Glen Contrarian
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 17,688
- Reaction score
- 8,046
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Re: McDonald's boss says he's "proud" of wages as thousands of workers call for a ris
Gotta watch those statistics - see that bolded line above? If a sixty-year-old woman's getting paid $8/hr at McDonald's in Memphis, hey, she's not working for minimum wage, is she? If you'll check, there's a heck of a lot of major corporations out there who pay just a bit more than minimum wage, just so they can say that they don't pay their workers only minimum wage...
...but when one's trying to feed, house, and cloth oneself on $8/hr, it's not easy at all...and especially not if one's trying to feed a family.
Worst of all, with so many people (like the great majority of Wal-Mart workers) earning just above minimum wage but not enough to live on, what happens? They use food stamps, go into section-8 housing, and whatnot. In other words, the American taxpayer is effectively subsidizing Wal-Mart, McDonald's, and every other mega-corp out there that doesn't pay a living wage.
There's a saying I like to use: You Pay Anyway. You can either pay higher retail prices at Wal-Mart so that they could afford to pay their workers a living wage...OR you can pay higher taxes because we effectively subsidizing Wal-Mart's wages. But you pay anyway. Really, which is the more sensible choice?
The oil fields are an excellent example of what happens when the labor market is tight. In my previous business I've experienced this personally over several decades. Hiring cabinet makers and woodworkers was difficult when the economy was booming and to get good help the market forced you to pay for it.
According Thomas Sowell, only two percent of the population over the age of 24 is working for minimum wage. I read this today and understood that what we have been discussing is really not an important issue. It's mostly a Democrat taking point hike the war on women and really not an important topic. Therefore, my official position for any future conversation is that this topic affects very few people and is not worth discussing when there are so many really important issues in America.
Gotta watch those statistics - see that bolded line above? If a sixty-year-old woman's getting paid $8/hr at McDonald's in Memphis, hey, she's not working for minimum wage, is she? If you'll check, there's a heck of a lot of major corporations out there who pay just a bit more than minimum wage, just so they can say that they don't pay their workers only minimum wage...
...but when one's trying to feed, house, and cloth oneself on $8/hr, it's not easy at all...and especially not if one's trying to feed a family.
Worst of all, with so many people (like the great majority of Wal-Mart workers) earning just above minimum wage but not enough to live on, what happens? They use food stamps, go into section-8 housing, and whatnot. In other words, the American taxpayer is effectively subsidizing Wal-Mart, McDonald's, and every other mega-corp out there that doesn't pay a living wage.
There's a saying I like to use: You Pay Anyway. You can either pay higher retail prices at Wal-Mart so that they could afford to pay their workers a living wage...OR you can pay higher taxes because we effectively subsidizing Wal-Mart's wages. But you pay anyway. Really, which is the more sensible choice?