So These Fast Food Crusaders Might Actually Get Their $15 An Hour?

nocturnalIf you think giving people more money, will make the economy worse, than rich people keeping it then just investing. Then I don't really know what to say to ya.

nocturnalA lot of economists would disagree with you on that.

CARTMANBRUH

erikKIs this a serious picture?

CARTMANBRUHYes it is. Are you thick?

erikKI think any self respecting chef or waiter/waitress would be pretty insulted to be grouped together with fast food workers. Being a chef is a legitimate trade and servers usually pull in a couple hundred a night in tips, they're not living in poverty. I think you need to realize the difference between Mcdicks and a real restaurant, and the quality of work the people do in each.

erikKI think any self respecting chef or waiter/waitress would be pretty insulted to be grouped together with fast food workers. Being a chef is a legitimate trade and servers usually pull in a couple hundred a night in tips, they're not living in poverty. I think you need to realize the difference between Mcdicks and a real restaurant, and the quality of work the people do in each.

AT-ATThe McDonald's in my town closed recently. The owner cited this bill as one of the reasons. "The profit margins are to slim with the mandated pay increases to continue operation." Paraphrasing but that's more or less the jist of it.

The owner of the Mcdonald's on the interstate near me has also come forward and said at the time of the next mandated pay increase they as well will close.

THEPROPHETThe more that close the better.

erikKOhhh I see where you're coming from now. You'd rather have the fast food workers unemployed completely than making $10/hr. I can understand why you feel that way towards the sorry excuses for adults working at Mcdicks, but what did all the 15 year old high school students ever do to deserve it?

THEPROPHETNo. Mcdonalds is unhealthy and costs Americans millions in hospital bills every year, besides, there are other jobs to be had and McDonald's is an enabler that actually prefers their employees be poor and on governemtment assistance. How stupid do you have to be to defend McDonald's? Do you not realize they are a huge part of the problem?

erikKMcdicks is just an example, I do believe it's part of the problem (obviously no where near as bad anywhere else in the world as the U.S.) I'm sure similar places that pay $10/hr would be closing down as well if Mcdicks' are. Businesses will close down, you aren't wrong. nothing is perfect, but i would bet those business were already struggling, which would imply that it is not very good at doing business. Do you also support sending the high school kids working there into unemployment? Not at all. But do you believe that HS kids should be required to work in order to sustain themselves because their family is too poor? Or would you rather have HS kids learning and developing themselves Because their parents makes enough to support them.

THEPROPHETFred Delucas (Subway co-founder) Net worth is 2.5 Billion

Peter Buck (Subway co-founder) is worth 2.6 billion

Subway as a brand is worth 6.8 billion

The average subway employee makes $8.60/hr.
Subway has about 212,208 to 318,312 American employees.

If every employee were hypothetically paid $15/hr no matter their position, it would be a $2,037,196.8 increase in labor cost annually. Although Subway is a private company and does not disclose their profit, I'm certain one of the CEOs could foot the bill with ease, and still be a billionaire.

Also, fast food restaurants closing has nothing to do with a higher minimum wage and everything to do with competition and lack of quality food.

cool_namewhat about the subway franchise owners, are they also expected to just foot the bill

also not sure how you came up with that labor cost increase, lets say 275,000 employees.

Increase in wage would be around 6.40.

2,037,196.8(total cost)/ 6.4(increase per hour) = 318,312 hours worked.

318,312(hours worked)/275,000(total employees)= an average of 1.15 hours worked per employee.

oh and that isnt weekly, nor monthly, that is annually. you are claiming the average subway employee works 1 hour a week......

THEPROPHETFred Delucas (Subway co-founder) Net worth is 2.5 Billion

Peter Buck (Subway co-founder) is worth 2.6 billion

Subway as a brand is worth 6.8 billion

The average subway employee makes $8.60/hr.
Subway has about 212,208 to 318,312 American employees.

If every employee were hypothetically paid $15/hr no matter their position, it would be a $2,037,196.8 increase in labor cost annually. Although Subway is a private company and does not disclose their profit, I'm certain one of the CEOs could foot the bill with ease, and still be a billionaire.

