Study: Low Fast Food Wages Cost Taxpayers $7 Billion Per Year

[blakfyahking]

What other purpose is there? I guess people want to work for free?

there are more purposes to work than just getting money

for instance, what is the purpose of an internship?

If they were being paid fairly then maybe they could.

but who's responsibility is it to determine whether or not they are being paid fairly?

are you inferring that we all have the same bills?

if the worker determines what bills they have, why is it the manager's fault that the worker created their own difficult situation..............remember the worker came to the manager for a job, not the other way around

I didn't say that...but whatever.

yeah ok technically you proposing something that would result in less jobs

that means there would be less people able to stay out of poverty.....this is what you want?

Bottom line is people have to work. This concept that everyone is going to open a business is faulty because who is going to work there?

there are plenty of unemployed people available to work so I'm not sure what you are trying to say here

it 'd be one thing if the problem with the economy was that there were too many jobs and not enough workers

but we know realistically not everyone will choose to run their own shit

Or 3) demand a livable wage from all employers.

by your logic........we all should just be able to go to our favorite billion dollar company of our choice and just demand that we get paid a six-figure salary

if the corporation can afford it, then why not? haha

This argument is quite tired. You keep saying these people don't have skills but you can't just waltz into Burger King and start making fries and shit can you? There's no position in this country that you don't have to be trained to do, of course it makes you feel better to say "unskilled" and "uneducated" but time and time again that's been proven wrong.

so basically what you saying is that a 16yr old can come in and do the same job you are doing right now? why are we not paying 16yr olds six figures to work at Apple then? why do we even bother training folks at all? what is experience really worth?

basically what you are saying is that your boss is no more qualified than you

or it wouldn't matter if you hired a 16yr old as an electrician to work on the wiring in your home haha

At the end of the day somebody has to do it, these jobs don't expire, therefore it will always need to be done and those people who do it should be able to work and not need government assistance.

this is untrue

we don't need McD's or majority of these other corporations selling us all this bullshit

we somehow managed to live without McD's and Walmarts and Targets before

the real reason these workers get cheap wages is because the product they create is cheap and only necessary cause consumers choose to buy it

Your condescending attitude about this really crippled your faux-soul brother/ black power rhetoric mainly because it's mostly blacks that are in these positions and who need these jobs. The hood is filled with people who damn near live hand to mouth, one missed paycheck from being in the street. Honestly, This is the majority of Americans period!

so basically it's better in your opinion to encourage black folks to work these jobs. they shouldn't aspire to work anywhere else because they should be able make a livable wage at McD's SMH

what's condescending about paying people what they are worth? you are basically advocating for everyone to have a corporate daddy

you would rather these same folks living hand to mouth be forced to deal with institutional racism instead of having the opportunity to make their own way

that is what really has the hood looking the way it does now..........majority of those folks are not given alternatives

So save me the rhetoric and remember that MLK said "all work has dignity" (paraphrased) and your main focus is to strip this dignity from people who barely have any to begin with.

who's stripping dignity by paying people honest pay for honest work?

what mechanism do you use to determine that someone should be paid more than another?

once again you are victimizing these workers which is actually more patronizing your part

I'm saying people have a choice by virtue of their ability

meanwhile you are basically saying that their only choice is continuing to work for soulless large corporations

 

[LUClEN]

An internship is not work. That shit is disguised free labour.

 

[blakfyahking]

An internship is not work. That shit is disguised free labour.

have you ever done an internship? trust that shit is work haha

the problem is that companies abuse it and end up exploiting interns

my only point using that example is work isn't solely about pay

 

[blakfyahking]

Point is, if you're not paying higher wages, you'll still have to come out of pocket through assistance and a safety net.

I'd rather those who own these franchises pay the fuck up. They have the ability to do so.

explain how you would make that happen without govt control of these franchises

What?

exactly...........

you are obviously in over your head

 

[Meta_Conscious]

People talking about paying people a "livable wage" whatever that means are basically like 'fuck small businesses'.

McDonalds is a small business?

