McDonald's Can't Figure Out How Its Workers Survive on Minimum Wage

  • Thread starter Thread starter april32010
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

april32010

Guest
vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/speeches/2013/may/documents/papa-francesco_20130516_nuovi-ambasciatori_en.html
Ladies and Gentlemen, our human family is presently experiencing something of a turning point in its own history, if we consider the advances made in various areas. We can only praise the positive achievements which contribute to the authentic welfare of mankind, in fields such as those of health, education and communications. At the same time, we must also acknowledge that the majority of the men and women of our time continue to live daily in situations of insecurity, with dire consequences. Certain pathologies are increasing, with their psychological consequences; fear and desperation grip the hearts of many people, even in the so-called rich countries; the joy of life is diminishing; indecency and violence are on the rise; poverty is becoming more and more evident. People have to struggle to live and, frequently, to live in an undignified way. One cause of this situation, in my opinion, is in the our relationship with money, and our acceptance of its power over ourselves and our society. Consequently the financial crisis which we are experiencing makes us forget that its ultimate origin is to be found in a profound human crisis. In the denial of the primacy of human beings! We have created new idols. The worship of the golden calf of old (cf. Ex 32:15-34) has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly humane goal.
Click to expand...
The worldwide financial and economic crisis seems to highlight their distortions and above all the gravely deficient human perspective, which reduces man to one of his needs alone, namely, consumption. Worse yet, human beings themselves are nowadays considered as consumer goods which can be used and thrown away. We have started a throw-away culture. This tendency is seen on the level of individuals and whole societies; and it is being promoted! In circumstances like these, solidarity, which is the treasure of the poor, is often considered counterproductive, opposed to the logic of finance and the economy. While the income of a minority is increasing exponentially, that of the majority is crumbling. This imbalance results from ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and thus deny the right of control to States, which are themselves charged with providing for the common good. A new, invisible and at times virtual, tyranny is established, one which unilaterally and irremediably imposes its own laws and rules. Moreover, indebtedness and credit distance countries from their real economy and citizens from their real buying power. Added to this, as if it were needed, is widespread corruption and selfish fiscal evasion which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The will to power and of possession has become limitless.
Click to expand...
Concealed behind this attitude is a rejection of ethics, a rejection of God. Ethics, like solidarity, is a nuisance! It is regarded as counterproductive: as something too human, because it relativizes money and power; as a threat, because it rejects manipulation and subjection of people: because ethics leads to God, who is situated outside the categories of the market. God is thought to be unmanageable by these financiers, economists and politicians, God is unmanageable, even dangerous, because he calls man to his full realization and to independence from any kind of slavery. Ethics – naturally, not the ethics of ideology – makes it possible, in my view, to create a balanced social order that is more humane. In this sense, I encourage the financial experts and the political leaders of your countries to consider the words of Saint John Chrysostom: “Not to share one’s goods with the poor is to rob them and to deprive them of life. It is not our goods that we possess, but theirs” (Homily on Lazarus, 1:6 – PG 48, 992D).
Click to expand...
Dear Ambassadors, there is a need for financial reform along ethical lines that would produce in its turn an economic reform to benefit everyone. This would nevertheless require a courageous change of attitude on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and farsightedness, taking account, naturally, of their particular situations. Money has to serve, not to rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but the Pope has the duty, in Christ’s name, to remind the rich to help the poor, to respect them, to promote them. The Pope appeals for disinterested solidarity and for a return to person-centred ethics in the world of finance and economics.
Click to expand...
For her part, the Church always works for the integral development of every person. In this sense, she reiterates that the common good should not be simply an extra, simply a conceptual scheme of inferior quality tacked onto political programmes. The Church encourages those in power to be truly at the service of the common good of their peoples. She urges financial leaders to take account of ethics and solidarity. And why should they not turn to God to draw inspiration from his designs? In this way, a new political and economic mindset would arise that would help to transform the absolute dichotomy between the economic and social spheres into a healthy symbiosis.
Click to expand...
 
Conversely, when you subsidize their bottom lines, corporations pay unlivable wages. It’s a chicken and the egg problem here.
 