Also, fast food restaurants closing has nothing to do with a higher minimum wage and everything to do with competition and lack of quality food.

erikKMcdicks is just an example, I do believe it's part of the problem (obviously no where near as bad anywhere else in the world as the U.S.). I'm sure similar places that pay $10/hr would be closing down as well if Mcdicks' are. Take Subway for example. You deserve to make around $10/hr if you're working there but I'm sure they aren't causing people major health problems. Do you also support sending the high school kids working there in to unemployment?

roddy116wow you actually think you have the right to talk about how someone else should spend their money. what the actual fuck?

roddy116wow you actually think you have the right to talk about how someone else should spend their money. what the actual fuck?

cool_namewhat about the subway franchise owners, are they also expected to just foot the bill

also not sure how you came up with that labor cost increase, lets say 275,000 employees.

Increase in wage would be around 6.40.

2,037,196.8(total cost)/ 6.4(increase per hour) = 318,312 hours worked.

318,312(hours worked)/275,000(total employees)= an average of 1.15 hours worked per employee.

oh and that isnt weekly, nor monthly, that is annually. you are claiming the average subway employee works 1 hour a week......

Abu-BaghdadiHoly shit my food will increase by 4.3%. Oh no that 16 cents increase of a big mac is going to cause a crash in the economy!!!!!!!

But seriously, if I had to choose between thousands of workers living in poverty or paying an extra 4.3% on McDonalds then I'd happily choose a 4.3%. Your life will not be affected by the increase in the minimum wage, however thousands of workers will now not have to live in poverty. Pretty simple if you ask me.

https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2015/Q3/study-raising-wages-to-15-an-hour-for-limited-service-restaurant-employees-would-raise-prices-4.3-percent.html

THEPROPHETIt's not their money. It's their workers money.

THEPROPHETIt's not their money. It's their workers money.

roddy116how? I am actually curious on why you think that?

roddy116how? I am actually curious on why you think that?

onenerdykidIt needs to belong to both. Both are responsible for the end product at the end of the day. And in doing so, both should be compensated for it. The problem revolves around the disproportionate allotment of that compensation and how it is overly skewed to one side (the owner). This is not to say that it must be a 50/50 split, but the split needs to take into account America's standard of living, America's cost of living, the buying power of the minimum wage, etc., which it currently does not. It is completely unfair for a CEO to make billions/millions while his/her workers are not paid adequately because without his workers the CEO would not have his billions/millions. Reciprocity is a two-way street.

roddy116how? I am actually curious on why you think that?

onenerdykidIt needs to belong to both. Both are responsible for the end product at the end of the day. And in doing so, both should be compensated for it. The problem revolves around the disproportionate allotment of that compensation and how it is overly skewed to one side (the owner). This is not to say that it must be a 50/50 split, but the split needs to take into account America's standard of living, America's cost of living, the buying power of the minimum wage, etc., which it currently does not. It is completely unfair for a CEO to make billions/millions while his/her workers are not paid adequately because without his workers the CEO would not have his billions/millions. Reciprocity is a two-way street.

roddy116how? I am actually curious on why you think that?

onenerdykidIt needs to belong to both. Both are responsible for the end product at the end of the day. And in doing so, both should be compensated for it. The problem revolves around the disproportionate allotment of that compensation and how it is overly skewed to one side (the owner). This is not to say that it must be a 50/50 split, but the split needs to take into account America's standard of living, America's cost of living, the buying power of the minimum wage, etc., which it currently does not. It is completely unfair for a CEO to make billions/millions while his/her workers are not paid adequately because without his workers the CEO would not have his billions/millions. Reciprocity is a two-way street.

roddy116how? I am actually curious on why you think that?

onenerdykidIt needs to belong to both. Both are responsible for the end product at the end of the day. And in doing so, both should be compensated for it. The problem revolves around the disproportionate allotment of that compensation and how it is overly skewed to one side (the owner). This is not to say that it must be a 50/50 split, but the split needs to take into account America's standard of living, America's cost of living, the buying power of the minimum wage, etc., which it currently does not. It is completely unfair for a CEO to make billions/millions while his/her workers are not paid adequately because without his workers the CEO would not have his billions/millions. Reciprocity is a two-way street.

roddy116how? I am actually curious on why you think that?

onenerdykidIt needs to belong to both. Both are responsible for the end product at the end of the day. And in doing so, both should be compensated for it. The problem revolves around the disproportionate allotment of that compensation and how it is overly skewed to one side (the owner). This is not to say that it must be a 50/50 split, but the split needs to take into account America's standard of living, America's cost of living, the buying power of the minimum wage, etc., which it currently does not. It is completely unfair for a CEO to make billions/millions while his/her workers are not paid adequately because without his workers the CEO would not have his billions/millions. Reciprocity is a two-way street.