 

[perspective@100]

An internship is not work. That shit is disguised free labour.

have you ever done an internship? trust that shit is work haha

the problem is that companies abuse it and end up exploiting interns

my only point using that example is work isn't solely about pay

So interns can be exploited and not the common man who has "no skill, or education"

I read your shit sometimes and laugh to myself... Fuck interns. They are the very reason these companies have the audacity to do some of the things people complain about. Nigga you in college working for free just in hopes to land the big job after you graduate when someone who has no education and has been working for the company however many years, is way more qualified and does not get the job because said person does not have a degree. Guess who ends up training their new boss. That shit is stupid. I ended up managing a store after being trained by my CSR. Guess what, I was store manager and she was still a CSR.

on another note

Government passes bills all the time dealing with financial situations especially when its to help out government. Only in this case it would help out the citizens of the nation who abide by the laws of government and legally keep this economy afloat. It would not be far fetched to pass a bill requiring corporations that profit in the hundreds of millions/billions to institute some sort of structured wage earnings to it's employees that does not allow the top executives of any of the qualifying corporations to dwarf the general associates at the bottom of the company. It does not have to be direct numbers or figures it can easily be done by using percentages with criteria including the size of the company(number of employees), the companies profits (net gain after taxes), location of company assets (living cost given a certain area where the company is located) etc...

This would not exactly be raising MW as @Blakfyahking has been stating it would cause inflation.

Its a simple fix or a solution that would keep the people at the top from exploiting the workers at the bottom. This would not cause inflation or hurt small business at all. It would in fact increase competition and allow small business to compete with larger corporations. It would also allow workers at the bottom of larger corps to gather enough knowledge and money and skill to create competing businesses of their own. It would also keep workers at the bottom of multi million/billion dollar corporations from being on GOVT assistance which is just retarded.

Now, show me the flaws in this solution... Dont give me no government should not control businesses because you and I both know they already do and vice versa. For example when Bill Gates was banking hard and got brought up on monopoly charges and they made him split his shit up.

 

[High Revolutionary]

McDonalds isn't exactly what I would call a small business.

McDonalds is a small business?

Raising the minimum wage will cause all businesses large or small to have to pay that wage is what I mean.

 

[LUClEN]

An internship is not work. That shit is disguised free labour.

have you ever done an internship? trust that shit is work haha

the problem is that companies abuse it and end up exploiting interns

my only point using that example is work isn't solely about pay

My cousin just finished one. I know it's work in terms of interns doing a lot of things

but they get taken advantage of if you ask me. Doing stuff free ain't work that's being someone's bitch

sucks so many grads are getting roped into it too. Diddy's been to court for that shit

 

[nujerz84]

Why you got to find an internship that's paid (rare)...and if it isnt only do that shit on a part time basis.

 

[blakfyahking]

Government passes bills all the time dealing with financial situations especially when its to help out government. Only in this case it would help out the citizens of the nation who abide by the laws of government and legally keep this economy afloat. It would not be far fetched to pass a bill requiring corporations that profit in the hundreds of millions/billions to institute some sort of structured wage earnings to it's employees that does not allow the top executives of any of the qualifying corporations to dwarf the general associates at the bottom of the company. It does not have to be direct numbers or figures it can easily be done by using percentages with criteria including the size of the company(number of employees), the companies profits (net gain after taxes), location of company assets (living cost given a certain area where the company is located) etc...

This would not exactly be raising MW as @Blakfyahking has been stating it would cause inflation.

Its a simple fix or a solution that would keep the people at the top from exploiting the workers at the bottom. This would not cause inflation or hurt small business at all. It would in fact increase competition and allow small business to compete with larger corporations. It would also allow workers at the bottom of larger corps to gather enough knowledge and money and skill to create competing businesses of their own. It would also keep workers at the bottom of multi million/billion dollar corporations from being on GOVT assistance which is just retarded.

Now, show me the flaws in this solution... Dont give me no government should not control businesses because you and I both know they already do and vice versa. For example when Bill Gates was banking hard and got brought up on monopoly charges and they made him split his shit up.

basically what you are advocating at the bolded is for the govt to put a cap on executive wages

you are wading into some serious gray area when you say the govt should be dictating payscales at the top (or even bottom for that matter)

the bolded underlined is a fantasy because businesses already plan operations of their firm based on margins

cats seriously underestimate how difficult it is to balance paying a wage to someone with no discernible skills past what an able bodied 11th grader can offer

obviously nobody wants to encourage wage slavery, but how far do you go in raising wages and eliminating more jobs?

plus if the govt pass a law dictating percentages (which they already do thru taxes and benefits that have to be paid to employees) why would someone take on all that risk?

especially in industries where MW jobs are designed to be temporary? how do you minimize the expense of employee turnover?

are people serious advocating for cats to make careers out of working at places like McD's?

if you pay a livable wage today and then prices rise (inflation) to where that livable wage is basically equivalent to what minimum wage is today.........then what do you do next to fix the problem? SMH

someone in favor of a livable wage please answer this question

 

[perspective@100]

basically what you are advocating at the bolded is for the govt to put a cap on executive wages

