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

[aemcpa]

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 the nature and quality of the work is irrelevant to the answer, then why even require work in exchange for what is “due” a person in justice?

 

[1AugustSon7]

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

That’s not how things actually work. You felt it fair and reasonable to pose the question to me; necessarily, it is fair to expect that you would answer the same question yourself. Nothing in principle was changed. If you won’t answer it, why should I? Moreover, I could throw your question out the window on the grounds that we are not talking about some hypothetical company; we are talking about McDonald’s, an extremely profitable company.

 

[1AugustSon7]

If the nature and quality of the work is irrelevant to the answer, then why even require work in exchange for what is “due” a person in justice?

What? Who said that was not relevant? That would in fact be the consideration for the bare minimum payment.

 

[aemcpa]

That’s not how things actually work. You felt it fair and reasonable to pose the question to me; necessarily, it is fair to expect that you would answer the same question yourself. Nothing in principle was changed. If you won’t answer it, why should I? Moreover, I could throw your question out the window on the grounds that we are not talking about some hypothetical company; we are talking about McDonald’s, an extremely profitable company.

I asked the question because I want your answer to it. You can refuse to answer it if you wish. I am talking about my company, not McDonald’s.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I asked the question because I want your answer to it. You can refuse to answer it if you wish. I am talking about my company, not McDonald’s.

But I was talking about McDonald’s.

If it’s your company, do what you can and what is ethical and strive to do the best for your employees given your situation. Things would of course be different if you’re an exceptionally profitable and succesful enterprise.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Justice is rendering to each their due. In justice, you have to pay to render to the people what their are, in fact, owed.

So we agree that persons should be paid what they are owed based on their abilities.

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?

What you are implying is that not only should people be paid on their abilities, but on their own personal decisions. In other words, if an employee chooses to get married and have children, he/she is entitled to more compensation from the employer based on those personal decisions.

What happens if the employer decides to get married and have children?. Shouldn’t he/she be able to cut his/her employees pay because of his/her personal decision? Or is this a one-way street?

How do you deal with these situations with your employees?

 

[1AugustSon7]

So we agree that persons should be paid what they are owed based on their abilities.

You should pay your people a fair and reasonable wage and have consideration for them. Slaves are bought and sold strictly on their abilities, too. That doesn’t make it fair or reasonable. Moreover, at what point in this logic do we acknowldge egregious evils, like a multi-billion dollar (in economic profit) company paying people a wage that they can’t live on, knowing full well that it is (for them) their full-time job? How does the owner go to bed at night seriously wondering at how it is his employees manage to?

What you are implying is that not only should people be paid on their abilities, but on their own personal decisions.

Fancy that. Human beings making this weird personal decision to get married and have a family.

In other words, if an employee chooses to get married and have children, he/she is entitled to more compensation from the employer based on those personal decisions.

Did I say entitled? No. But you’re saying it’s moral to pay your employees whatever you think they might be worth (and if you’re a miser that’s as little as possible and still too much) and then be all sour at their rash folly for -since they are of such minimal ability- actually gettng married and starting a family. How irresponsible of them! Don’t they know how worthless they are?

What happens if the employer decides to get married and have children?. Shouldn’t he/she be able to cut his/her employees pay because of his/her personal decision? Or is this a one-way street?

You’re right. According to your logic he shouldn’t marry at all; but I doubt the executives at McDonald’s are worried about this dilemma - though perhaps they might be tempted to make some pay cuts anyhow.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Did I say entitled? No. But you’re saying it’s moral to pay your employees whatever you think they might be worth (and if you’re a miser that’s as little as possible and still too much) and then be all sour at their rash folly for -since they are of such minimal ability- actually gettng married and starting a family. How irresponsible of them! Don’t they know how worthless they are?

Your stating that it is the responsibility of others to care for your family if you decide to have a family. The Church does not teach that others are responsible for your own personal decision.

You’re right. According to your logic he shouldn’t marry at all; but I doubt the executives at McDonald’s are worried about this dilemma - though perhaps they might be tempted to make some pay cuts anyhow.

That logic is the obvious consequence of your own thought process. Obviously if a single employer decides to have a family, his single employees should give up some of their pay because of the employer’s personal decision. Any other choice is obviously hypocritical.

Now how do you handle this situations in the business you run?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Having said that, though, the vast majority of McDonald’s workers are in entry level jobs.

 

[SMGS127]

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

According to Anthony Kennedy, so is opposing same-sex ‘marriage.’ Do you really want to use American law to justify a decision of moral law?

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???

It should be a mix of the two. But clearly a married man (or woman!) with kids should be paid higher than a single man or woman. Then, after that, wages should be dealt with by skill position. There is no need to argue that paying different wages based on one’s marital state necessarily means paying the same wage for differently-skilled positions.

 

[Julianna]

According to Anthony Kennedy, so is opposing same-sex ‘marriage.’ Do you really want to use American law to justify a decision of moral law?

It should be a mix of the two. But clearly a married man (or woman!) with kids should be paid higher than a single man or woman. Then, after that, wages should be dealt with by skill position. There is no need to argue that paying different wages based on one’s marital state necessarily means paying the same wage for differently-skilled positions.

totally disagree… equal pay for equal work… its a no brainer…

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

According to Anthony Kennedy, so is opposing same-sex ‘marriage.’ Do you really want to use American law to justify a decision of moral law?

