A Republican congressman made that remark and the veracity was checked by a newspaper (PolitiFacts) that provided government statistics. It makes sense because about 40% of American families are getting government aid of some sort and unemployment is about 5 times lower than that.
Sure that is true too. But you can also say that the government is subsidizing the franchises by giving monetary aid to make up for the low wages that the franchises pay. So the government is in that sense subsidizing both the people and the companies. And it all comes from increased taxes. There has got to be a better way.
Nobody including me wants to pay more taxes, and I would gladly listen to any other options you might have that would allow people to get jobs that pay enough to live on.
I tried researching your numbers but McDonalds does not give prices on the web. What is your source?
It is well known that the cost of living varies from region to region. If there was a relation between identical goods from the same franchise and minimum wage at different locations, you would have to show a cause and effect relation - that minimum wage is a major cause, and not city and state taxes and other causes. For example prices are higher at Lake Tahoe because gas has to be trucked to a remote location uphill, city taxes have to cover large snowfalls, etc.
So I could easily argue that the minimum wage set by different communities is altered to balance the higher cost of living for that community, which is the opposite of what you are proposing.
I doubt if the cost of gas is caused by the minimum wage of a gas station attendant because there is generally one attendant per station who oversees a huge volume of business. A $3 increase in wages is less than the cost of just one gallon of gas. Gas truck drivers are paid higher wages, and thus have no effect from the minimum wage law.
Ain't that the truth.
1) My comment wasn't questioning your statistic ... but, rather, noting that your statistic failed to recognize the number of people chained to poverty because of government policy.
2) I would maintain that it is not MY responsibility to ensure that you get a 'living wage'. That is YOUR responsibility.
I am continually amazed by the presumption that people are, somehow, owed something. Virtually every article you read about those affected by the minimum wage explains why they are affected ... I recently read an article, decrying the low minimum wage, about a woman who was complaining that she couldn't live on the part-time wages from McDonalds where she worked in CA. She was a 7 year employee, and had only one pay raise in that time, and was making $8.25 ... you know, the classic victim. However, nobody made note of the interview having to be conducted through an interpreter, because she didn't speak English, or that one contributor to her problem was because she was supporting a household that included her mother, three kids, a niece and two nephews. So, you have to ask yourself ... is the problem the job she has, or is it the life decisions she has made?
I also would suggest that we know that the prime contributors to poverty is the lack of education and the demise of the two-parent household. If, instead of giving the poor a crutch, we were to divert that money into education or into a program that promoted marriage, the cause would be better served.
Having spent a significant amount of time in a significant amount of foreign countries, I think I can recognize real poverty ... and there are damn little of it in this country. What they are really complaining about is that they don't have as big a piece of the pie as others. They forget the size of their slice of the pie is directly proportional to the size of their contribution to the pie.
3) As for the price of hamburger and milk, as I said ... it was an anecdotal comparison based on Internet ads. I invited you to conduct your own research. There is a direct correlation. I would challenge you to show me a city where an increased minimum labor wage is NOT reflected in the relative increase in product price.
It is naive to believe that the cost of labor doesn't directly contribute to the price of the product. If the price of a product increase, the cost of living increases. It is NOT the other way around ... as you posit. If you were to say that the cost of a product increases because the cost of labor increased because the cost of living increased .... duh! That is exactly what happens in this country .... a never-ending spiral upward.
You cite serve-yourself gas stations where labor is a relatively low cost contributor .. in return, I will cite your local McDonalds where labor is about 35% of the retail price. You choose to work at the minimum wage level only, but fail to consider the impact on above-minimum wage jobs. The ripple moves up the labor scale, as well.
I read an article this morning about the UAW rejection at the VW plant in Chatanooga, TN. It was interesting, but I was struck by a note in there that one guy who opposed the union was making 'over $20/hour' hanging doors on the assembly line. Do we seriously believe that is an appropriate wage? Let's assume that $20/hr is the average wage in that plant (we know it is probably much higher - I'm pretty sure 'door hanger' is not the top of the technical labor scale). Further, let's assume that the change in minimum wage results in a 3% average wage increase ripple upward, the 2000 employees would now cost VW an additional $2.4 million in labor costs. Think they are going to just absorb that, or are they going to pass it on to you?
