each week over 40.
That is, of course, assuming the manager or owner allows a worker to go into overtime hours.
1) wow, that's a lot of money to live off of in america.
2) big assumption... a good manager is one who has no emps on OT pay. it's illegal, but some managers will still force workers to clock out during non-peak hours and sit in the break room. I promise this still goes on but not as bad as it used to be.
anyway i need to get back to the game(s).
1) I agree. Not a lot of money to live on in America. I didn't say it was. I was just engaging in the national past time of the boards- correcting another poster.
2) I agree again. That's why I used the word assuming.
The question is should taxpayers or employers make up the gap between what someone makes when fulfilling their duty to hold down a full-time job that contributes to society and what they need to live and raise a family.
While it's great that people want to find work and want to work full time, why are they still only capable of making $7.25/hour? $7.25/hour is high school/no skill/anyone-with-a-pulse can do it work....that's why it's minimum wage.
I'm not all about abolishing a minimum wage but if you raise it too high (I'm not entirely against indexing it or something, but to suggest that minimum wage can approach living wage is laughable to me) then you're not going to have entry level jobs (automation/productivity increases) that a lot of people need to "learn how to work". I understand that a lot of people are marginalized by society, some justly and some unjustly, but an individual isn't just responsible for wanting to work 40 hours a week (it's a start though), he's responsible for making himself capable of working. (and ideally society help provide the tools and encourage the desire to better himself)
My point is that minimum wage, in today's world, isn't supposed to allow a person to support themselves, much less a family. it's basically for high school kids or adults who are only able to marginally function in society.
Blaming the culture of poverty, school systems, The Man, whoever is all good and well as there is plenty of blame to go around, but if you're 35 years old and have been working minimum wage your whole life, then you're telling me that minimum wage is all you're capable of....that's unfortunate, but these people live and will always live in our (and every) society and it's society's burden to deal with them. (ideally, you'd want to educate them to a point where they want/can escape poverty, but obviously that's easier said than done)
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.
So what so we do? You clarified "today's world." Minimum wage workers aren't much different than 40 years ago except perhaps being more educated.
So why do we blame them for not being able to live at a base standard without being a burden on society (which apparently doesn't include their employer).
Do you think every person working minimum wage in this country has only worked for minimum wage their whole life? Or even the majority of people making minimum wage right now?
Did you pick up an application?
No, I don't think that
I don't know many people still working minimum, or even close to minimum wage, so I can only think back to the jobs I had from 16-22 when I was making/worked around a lot of people making low wages (not necessarily minimum wage, but close to it). I would think the majority of those people had never done much better than they were doing when I worked with them (I would include myself, at that time, in that group of people). There were a few people who I can think of who, for one reason or the other, was probably working a job beneath their ability, but for the most part it was young people (of various aspiration) and older people (which I would've called people over 30 at that time) who either couldn't (whether they really couldn't or just told themselves they couldn't I don't know and I'm sure it varied from person to person) do any better (either they weren't smart enough or they were being held down by something....society, kids, culture, lack of intelligence/education)
I say that to say, I would think most people on minimum wage (or near minimum wage) have probably never made much more than that (and for a high school/college kid, that's not unexpected), but I can't say for sure
I, sir, am a fast food junkie...or was until I hit 40. Now all I do is buy fast food salads.
But, my bad. High schoolers, immigrants (usually women making a supplemental wage to their husband's), and ex cons who can't work anywhere else. I'm talking about the dipshit positions, not the manager ones. C'mon, dude. They cook shit, put it under a heat lamp, or take an order. It isn't rocket science. It's monkey work, and if somebody is in a position like that having to support a family, then 99% of the time it's their own damn fault. The other 1% it's because they have some kind of brain damage, in which case they should be drawing disability to supplement their income.