I allot too much of my McWage to McFood, but it makes me feel better about willpower to know that even if I tried saving a nest egg it would be near hopeless.
 
april32010 said:
theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/07/mcdonalds-cant-figure-out-how-its-workers-survive-on-minimum-wage/277845/
Click to expand...
Of course, minimum wage workers aren’t really entirely on their own, especially if they have children. There are programs like food stamps, Medicaid, and the earned income tax credit to help them along. But that’s sort of the point. When large companies make profits by paying their workers unlivable wages, we end up subsidizing their bottom lines.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that if we ended welfare & food stamps, etc., McD’s would have to pay a higher wage? Would my taxes go down? Would my Big Mac cost more?
 
Unfortunately, the reason why we have food stamps, EIC, etc., is because companies like McDonald’s have never paid a living wage. Since the dawn of the Social Darwinist era, hypercapitalism, where the accumulation of money has become not a means, but the end in and of itself, has dominated. During the late 1800s up and into the beginnings of the Great Depression, CEOs made a fortune while their employees lived in poverty. People living in poverty cry for socialism because unbridled capitalism allows them to be trampled. Unfortunately, socialism is unsustainable, and our two great socialistic programs - Social Security and Medicare - rely on population growth to stay above water. Since our birth rate is shrinking and people are living longer, more money is being spent on the programs than they are receiving.

But the poles of unbridled capitalism and socialism are false choices. Neither one treats people as people - unbridled capitalism treats people as slaves to money, while socialism treats people as slaves to the State. The proper use of money is to have enough to pay for one’s family’s basic needs, and the rest is extra. Extra money should be used in the same way as all other commodities are used - to promote the Kingdom of God. If it’s extra, it doesn’t belong to you - it belongs to those who need it. This is true of extra money, extra clothes, extra food, extra cars, etc. Whatever is extra is not yours.
 
Please explain to me the concept of a “living wage”. If we’re paying people what they need to live on rather than what their labor is worth, then why even require labor from them in exchange for the money? Is the menial job just a token of their willingness to contribute, like a penance is a token of our contrition? Even the minimum wage distorts the market by making unskilled labor cost more than it’s really worth to an employer.
 
I’ve always been challenged by the “living wage” idea. Honestly, when Pope Leo XIII wrote Rerum Novarum all of my ancestors were still living & working on the farm.

My great-granddad tended livestock before school each day. Later, he came home from school and did more chores around the farm, had dinner, homework and off to bed early. Same for every child in the family. His father & mother spent the 14 hours working the farm and household. That was life on the farm for all of them and it was hard.

My grandparents ***all grew up and left ***the farm. They worked for others at first. Some got into business for themselves.

Some one explain to me why–when everybody lived on the farm–the whole family worked to make ends meet. It was expected and normal.

But then when Grandpa decides to go to the city,** his employer is supposed to pay him enough so that Momma only has to cook and clean and the kids don’t have to do a blessed thing**? Is that what justice demands?

Sounds like pie in the sky to me. I don’t even know if it is beneficial.
 
So, what is a living wage? Should a job pay one income to a father of four and another income to an unmarried employee for doing the same job? Or does a living wage mean “enough money for one person to live on”? What if the first man’s wife is also working, do they each get half of a living wage? How could the living wage standard possibly be set? And what should a living wage cover? What is the minimum standard of living? And why should anyone have to settle for a minimum standard? Should CEO’s earn a living wage and no more? Should we have a maximum salary,and confiscate any corporate income that is not needed to meet payroll? Should the President also earn a living wage, and no more?

What is wrong with the concept of a just wage which takes into account the actual monetary value of the job?
 
Having worked for Mcdonalds and several other fast food places, it’s not just a monetary
issue, but employee’s are treat like comaties to be bought or sold.(Sorry for the spelling.)
Which is why fast food has a turnover ratio of 200%. Everything in fast food is measured against the bottom line.
And as a added note, for those of you who supposedly care about the lower classes,
with Obamacare kicks in people in the fast food industry , full time employees will
see their hours cut so that fast food places doesn’t have to pay health insurance.
 