roddy116how? I am actually curious on why you think that?

onenerdykidIt needs to belong to both. Both are responsible for the end product at the end of the day. And in doing so, both should be compensated for it. The problem revolves around the disproportionate allotment of that compensation and how it is overly skewed to one side (the owner). This is not to say that it must be a 50/50 split, but the split needs to take into account America's standard of living, America's cost of living, the buying power of the minimum wage, etc., which it currently does not. It is completely unfair for a CEO to make billions/millions while his/her workers are not paid adequately because without his workers the CEO would not have his billions/millions. Reciprocity is a two-way street.

roddy116how? I am actually curious on why you think that?

onenerdykidIt needs to belong to both. Both are responsible for the end product at the end of the day. And in doing so, both should be compensated for it. The problem revolves around the disproportionate allotment of that compensation and how it is overly skewed to one side (the owner). This is not to say that it must be a 50/50 split, but the split needs to take into account America's standard of living, America's cost of living, the buying power of the minimum wage, etc., which it currently does not. It is completely unfair for a CEO to make billions/millions while his/her workers are not paid adequately because without his workers the CEO would not have his billions/millions. Reciprocity is a two-way street.

roddy116how? I am actually curious on why you think that?

onenerdykidIt needs to belong to both. Both are responsible for the end product at the end of the day. And in doing so, both should be compensated for it. The problem revolves around the disproportionate allotment of that compensation and how it is overly skewed to one side (the owner). This is not to say that it must be a 50/50 split, but the split needs to take into account America's standard of living, America's cost of living, the buying power of the minimum wage, etc., which it currently does not. It is completely unfair for a CEO to make billions/millions while his/her workers are not paid adequately because without his workers the CEO would not have his billions/millions. Reciprocity is a two-way street.

roddy116how? I am actually curious on why you think that?

onenerdykidIt needs to belong to both. Both are responsible for the end product at the end of the day. And in doing so, both should be compensated for it. The problem revolves around the disproportionate allotment of that compensation and how it is overly skewed to one side (the owner). This is not to say that it must be a 50/50 split, but the split needs to take into account America's standard of living, America's cost of living, the buying power of the minimum wage, etc., which it currently does not. It is completely unfair for a CEO to make billions/millions while his/her workers are not paid adequately because without his workers the CEO would not have his billions/millions. Reciprocity is a two-way street.

THEPROPHETexcept during negative recoprocity.

THEPROPHETexcept during negative recoprocity.

THEPROPHETexcept during negative recoprocity.

THEPROPHETexcept during negative recoprocity.

THEPROPHETexcept during negative recoprocity.

THEPROPHETexcept during negative recoprocity.

THEPROPHETexcept during negative recoprocity.

THEPROPHETexcept during negative recoprocity.

THEPROPHETexcept during negative reciprocity.

erikKOhhh I see where you're coming from now. You'd rather have the fast food workers unemployed completely than making $10/hr. I can understand why you feel that way towards the sorry excuses for adults working at Mcdicks, but what did all the 15 year old high school students ever do to deserve it?

Granite_StateWow. The "minimum wage is for HS students" argument is the worst I have ever heard. Do you know how many minimum wage jobs there are out there? Nearly impossible for all those businesses to operate solely on the backs of adolescents. So hate to burst your bubble but those businesses require those "sorry excuses for adults"...Like have you actually given any thought to who is supposed to work at McDonalds 7-3 evey day when your precious 15 y/o is in school? Fucking terrible logic.

Also $10/hour is exactly where minimum wage would fall if risen with inflation. But it seems there are many out there too stupid to realize this.

.MASSHOLE.It is a weak argument and a poor one to make.

I, which may be a shock to a few of you (SJW, CARTMANBRUH/Whatever you call yourself now), fully support a raise in the minimum wage. It is time, it needs to be adjusted to a rate that deals with the inflationary increases the standard of living has seen. It doesn't need to be $15, but it can't be where it is now. $10-$12 is a great range if you ask me.

erikKWay to go kiddo

THEPROPHETexcept during negative reciprocity.


the funny thing about a trickle is that it's a really small amount.... I always found "trickle down" economics to be a cruel play on words.

theabortionatorAt one point poverty meant you were poor. Now poverty means you have an apartment, iphone, tv, netflix, new clothes, plenty of food, but fall below some arbitrary line of income.

