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

[JimG]

Furthermore, if you set up a society where the employer must pay different wages depending on the employee’s own personal needs, the unemployment will be skewed to those with family.

Let’s say you are a business owner. You need to hire four people to fill positions. You only have the resources to pay two people with families, or four people that are single. Now are you going to hire the two people with family, which results in understaffing and not being able to operate properly, or hire the four single people. It’s obvious what any business owner will do, Catholic or not.

If I recall correctly a class I once took covering the earlier social encyclicals, the idea of a living wage was precisely a wage sufficient to support a worker and his family.

The idea was that only one spouse would be working, and so had to have a wage sufficient to support a family. That, I think, was pretty much Catholic thinking on the issue of a living wage. And of course, if employers did pay a living wage on that basis, the corollary is that the spouse would not enter the workforce, thereby possibly taking jobs away from other heads of household.

In fact, the very first “real” job that I had, not counting the numerous part-time and temporary jobs during school, paid married men 12.5% more than single men entering their training program. As it was explained to me by the boss, “we pay the married men more, because they have a family to support.”

Of course now, two income families are perhaps the norm, and it’s not all men earning the income. So the “living wage” idea seems to be based on an outdated premise, at least as society is currently structured. (Or we could use the living wage idea and go back to the concept of a single earner household.)

 

[CradleJourney]

The bottom line is that employers have an obligation to pay an employee what his labor is worth, and heads of families have an obligation to make their labor worth a sufficient amount to support their families by the acquisition of skills and experience.

And as a society perhaps we can take on the obligation to help people to improve themselves so their labor is a sufficient amount to support their families AND by reducing the financial burden upon them so their earned amounts go farther (aka quit imposing sales taxes to raise money for pro-stadiums, set up volunteer mentor programs to help adults transition into better jobs, provide wide-spread affordable public transportation, eliminate text book rental fees for children in public schools, and I’m sure we could come up with several hundred more). Nothing is a one issue problem - or solution.

 

[Midwest88]

A number of the replies here are just wishful thinking based on “we should do this because it’s right.” Not going to work. Fast food jobs aren’t meant to support a family, let alone two people, let alone a single person paying off debt (though it can be done) or paying a mortgage. Where is Thomas Sowell when you need him. Instead, give up about 4 minutes of your time and listen to Milton: youtu.be/ca8Z__o52sk

 

[Rdunbar123]

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.

Excellent point!! I worked at fast food places including McDonalds and most of the people working with me except managers were High school or college kids. now they are mainly adults. This was in the 60’s. also I remember my dad (who I used to think was stupid) saying that having two parents working would make that become necessary to survive. That’s come true. I live in Texas, and what I will say next will bring enraged outcry, but now it is hard to get a traditional after school or summer job for teens because of the immigration issue. OTOH if I lived in a cesspool like Mexico, I would do anything to get me and my family out.

 

[1AugustSon7]

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”

And one affords to do this, I suppose, by earning a minimum wage.

No. Justice tells you to pay your people and look after them. We have a duty to the poor. This does not cease when we put on a tie. It’s the easiest way for a businessman to contribute to his community. It’s a joke if Wal-Mart or McDonalds starve their employees and then contribute -all Pharisee like with pomp and cameras- the occassional big donation to the local food bank. It’s easier for business leaders to help the community by helping and working with and looking after their employees, especially on the lowest tier.

If these corporations were really patiotric and actually cared about people, the best thing they could do was work to help their lowest level employees. That would have huge social and, indeed, economic benefits for everyone.

The law of the jungle is a philosophy for pigs and rodents.

 

[aemcpa]

Is it better to pay 100 people to work at $10 per hour, or to pay 50 people to do 50 of those jobs at $20 per hour while the other 50 don’t work at all?

 

[1AugustSon7]

Is it better to pay 100 people to work at $10 per hour, or to pay 50 people to do 50 of those jobs at $20 per hour while the other 50 don’t work at all?

This is a Malthusian error. You firstly pay people fairly: if you know they are worth a certain amount anyways, and moreover you know you can afford to pay people a decent wage and still be succesful, then basic justice demands you do so.

And frankly you’d be surprised how liberality can translate into economic prosperity. How do you think America rebuilt Western Europe and simultaneously prevented not a few countries from quite voluntarily (i.e., democratically) adding themselves to the Soviet axis?

Investments are only poor when they have no chance of return; however, the man working to feed his family and pay his rent and help his expecting wife, for example, is almost certainly on a marginal increase in wage going to plan to, e.g., buy a house, an automobile and save toward his children’s education. And the single man who wants to be like that man, but is looking at a dead end job for the rest of his life, is likely to end up where? He can’t even afford to look after himself. He’s like to end up hanging at the end of a rope, a drug addict or in prison.