Shouldn’t the real issue be how to get workers into better paying jobs rather than pay them more to do a minimum wage job that should be for a student or for someone supplementing their income?

I agree that many executives (in a huge variety of fields), make way in excess of anything I can imagine them being worth. However, that doesn’t change the fact that entry level jobs should be just that - a chance to make some money while learning how to be an employee and building your resume. It’s a tragedy that these jobs instead have come to be the main source of income for an adult living on their own, much less one trying to support a family 😦

I feel we need much larger and much better programs that help people figure out the best way to transition from those unskilled positions into skilled ones. It’s easy to say “go back to school” but much more difficult to actually accomplish due to a variety of challenges different people face. I’d love to see more effort go into helping overcome those challenges.
 
Reep said:
I’ve always been challenged by the “living wage” idea. Honestly, when Pope Leo XIII wrote Rerum Novarum all of my ancestors were still living & working on the farm.

My great-granddad tended livestock before school each day. Later, he came home from school and did more chores around the farm, had dinner, homework and off to bed early. Same for every child in the family. His father & mother spent the 14 hours working the farm and household. That was life on the farm for all of them and it was hard.

My grandparents ***all grew up and left ***the farm. They worked for others at first. Some got into business for themselves.

Some one explain to me why–when everybody lived on the farm–the whole family worked to make ends meet. It was expected and normal.

But then when Grandpa decides to go to the city,** his employer is supposed to pay him enough so that Momma only has to cook and clean and the kids don’t have to do a blessed thing**? Is that what justice demands?

Sounds like pie in the sky to me. I don’t even know if it is beneficial.
Click to expand...
Well, when Dad’s job in the city lets his wife and children come to the office and help him I’m sure families will all be working in the office! 😛

But seriously I worked with a woman (she had a job AND cooked and cleaned) whose children came in with her on weekends when the office was closed and helped her by filing, copying, etc. So in a way, it was like your Great Grandparents!
 
powerofk said:
Unfortunately, the reason why we have food stamps, EIC, etc., is because companies like McDonald’s have never paid a living wage. Since the dawn of the Social Darwinist era, hypercapitalism, where the accumulation of money has become not a means, but the end in and of itself, has dominated. During the late 1800s up and into the beginnings of the Great Depression, CEOs made a fortune while their employees lived in poverty. People living in poverty cry for socialism because unbridled capitalism allows them to be trampled. Unfortunately, socialism is unsustainable, and our two great socialistic programs - Social Security and Medicare - rely on population growth to stay above water. Since our birth rate is shrinking and people are living longer, more money is being spent on the programs than they are receiving.

But the poles of unbridled capitalism and socialism are false choices. Neither one treats people as people - unbridled capitalism treats people as slaves to money, while socialism treats people as slaves to the State. The proper use of money is to have enough to pay for one’s family’s basic needs, and the rest is extra. Extra money should be used in the same way as all other commodities are used - to promote the Kingdom of God. If it’s extra, it doesn’t belong to you - it belongs to those who need it. This is true of extra money, extra clothes, extra food, extra cars, etc. Whatever is extra is not yours.
Click to expand...
Well, according to many, Medicare and Social Security, especially Social Security would be sustainable if other depts. of the government would stop taking money from them. It’s funny, we can pay for schools, roads, defense, etc. and it’s ok but giving something to people in person seems to be ‘bad’ for some reason. It’s for socialistic things such as schools, roads, defense and yes Social Security that people gather together and form a government! In Biblical times I wonder if when the shepherd got too old to work they just kicked him out?
 
october_baby said:
Having worked for Mcdonalds and several other fast food places, it’s not just a monetary
issue, but employee’s are treat like comaties to be bought or sold.(Sorry for the spelling.)
Which is why fast food has a turnover ratio of 200%. Everything in fast food is measured against the bottom line.
And as a added note, for those of you who supposedly care about the lower classes,
with Obamacare kicks in people in the fast food industry , full time employees will
see their hours cut so that fast food places doesn’t have to pay health insurance.
Click to expand...
I hate to tell you this, but that’s the way it is anyplace, not just with fast food joints.