I'm not saying that we should aim low. I'm not saying things would be better if people had nothing, just that it's worth noting.

theabortionatorAt one point poverty meant you were poor. Now poverty means you have an apartment, iphone, tv, netflix, new clothes, plenty of food, but fall below some arbitrary line of income.

I'm not saying that we should aim low. I'm not saying things would be better if people had nothing, just that it's worth noting.

theabortionatorAt one point poverty meant you were poor. Now poverty means you have an apartment, iphone, tv, netflix, new clothes, plenty of food, but fall below some arbitrary line of income.

I'm not saying that we should aim low. I'm not saying things would be better if people had nothing, just that it's worth noting.

GregFlikThe issue isn't if their pay is reflective on the amount of work you do, but based on the training and education needed to preform said job. There is no education needed to preform at a fast food chain, there is no need for a bachelor's degree for a food chain job (unless maybe management or higher).

This whole discussion is a spit in my face since I get paid the same or sometimes less than the average fast food employee, and I have been Nationally and State Trained to save someone's life as an EMT.

The issue of inflation also was brought up. IF the minimum wage is increased, then guess what the cost of living is going to do... Increase. It will cause a gap of 3 months to 2 years for CoL (Cost of Living) to catch up, but as soon as it does then the demand for another increase will be brought up for these fast food warriors.

You have to think grander than just Fast Food workers. Do you know what would happen to all entry levels jobs if $15 was the new standard? I'll break it down.

-New Businesses would crumble since there isn't enough money in a startup to pay out
-Every other job would see an increase in pay, but major layoffs regardless
-No more full time employees in order to save money = No health coverage or insurance or other perks
- Being in fast food will be the new standard

GregFlikThis whole discussion is a spit in my face since I get paid the same or sometimes less than the average fast food employee, and I have been Nationally and State Trained to save someone's life as an EMT.

onenerdykidHardly. Pay is not always and solely based on education or training, but instead on the product that is produced and how necessary that product is for the market. What I will grant is that the necessity is often linked to a higher education, but not necessarily so. Only sufficiently so. There is a difference. Sometimes the necessity of a product trumps the education needed for producing said product. And when profit is the ultimate motive in our economic model, education does not necessarily dictate pay.

If the minimum wage was to be brought up to the current level of inflation it would be a little over $10 per hour. The buying power of minimum wage was at it highest in the 1960s and since then it has decreased. The minimum wage has not been consistent with how inflation has risen nor with the cost of living.

This does not mean that $15 per hour should be the case, but at least $10 or even $12 hour (as some economic analysts have said) should be.

For a real life taste of success, Minnesota is one state that has not only raised the minimum wage (albeit only to $9.50 per hour) but also taxed the rich more, and has turned its $6 billion deficit into a $1 billion surplus. Raise the minimum wage, tax those who can afford to be taxed, and support education. Those are ingredients for turning a deficit into a surplus. At the rate they are going, the minimum wage will be raised even more since it is helping to create a better balance in the distribution of wealth that more and more people are benefiting from.

theabortionatorAs far as the end it would be epic if we stopped wasting money before increasing taxes. For some reason that's a ridiculous idea that will never happen. The taxes go up, we find a way to use that money, then we decide we need more money, and raise the taxes again.

I just hate that cutting waste is never pushed it's always a debate of whether or not to raise taxes. Fuck the taxes, do something to fix what you already have, then if needed discuss tax increases.

My problem is that taxes never go down. If we can't even get rid of government waste with the taxes the same, it's never going to happen enough for them to go down. For some reason we casually brush that off and watch them to continue to go up.

onenerdykidI will be the first to agree with you concerning the topic of wasteful spending. For example, we can do a lot when we stop blowing our load on military defense to the extent that we do. This is not to say that we stop it altogether, but we certainly do not need to spend more than the next 9 top spenders combined. If that insanely high amount of money (roughly $600 billion per year) doesn't seem the least bit excessive to anyone, then you need to re-examine your thought process entirely. There is absolutely no reason why we must spend 4 times the amount of China (the #2 spender) or 8 times that of Saudi Arabia (the #3 spender). A lot can be done with the money if our budget were cut by 20%. We would still be the leading defense spender (by almost triple) yet with $120 billion to put to use for "making America great again".

The other problem is a raise in taxes without you seeing any benefit to such a raise. However, if taxes were to slightly rise and we saw an increase in the general well being, the health, the education, and personal freedom of our citizens then I believe there is a strong case to do so. A raise in taxes without these increases is surely worthless and should be done away with.