Its not a cap. It would be a ratio based on percentages. If the people at the top want more money they can still get it, but they must equivocally give the people at the bottom more money as well based on the ratio. Ethical businesses should welcome this practice with open arms.

you are wading into some serious gray area when you say the govt should be dictating payscales at the top (or even bottom for that matter)

Did I miss something? They do regulate what businesses can pay to bottom level employees. Its called Minimum Wage.

the bolded underlined is a fantasy because businesses already plan operations of their firm based on margins

cats seriously underestimate how difficult it is to balance paying a wage to someone with no discernible skills past what an able bodied 11th grader can offer

Perhaps, but in 11th grade you are roughly 16 which is legal working age. I would love to see any company run their business with solely 11th graders and see how profitable they are. You may find a ton of companies using high school students but they are limited as far as availability and most importantly work ethic. You need an older more experienced individual to manage them and that person should not make minimum wage because he/she is a manager/baby sitter...

obviously nobody wants to encourage wage slavery, but how far do you go in raising wages and eliminating more jobs?

Sorry, the scenario I presented eliminates no jobs. Just creates less profit for top earners of million dollar/ billion dollar companies.

plus if the govt pass a law dictating percentages (which they already do thru taxes and benefits that have to be paid to employees) why would someone take on all that risk?

Lol, taxes are created by GOVT to keep GOVT running. Taxes charged to businesses and laws governing benefits are two separate issues. Mind you, there are still some jobs that dont have benefits so I dont know where your going with that. In fact, large businesses often lobby to pay more taxes to politicians in order to keep them from passing legislation that mandates them to pay workers higher wages. The only people who lose are those who are at the bottom. This is when your vote does not count. Big money talking!

especially in industries where MW jobs are designed to be temporary? how do you minimize the expense of employee turnover?

You keep saying this dumb shit. No business designs an entry level job to be a permanent position. We will call that (g) which ironically stands for given in the math world, but not as I use it here. The entry level position or (g) is only used to assist in operations lead by more qualified individuals/managers, assistant mangers, etc... The job of these people is to figure out whats the purpose of (g) which we will call (f) which stands for function. Managers will be represented in the equation by (m) and assistant mangers will be represented by (am). Operations in general will be represented by (O). Basically a very simple equation to represent the small business model can be shown here m/f+am/f+g/f= O... Now imagine the largest number is always (m), the second largest number is always (am), and the smallest is always (g). Also, (m) can do the jobs of both (am) and (g), (am) can perform its own job and do (g), while (g) can only do (g). Lets insert numbers now. (m)=16: (am)=8: (g)=4. (f) is a variable number dependent on which employees are available. For example (f) will be a lower number and constant if all three employee types are available. Lets say (f) is 2 when all three types are present. It will go up twice as much every time one of the types is absent. For example (f) will be 4 if there is only (g) and (am) in the equation. The output of the performance of each worker is therefore resulted in Operations or (O).

16/2+8/2+4/2=14 a smooth running business with all employee types. Good

16/2+16/2+16/2=24 All employees trained at manager level. Best

16/2+16/2+4/2=18 This is two employees trained at manger level with an entry level employee. Great

16/2+16/2+8/2=20 Two employees at manger level plus one assistant manager level. Greater

16/2+8/2+8/2=16 Manager level with 2 assistants first step up from entry level business. Better than good

16/2=8 only the (m). Look at this compared to 3 assistants. shows imporatnce of a good (m)

8/4+8/4+8/4=6 all assistant manger levels. Does not equal one good (m)

4/8+4/8+4/8=1.5 all bottom level employees. Worst

The goal should be train all employees to manager levels.

People become stuck at (g) but can perform at (m) if given the opportunity. Instead of Business rewarding (g) they fire (g) and hire a new (g) who can not perform at (m) losing production and raising turnover expense as you so put it. Instead, business should train (g) bringing (g) to (m) level increasing production and output at the same time.

For P&L purposes (g) will gradually go through (am) before it gets to (m) accompanied by raises all the while making sure the business is still profitable with (g) gradually moving up. The thing with modern business structure is that Companies or Large Corporations never want to adjust their structure from (m), (am), (g) which is ridiculous and detrimental to communities. Even worse they dont value (m) so in essence they are truly left with (am) trying to perform (m) functions which makes the business not as profitable as it could be.

Personally, I'm not arguing for Minimum wage to be raised, but I would like to see business structure and training coincide with the compensation of the employees in said business. If the top level executives dont believe the lower level employees should be compensated at higher levels then maybe they should find a different work force but I'm guessing that's not the answer to their problems. You also consistently say a child or an 11th grader can do these jobs. Have you ever seen Under Cover Boss. No, these top level employees can not perform the functions of these lower level employees. Not all the time anyway.

are people serious advocating for cats to make careers out of working at places like McD's?