Economics must think humanly. Solidarity is the best way to think: it’s the only patriotic way to think long-term. There will always be scoundrels, but you’d be surprised what the transforming power of a random act of kindness - a random act of acknowledgement of a person’s existence and their human hopes, dreams and aspirations - can have. Suddenly a dead end job turns into a modest chance at a happy, albeit quaint and humble, life. Many would abuse it, to be sure; but those who wouldn’t, won’t, and they are the salt of the earth.

 

[Julianna]

yes

Should a single woman working the same job, receive less pay than a married man with 2 kids?

 

[1AugustSon7]

Should a single woman working the same job, receive less pay than a married man with 2 kids?

False dichotomy.

I know another single man working beside that same family man is not unlikely, however, to actually think that the company should help the family man because he has a family. I know not a few men who would feel that way out of charity. The single man knows he doesn’t really need a new XBox or awesome new flat downtown as much as he wants to see those kids do well and live in a decent neighbourhood.

And frankly yes: to society the family man is more important than the unmarried woman because the family man is raising and feeding its citizens.

 

[Julianna]

False dichotomy.

I know another single man working beside that same family man is not unlikely, however, to actually think that the company should help the family man because he has a family. I know not a few men who would feel that way out of charity. The single man knows he doesn’t really need a new XBox or awesome new flat downtown as much as he wants to see those kids do well and live in a decent neighbourhood.

And frankly yes: to society the family man is more important than the unmarried woman because the family man is raising and feeding its citizens.

It is also “illegal” to do that. If a single female engineer, entry level college grad gets a job along with a married male, with a child, college grad entry level, he should not be paid more, it is against the law.
It is also against the law for employers to ask female applicants, “Are you married, do you have children, how old are your children?”

My daughter was asked those questions from a mom and pop retail she applied for…I told her that it is against the law to ask those questions…and you don’t have to answer them.

I work for Uncle Sam as a GS6…every GS6 pay grade that works with me, makes the same amount coming in the door. To qualify as such, you need to have a skill set based on a series. If I applied for a job as a GS6, married, empty nester, and a married man 1/2 my age married with 3 kids came aboard, same time, same job, we would be paid EXACTLY the same wage.

Oh and another perk, I don’t have to make the coffee for my male boss and I don’t have clean the break room either.

 

[aemcpa]

This is a Malthusian error. You firstly pay people fairly: if you know they are worth a certain amount anyways, and moreover you know you can afford to pay people a decent wage and still be succesful, then basic justice demands you do so.

Let’s assume:

My labor budget is $1,000 per hour.
I have enough business that I could keep 100 people busy.
I have advertised jobs available at $10 per hour and I have 200 applicants.
$20,000 per year is enough to support a single person in my area, but to support a family costs $40,000.

Tell me what I should do.

 

[1AugustSon7]

It is also “illegal” to do that.

So what? They can make it “illegal” to hide a Jew in your basement too.

If a single female engineer, entry level college grad gets a job along with a married male, with a child, college grad entry level, he should not be paid more, it is against the law.

Building on the same fallacy. It’s a technical foul not a moral one and far from a reasonable or logical one. No idiot on earth is so stupid as -given the information you have given- to assume that the family man is not actually the more likely to be in it for the long-term; nor is it irrational to say, ceteris paribus, that by hiring the family man I am doing a greater civil service (in a one job, two applications scenario) by hiring him than the single lady. Helping him helps more people.

It is also against the law for employers to ask female applicants, “Are you married, do you have children, how old are your children?”

It could also be against the law to lie about the fact that I am hiding a Jew in my basement.

My daughter was asked those questions from a mom and pop retail she applied for…I told her that it is against the law to ask those questions…and you don’t have to answer them.

I fear your moral reasoning. I hope you don’t have any Jewish neighbours at this time point (for their sake).

I work for Uncle Sam as a GS6…every GS6 pay grade that works with me, makes the same amount coming in the door. To qualify as such, you need to have a skill set based on a series. If I applied for a job as a GS6, married, empty nester, and a married man 1/2 my age married with 3 kids came aboard, same time, same job, we would be paid EXACTLY the same wage.

And who cares if her kids starve.

Oh and another perk, I don’t have to make the coffee for my male boss and I don’t have clean the break room either.

Well so long as you’re happy: don’t worry, the other married woman’s kids can do it for minimum wage as they try to pay for college. Or their lunches: now THAT’S really convenient, eh? Her kids can make you your coffee.

Enjoy it.

 

[Julianna]

So what? They can make it “illegal” to hide a Jew in your basement too.