Funny you mention this. It is the difference in benefits that caused that case to be brought before the Supreme Court in the first place.

It should be a mix of the two. But clearly a married man (or woman!) with kids should be paid higher than a single man or woman. Then, after that, wages should be dealt with by skill position. There is no need to argue that paying different wages based on one’s marital state necessarily means paying the same wage for differently-skilled positions.

I wish I could have been paid a living wage right out of high school, and then got a raise when I had a family. This way I wouldn’t have had to get a college education and spend two and a half decades getting to where I am now, and be responsible for others.

So, in the business you run, do you pay people more based on their personal decisions?

 

[1AugustSon7]

totally disagree… equal pay for equal work… its a no brainer…

Society has a right and an objective need to promote and protect the family. Families contain citizens of the most vulnerable and precious class and status for a county: children. A society and a country cannot last long without them. We need them to look after us one day. It is not discriminatory to realize the obvious.

 

[Julianna]

Society has a right and an objective need to promote and protect the family. Families contain citizens of the most vulnerable and precious class and status for a county: children. A society and a country cannot last long without them. We need them to look after us one day. It is not discriminatory to realize the obvious.

I know, I know, I guess I should get back in the kitchen and shine up the white westinghouse fridge and show off that new iron you bought me for my birthday, while you sit on the barcolounger smoking a cigar and having a hi-ball.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Your stating that it is the responsibility of others to care for your family if you decide to have a family.

Most people decide to have families. People need to be able to have a family because countries need people to have families. It shocks me how Marxist Americans have become in their thinking: human beings are not commodities. Economics is ordered to society and not the other way around. An economic system is meant to have society prosper and flourish: that is what it aims at. If your way of thinking isn’t able (lacks the ability) to produce that, then it’s out of job because it’s not society’s job to babysit and take care of miser-nomics.

Finally, we all have care for one another. It’s called being responsible and social. The worker is working: we’re not talking about some hippie who wants to just smoke pot all day, eat Doritos and be paid by the government for doing so.

That logic is the obvious consequence of your own thought process. Obviously if a single employer decides to have a family, his single employees should give up some of their pay because of the employer’s personal decision. Any other choice is obviously hypocritical.

So my not-for-profit business can’t afford to pay for my family? Curious why I am taking all of this time to run and manage a business wherein I am apparently only making a living wage. Why not just work at McDonald’s? Oh wait, that’s minimum wage!

Now how do you handle this situations in the business you run?

Do you mean do I try to take of my employees and make sure they aren’t starving? Or if someone has just had a child and comes into my office and I know why? Why I would be a practical man and take your advice, of course, and I would the former employee starve and laugh the latter out of my office or - if I am in an especially good mood - I let them tell me how they’re struggling and, after they’re done whining, tell them, "If I had a son do you think I should cut into other people’s wages ? Is it my fault you got your wife pergnant? No. Now go put some more coal on the fire, Bob Cratchit. And I suppose you’ll be wanting the whole day off on Christmas now, too, eh? Just another excuse to pick a man’s pocket!"

 

[1AugustSon7]

I know, I know, I guess I should get back in the kitchen and shine up the white westinghouse fridge and show off that new iron you bought me for my birthday, while you sit on the barcolounger smoking a cigar and having a hi-ball.

No you should get to work and pay for all that junk.

 

[Julianna]

No you should get to work and pay for all that ****.

why bother, according to you I will make less money than the married “man”, because he “provides” for his family. I’ll just be working because I’m bored…

no wonder housewives in the 60’s were addicted to valium…geez louise

 

[JimG]

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?

You seem to be arguing for a pay differential based on the size of an employee’s family. That is, if an employee has a family to support, then he should be paid more than one who doesn’t. So, to take the prior example of Julianna about a General Schedule job in the Civil Service: two employees doing the exact same job, one single, one with ten kids. The one with ten kids should be paid substantially more in order to support his family?

There may have been some support for that sort of idea at one time. I mentioned previously that my first employer did actually pay married men more for the same job than single men.

But now, whether in civil service or in private employment, it would be entirely illegal to do so. The EEOC, the NLRB, the Justice Department and a few other agencies would be all over such an employer imposing draconian penalties. There would be lawsuits and big settlements.

Also, one has to remember that wage payments are income to the employee but an expense item to an employer. All expenses have to be recovered in prices if any employer is to be profitable. And if expenses including wage expenses increase, so will prices. Rising prices hurt consumers and make it more difficult for the poor to live.

However, another way to equalize things for those with dependents is to greatly increase the dependency exemption and the child care credit. Those have never kept up with inflation.

 

[JimG]

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.

Your dad was prescient on that point. When it became common for both parents to work, it very soon became a necessity for them both to work. That’s not a particularly good thing, but I don’t know how to put that genie back in the bottle.

In any case, entry level jobs are just that–an entry into the job market, not a permanent career.

 

[1AugustSon7]

why bother, according to you I will make less money than the married “man”,

Oh I see what’s important for you: it’s not what might be best for children or families and even society as a whole thinking rationally, but your pride.