Mcdonalds is a multi-BILLION Dollar Global corporation... If there is ever a place to work your way up (the american dream) and become successful, it is Mcdonalds... Unfortunatley People at Mcdonalds are preventing individuals from working their way up and those same individuals/top money earners/or execs are the ones hoarding all the money.

if you pay a livable wage today and then prices rise (inflation) to where that livable wage is basically equivalent to what minimum wage is today.........then what do you do next to fix the problem? SMH

someone in favor of a livable wage please answer this question[/quote]

I am talking about fast food and solutions to the problem. This question (YOU) pose is moot considering the topic of the thread suggest we are only speaking about fast food and what the wages of its employees cost taxpayers.

If Mcdonalds raises its wages to its employees they will have to restructure and once again find a way to be profitable which will not be a problem to top level execs who are skilled and educated, supposedly. When you look at the detriment something as simple as a wage to a Mcdonalds worker causes to our entire American society how can you argue for the corporation who stands to continue to make billions in the apocalyptic aftermath. It makes absolutely zero sense and honestly makes you sound like a dickhead...

 

[blakfyahking]

ROFL @ perspective presenting an equation in his argument

bruh you can't be serious

your argument about McD being a global multi-billion corporation is oversimplifying the business structure of that organization

most of the employees working for MW actually work at McD's franchises, which is distinctly separate in character from the McD HQ that is actually making billions

many of those franchises are technically small business owners who pay McD guaranteed royalties at the expense of a low skilled workforce that has ridiculous employee turnover in a good economy

but of course no one cares about that entrepreneur who stepped out there to take the risk to make some money and possibly give folks jobs.............McD's HQ executives are not even too concerned with the cat making fries when their executive salary comes from royalties paid by the franchise owners

 

[blakfyahking]

I'll give you a 5 min MBA to minimize all that unnecessary math you did LOL.........and hopefully if you all are really interested I hope you all would participate in the Strictly Business forum

simply because we need more cats who are really interested in business to chop it up on these issues more

1st thing is the general way accounting is done at all US firms:

Revenue (Total amount of what was sold, ie dollar amount of all burgers a store sells)

-Inventory (Cost of all inventory to make burgers that were sold)

Gross Profit (profit before taking out wages, overhead costs, regular expenses for facilities, etc)

-Selling, general, and Administrative Expenses (wages, overhead, light bills, water bills, rent expenses, (etc)

Operating Profit (commonly know as EBIT or EBITDA)

-Taxes, Depreciation, Amortization, Etc (Tax related expenses)

Net Profit (money left over for owners of the firm to spend as "profit")

now McD HQ currently reported in their own financial statements that their Operating Income (operating profit) is approximately an average of about 30% of revenue.........Net Income (net profit) is about typically 20%........these are the margins each franchise generally runs by:
http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/conte...rs/Investor 2013/2012 Annual Report Final.pdf

this means your expenses before taxes already eat about 70% of the money made from selling burgers

 

[blakfyahking]

if say you made $2M in revenue annually at your McD franchise, so your net profit is only $400K based on the margins above

you have approximately 10 MW employees working full time for $7.25......each employee is paid approximately $15K........which is ultimately about $150K that you already had come out in your SGA expenses before your bottom line net profit of $400K

remember, you had to pay a royalty fee as an owner of 16% of your revenues in your SGA expenses which comes out to $320K

in a perfect world of reliable employees and consistent revenues that $400K in leftover net profit looks nice haha

but for a business owner that is pretty shitty considering the investment needed to create and maintain operations of the business.......who wants to take on the task of spending almost $3M to get a McD franchise up and running just to make $400K (that you will not necessarily keep to yourself) and also have to pay for your own health benefits?

and realistically $2M in revenue is a generous number because there are multiple franchises making as low as $300K in revenue (which translates to $60K in profits left over for the owner)

 

[blakfyahking]

now throw in the fact that employees are not necessarily stable because of the nature of the job (job theft, loss of revenue in order to train new folks, risking being sued, changing tax rates, changing royalty fees, etc.)

so throw in high turnover of unreliable workers plus the added expense of Obamacare hanging over a franchise owner, why would they sign up for all that just to give some cat that they don't really know a job?