Building on the same fallacy. It’s a technical foul not a moral and far from a reasonable or logical one. No idiot on earth is so stupid as -given he information you have given- to assume that the family man is not actually the more likely to be in it for the long-term; nor is it irrational to say, ceteris paribus, that by hiring the family man I am doing a greater civil service (in a one job, two applications scenario) by hiring him than the single lady. Helping him helps more people.

This issue was dealt with back in the 60’s and 70’s, it is against the law to pay a woman doing the same job, with the same skill set than a married man. As it should be.

It could also be against the law to lie about the fact that I am hiding a Jew in my basement.

Really? Is that your best shot?

I fear your moral reasoning. I hope you don’t have any Jewish neighbours at this time point (for their sake).

And who cares if her kids starve.

I was referring to a married “male” with kids…your premise that a married man with kids should be paid more than I (a married woman with grown children) and we are doing the “same” job.

Well so long as you’re happy: don’t worry, the other married woman’s kids can do it for minimum wage as they try to pay for college. Or their lunches: now THAT’S really convenient, eh? Her kids can make you the coffee.

Enjoy it.

More senior citizens work at MickeyD’s than any other age group.

btw, I am one of the 650,000 on furlough…gotta love this economy

 

[1AugustSon7]

More senior citizens work at MickeyD’s than any other age group.

btw, I am one of the 650,000 on furlough…gotta love this economy

Okay. First, you should have revised your rebuttal to my first objection after reading what followed. “This issue” that was ostensbly “dealt with” in the 60’s and 70’s by arbitrary legal fiat does not make the morality or sanity of the legal fiat -which is what I called into question- moral or sane. You simply continued to appeal to legal fiat as if that settled the issue. It does not.

Moreover, this is not the 60’s and 70’s. Many fallacious policies following and building on the same fallacies that you are chearleading from that era have all contributed to increasing social and economic misery.

Finally, my “premise” that “a married man with kids should (emphasis mine) be paid more” than you was never asserted in the fist place. Ceteris paribus means all things being equal; and all things being equal it is not immoral to help someone who has little children at home who need help. By helping out the married person you are helping many people; by helping out the single person you are helping one person. Moreover, the company that realizes that a person taking care of kids will obviously have more financial requirements than the person who has none is not bigoted and certainly not immoral for taking such factors into account when compensating their employees.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Finally, my “premise” that “a married man with kids should (emphasis mine) be paid more” than you was never asserted in the fist place. Ceteris paribus means all things being equal; and all things being equal it is not immoral to help someone who has little children at home who need help. By helping out the married person you are helping many people; by helping out the single person you are helping one person. Moreover, the company that realizes that a person taking care of kids will obviously have more financial requirements than the person who has none is not bigoted and certainly not immoral for taking such factors into account when compensating their employees.

Maybe in other countries, but not in the U.S. Here it is referred to as discrimination.

Does “just wage” as defined by the Catholic Church really state that employers must pay based on the employee’s person decisions, and not on their labor and productivity???

 

[1AugustSon7]

Let’s assume:

My labor budget is $1,000 per hour.
I have enough business that I could keep 100 people busy.
I have advertised jobs available at $10 per hour and I have 200 applicants.
$20,000 per year is enough to support a single person in my area, but to support a family costs $40,000.

Tell me what I should do.

Okay, I will answer your question; but first, I think you should answer your own question (you did after all make the rules here). I will answer your question when you tell me what you will do if -everything else remaining the same- your labour budget is $500 per hour.

Tell me what you should do.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I’m curious as to how many people that support the living wage actually run businesses and pay their employees differently not based on their abilities, but their state in life.

 

[aemcpa]

Okay, I will answer your question; but first, I think you should answer your own question (you did after all make the rules here). I will answer your question when you tell me what you will do if -everything else remaining the same- your labour budget is $500 per hour.

Tell me what you should do.

I await your enlightenment as to my question as posed, which will inform my answer to your modified question.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Maybe in other countries, but not in the U.S. Here it is referred to as discrimination.

A lot of things are called discrimination in the US these days.

Does “just wage” as defined by the Catholic Church really state that employers must pay based on the employee’s person decisions, and not on their labor and productivity???

Justice is rendering to each their due. In justice, you have to pay to render to the people what their are, in fact, owed. The question is: do people deserve to make enough to earn what is necessary to raise a family? And does a single person deserve -due- the same wage?

 

[Julianna]

A lot of things are called discrimination in the US these days.

Justice is rendering to each their due. In justice, you have to pay to render to the people what their are, in fact, owed. The question is: do people deserve to make enough to earn what is necessary to raise a family? And does a single person deserve -due- the same wage?

If they are doing the “same” job YES!