Personnel departments are called “human resources” departments for a reason (humans are a resource, just like widgets).

The only difference is that people with higher and scarcer skills appear to be more valued and better treated is because there are more jobs than workers with those skill sets. Employers are required to compete for those workers. With the lower skill jobs, there are more workers than jobs…therefore employers don’t need to be good to them. It is all pragmatism and supply / demand.

If an employee approaches his/her employer and says that he/she has a new child or that his/her child is in college…thereby meaning that the employee needs to get paid more, whether or not the employer admits it, the cogs working in the employer’s head run asking himself if the employee might bolt to another job that pays better. If there is a concern along those lines, the employer will, if at all possible, give the raise. If not, then the employer will act sympathetic and say “sorry.” (Of course, if there are 100 people waiting in line for the job, the employer will just tell the employee “good luck with that” and not even consider it).

Don’t fool yourself.

And, by the way, mom and pop shops do the same thing…even though the psychology might appear to be different.
 
kookieduck said:
Well, according to many, Medicare and Social Security, especially Social Security would be sustainable if other depts. of the government would stop taking money from them. It’s funny, we can pay for schools, roads, defense, etc. and it’s ok but giving something to people in person seems to be ‘bad’ for some reason. It’s for socialistic things such as schools, roads, defense and yes Social Security that people gather together and form a government! In Biblical times I wonder if when the shepherd got too old to work they just kicked him out?
Click to expand...
Other parts of the government taking money from social security is EXACTLY how social security was designed to operate. FICA taxes that are not immediately paid out to retirees are given to the Treasury department in exchange for “special issue” bonds. That money is used in the “general fund” just like any other tax revenue.

You need to read up a little bit on how the system operates before buying the political line of “raiding the lockbox.” That is just something done to scare senior citizens and near-senior citizens.

(It’s still a Ponzi scheme, don’t get me wrong, but it is a Ponzi scheme by design…not by theft)

Think I’m kidding: read from the Social Security site:

The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund comprise the Social Security trust funds. Both funds are managed by the Department of the Treasury through their Bureau of Public Debt. Since the beginning of the Social Security program, all securities held by the trust funds have been issued by the Federal Government. There are two general types of such securities:

Special issues—available only to the trust funds
Public issues—marketable Treasury bonds available to the public.
The trust funds now hold only special issues, but they have held public issues in the past.
​
 
Not to question the need for fair wage, but I think the terminology is a little extreme. I mean, or their employees actually dying?

FYI - I find the $600 a month for rent rather high. If one works as at minimum wage, alone, then it is not reasonable that they should have their own place. When I was that low, I had to find a roommate.
 
pnewton said:
FYI - I find the $600 a month for rent rather high. If one works as at minimum wage, alone, then it is not reasonable that they should have their own place. When I was that low, I had to find a roommate.
Click to expand...
This will vary across the country. Where I live, $600/month rent simply does not exist. The cheapest rent anywhere for your own place is in the mid-$800 range, for a converted motel room or something similar, is usually not in good shape to boot, and not common anyway. Expect to spend about $1,200 a month and up for anything with a separate bedroom. At the $600/month level its usually a group of people getting together and sharing.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
This will vary across the country. Where I live, $600/month rent simply does not exist. The cheapest rent anywhere for your own place is in the mid-$800 range, for a converted motel room or something similar, is usually not in good shape to boot, and not common anyway. Expect to spend about $1,200 a month and up for anything with a separate bedroom. At the $600/month level its usually a group of people getting together and sharing.
Click to expand...
Having your own bedroom is far from a basic human right.
 
april32010 said:
theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/07/mcdonalds-cant-figure-out-how-its-workers-survive-on-minimum-wage/277845/
Click to expand...
We subsidize the bottom lines of any business we deal with. The minimum wage was never intended to be enough for a person to live on. The only thing instituting a so called living wage will do it put every teenage in the country out of job-and quite of few adults also.

If one wants to earn a "living wage: they need to acquire the skills to make them worth being paid a “living wage”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top