$60K - $400K isn't worth all that drama considering the circumstances, so what sense does it make to advocate making it harder for a business owner to survive if your ultimate goal is to help the workers by providing jobs with "livable" wages?

this is the reality you folks are cosigning when you think paying a couple more dollars won't really matter

 

[rantanamo]

Sorry, but there is no defense to this. These companies generally make enough of a profit margin that they can pay 2-3 dollars more as opposed to putting this same money in the hands of their shareholders. Yes, small business is who is caught in the middle of this, but they have to economically compete as well. I'm a former contractor and I see those paying these minimal, non-living wages only to pad their pocket books more. They can usually pay more, but are on some, well I made the business shit. You are part of the problem too.

 

[Soloman_The_Wise]

What most of you are not realizing is coming is almost all the way here these fast food businesses if forced to pay more will do what many industries before did to offset that cost which is automate. Here in the Evergreen State in the Beautiful Puget sound a Number of jack in the boxes have touch screens to place you order eliminating the need for an attendant and while if you call for someone they will come take your order this is just Phase 1.

Skilled laborers with huge Unions have been pushed off for machines what do you think is going to happen to the unskilled. In the end it is all about money and the technology is here that will pay for itself with in a month or 2 eliminating more jobs. The push for higher wages will ultimately be the push for less jobs. The low incomed individuals in these Jobs need to take advantage of their status and go stock up on some skills I.e. Certifications or at least associates and even then the competitions getting fierce....

 

[Colin$mackabi$h]

so....................get rid of fast food?

 

[perspective@100]

ROFL @ perspective presenting an equation in his argument

bruh you can't be serious

your argument about McD being a global multi-billion corporation is oversimplifying the business structure of that organization

most of the employees working for MW actually work at McD's franchises, which is distinctly separate in character from the McD HQ that is actually making billions

many of those franchises are technically small business owners who pay McD guaranteed royalties at the expense of a low skilled workforce that has ridiculous employee turnover in a good economy

but of course no one cares about that entrepreneur who stepped out there to take the risk to make some money and possibly give folks jobs.............McD's HQ executives are not even too concerned with the cat making fries when their executive salary comes from royalties paid by the franchise owners

I'm very serious.... How am I over simplifying? I specifically used the business model for a restaurant. The math you deemed unnecessary is a real life example of production quality of employees at various levels. It is not impossible for an employee to work his/her way up through the ranks whether he/she works for a franchise or a corporate owned restaurant. Who owns it makes no difference to the company you still work for and represent the company(Mcdonalds).

You keep calling Mcdonalds a small business when it clearly is not. The fact that you can "Franchise", is a clear indicator this company is not a small business, but these are just semantics. These Franchise owners can fine tune or tweak training as it is their business "technically" so if they want to keep turn over at a minimum I suggest they do so. Other ways to improve turnover are screening process and reviewing applications with your management team as any good owner should if they are truly vested in having a successful business. As you have previously stated those people at corporate are not concerned with wages or turnover rates at the restaurant level until it affects their royalties then it becomes a problem. Owners should also raise wages as skills are gained and position/title and production is improved.

who wants to take on the task of spending almost $3M to get a McD franchise up and running just to make $400K

No one said we dont care about entrepreneurs, but taking a risk on a chain like Mcdonalds is hardly considered a risk. The whole point of getting a franchise like Mcdonalds is to take advantage of the already existing brand. Your pretty much guaranteed a certain amount of sales depending on the demographic you choose to operate within and practically have zero marketing and advertising cost. The company assess the area for you and presents the potential franchise owner with sales estimates for years to come in detailed graphs and charts. They also guarantee they will not have to compete with another Mcdonalds in a given area agreed upon in contract allowing for the future franchise owner to have the exclusive rights to the brand in the stated area. With a business plan already in place a future owner of a Mcdonalds franchise will have no problem getting a bank to help with the venture. Assistance from a bank allows for the future franchise owner to take less risk in coming out of pocket directly to purchase the restaurant or restaurants.

 

[perspective@100]

now throw in the fact that employees are not necessarily stable because of the nature of the job (job theft, loss of revenue in order to train new folks, risking being sued, changing tax rates, changing royalty fees, etc.)

so throw in high turnover of unreliable workers plus the added expense of Obamacare hanging over a franchise owner, why would they sign up for all that just to give some cat that they don't really know a job?

$60K - $400K isn't worth all that drama considering the circumstances, so what sense does it make to advocate making it harder for a business owner to survive if your ultimate goal is to help the workers by providing jobs with "livable" wages?

this is the reality you folks are cosigning when you think paying a couple more dollars won't really matter

Lets be concise here. 400K profit/year off a 3 million investment is not terrible especially when you can sell it back.