So, my best friend, 7 years admin assist. for a large Corp. has worked her way up to $18 p/h. She drives 45 minutes to the other side of town because its damn hard to find a replacement job. Now she can quit, work at the Mickey Ds down the street and make as much. I'm sure she can handle burger flipping and while her income will be $24 less a day, she'll save a lot not buying nice clthes for work and driving all that way.
I keep seeing this "living wage" stuff. At $15, that $2600 a month which is well over the welfare total. Or maybe that $15 is supposed to support a family of 5? Even at $8, you're over the welfare rate (for a single person). This makes not very much sense I'm afraid.
This really needs to be reviewed before a catastrophic decision is made.
Or....they could keep minimum wage jobs minimum wage jobs and have teenagers and part timers do them instead of people trying to turn moping a floor at a burger joint into a family sustaining career.
If McDonalds starts paying $18 an hour--which is what I make now, doing a much tougher job--I'm going to the nearest McDonalds and TAKE one of those job from one of the clowns that has it now, at $7.50 an hour.
Wanna talk about class disparity! Just wait!...lol!!
And then when McDonald's ROE falls through the floor and share price plummets who get's left holding the bag?
That's right, the pension plans and mutual funds that own ~70% of MCD.
So who really ends up paying the increased wages of McDonald's employees?
Retirees on a fixed income and the public and private union employees who will see their pension plan funding levels drop to a fraction of their benefit obligations (most are already underfunded so this would just be a further decrease).
More food for thought...the economy is interconnected. Publicly traded businesses don't operate in a silo.
If you want McDonald's (and all other low-wage-paying retail franchise businesses, I'd have to assume) to deliberately take actions that are going to make them less profitable and consequently less valuable to shareholders you have to be willing to accept that that decrease in value is eventually going to settle somewhere.
The people who will be hardest hit will always be the people who are least able to sustain a financial hit.
Yes, executive salaries will decrease.
Yes, the 1%ers' portfolios will take a hit.
But the folks who will REALLY take a shellacking are the folks who have their retirement savings (whether DB or DC) in the market.
“Now it is not good for the Christian’s health to hustle the Aryan brown,
For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the Christian down;
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear: “A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.”
I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of lower income workers. In fact, I'm not unsympathetic to those less fortunate in general. But I see a gross unfairness as a consequence of these machinations. The minimum wage should go up based on the COL. As a SS recipient, I've gotten 2 miniscule increases in 5 years. But now we're giving out 30% increases?
The largesse never stops for the rich and the "poor". What about us middle-class folks? You know all this generosity, whether a huge minimum wage increase or another 33M bonus for a CEO comes from us? Is that fair or don't we matter in the grand scheme of things?